The White Indians of the Cherokee Nation have voted to revoke the tribal citizenship of Black descendants of the Freedmen (Black Indians in my view). So the descendants of the Freedmen can no longer be members of the tribe. The vote was overwhelming.
With all 32 precincts reporting, 76.6 percent had voted in favor of an amendment to the tribal constitution that would limit citizenship to descendants of “by blood” tribe members as listed on the federal Dawes Commission’s rolls from more than 100 years ago.
I have written about the background of this case before, and even people who are known descendants of tribal leaders are being kicked out. The evidence that the Freedmen are of Cherokee descent is strong, and the leader of the Cherokees, realizes that the Freedmen are indeed of Cherokee ancestry.
When the Dawes Rolls were created, those with any African blood were put on the Freedmen roll, even if they were half Cherokee. Those with mixed-white and Cherokee ancestry, even if they were seven-eighths white and one-eighth Cherokee, were put on the Cherokee by blood roll. More than 75 percent of those enrolled in the Cherokee Nation have less than one-quarter Cherokee blood, the vast majority of them of European ancestry.
Marilyn Vann said she could not believe that one election could determine whether she was allowed to claim Cherokee blood.
“There are Freedmen who can prove they have a full-blooded Cherokee grandfather who won’t be members,” said Ms. Vann, president of the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes. “And there are blond people who are 1/1000th Cherokee who are members.”
Mike Miller, the Cherokee Nation spokesman, agreed.
“We are aware that there are those who can prove Indian blood who are not Cherokee citizens, because they are not on the Dawes ‘by blood’ Rolls,” Mr. Miller said. “But I don’t know of a single tribe that determines citizenship through a bunch of sources.”
In the spirit of keeping it real, I can’t understand for the life of me why anyone who is of Native American/First Nations descent would use a document like the Dawes Rolls which was drafted using the United States definitions of race to determine ancestry. I hope that they would understand how the US governments treaties and documents have never been used in a way that uplifts Native peoples, which is why relying on those documents should be obviously wrong. People who have been so decimated by racism should really know better than to engage in this racist behavior.
But unfortunately this is part of a pattern, as the quote below from the New York Times notes. Ann pointed out to me that this had happened with the Black Seminoles in 2003.
This is the second time in recent years that an Indian nation has tried to remove its Freedmen. The Seminole Freedmen won a similar legal battle in 2003.
The Seminoles were formed when refugees from several tribes joined with runaway slaves. But after the Seminoles denied their Freedmen voting rights and financial benefits, effectively abrogating the Treaty of 1866, the federal government refused to recognize the Seminoles as a sovereign nation.
The Cherokees are also risking their tribal sovereignty, said Jon Velie, a lawyer for the Seminole and Cherokee Freedmen.
“There is this racial schism in Indian Country that is growing and getting worse,” Mr. Velie said. “Even having the debate is the problem. You then become a lesser person because people get to decide whether you’re in or not.”
Taylor Keen, a Cherokee tribal council member who supports Freedmen citizenship, suggested that proponents of the amendment were pandering to racism, trying to score political points for when they run for tribal office in June.
“This is a sad chapter in Cherokee history,” Mr. Keen said. “But this is not my Cherokee Nation. My Cherokee Nation is one that honors all parts of her past.”
Personally, I wonder if this racial split is related to the resurgence in Indian identity, where you have many people now claiming Indian ancestry, who had previously been living as Blacks or Whites. I suspect that many of these leaders have an identity that is just as tied to whiteness as it is to Cherokeeness. The White Indians really disappoint me. It is their lighter skin and lack of visible African ancestry that is allowing them to engage in such racism. If the tribe didn’t want to be so racist, they would accept a broad definition of “Cherokee” that was not based on the US government. Let’s be real– since when did the US government act in the best interest of First Nations people?
It would be an an ironic twist if the Cherokees lose tribal sovereignty for excluding the Freedmen’s descendants. First, they tried to rely on a US government document, which applied two versions of a one drop rule. Then later the US decides, “hey because you used our old document, we are taking your sovereignty.”
This is indeed a sad day, when we see racism being used to divide and conquer, and it provides some evidence for the irrationality of racism. Here we have people who don’t even act in the best interest of themselves because of their biased views. This is a glaring example of institutionalized racism at its worst.
Pingback: The Local Crank
Pingback: IntelligentaIndigena
Pingback: The Native Blog
Pingback: Fort Wayne African-American Independent Woman
So a white person is…
(a) telling Native Americans who they should consider their own people,
(b) on the basis of “blood” ties,
(c) with a veiled threat of stripping the natives of their sovereignty if they don’t comply with the white person’s view of how things should be.
This is a glaring example of racism, all right, but I wouldn’t put all the marbles on one side of the board, Rachel.
I haven’t looked into the subject in detail, but it seems fairly complicated. Off-hand – not that any Native person has asked my opinion – I would think they would want to be inclusive, rather than exclusive. But it isn’t my tribal identity, and I don’t get a vote.
I think part of the problem has been people with little NA ancestry using it to get student loans, housing and other aid programs. While that is a problem, I dont think this is the way to go about it. But I also dont think white america and the white us government should tell us who does belong to our tribe or threaten us. But thats par for the course. Anytime we do something the white government disagrees with, force is the first option used.
I think the very real fear that we are disappearing has resulted in some stupid racially motivated decisions. The entire situation depresses me. There’s a divide among my own personal family members over it. Some believe it should be 100% or nothing (which would exclude me and my brother) others believe differently. None of them believe that having a great great grandfather somewhere along the line should count.
Let me guess: There are financial benefits to being officially recognized as a Cherokee. Free stuff from the government, monopoly profits from casinos, or something like that. And these benefits have some inverse relationship with the number of people officially recognized as Cherokee. Am I right so far?
If not, then I’m stumped. But if I’m right, then they arguably are acting rationally. When government creates powerful financial incentives to institute exclusionary policies, then that’s what people are going to do.
Financial benefits? Very few. ” Full blood” Native Americans earn less than those of mixed. In fact, the less NA you are, the more you make.
As for free stuff, when it comes to us, nothing from the US government is free. And I dont particularly care for your casino remark.
Oh and Rachel, while I understand the terms get used often, and for the purposes of the discussion its unavoidable I really dislike the “white” Indian “black” Indian thing.
Your guess is correct, Brandon. There are federal benefits available to enrolled tribal members, and there is revenue sharing from the tribe’s business operations (which are extensive) which is shared among all enrolled members.
25.3 % of Native Americans are living in poverty. Lets hear it for federal benefits! woo!
Well, they aren’t good benefits. But they do exist. And I suspect that the people being disenrolled are generally poor enough that they represent a real increment of wealth.
If the fear is the loss of Indianess the solution is to expand the definition of an Indian. Relying on blood quantum is obviously racist by definition and orginated from Europe. Remember it wasn’t cool to be Indian for a very long time and many Indians from smaller non-white and weaker tribes were enslaved with “Blacks.” Ironically those that disenfranchised Cherokees with African heritage have benefited and will continue to benefit from their whiteness.
Also for many so called Black Indians they simply sought acknowledgement of their Indian heritage – not money.
White segregationists were also “acting rationally.” One group using its power to fuck over another (often smaller) group is often to the benefit of the group doing the fucking over.
I don’t think that this is particularly about money though, any more than Robert and Brandon’s desire to keep Mexican immigrants out of the country is purely about money. It sounds like it is more about protecting the culture from wannabes than about protecting financial interests. Anyway, I would assume that most federal benefits to NA people are given out on per person basis, not on a per tribe basis (even ones that are directed through the tribe rather than given directly to individual members). I actually don’t know, but I doubt there are many benefits where the very small tribes (some NA nations have less than a thousand citizens) get the some amount of Federal aid as the Cherokee do. Money from tribal businesses is a fixed chunk, of course, but that isn’t a Federal benefit, no matter how anyone tries to twist it.
I can see 3 scenarios that make this make sense (although nothing makes it not horrible and sad):
1) New applicants for citizenship are primarily of mixed black and Cherokee ancestry, and use the Freedman rolls to prove their membership in the tribe. By disallowing the use of the Freedman rolls, the Cherokee can substantially slow the influx of new members with only a tiny bit of Cherokee ancestry and no real connection to the tribe. This seems unlikely, as it sounds like the expansion of the tribe by 1000 members a year has been going on for a while, but there are only 25,000 descendants of the Freedman roll members.
2) New applicants for citizenship use a variety of sources to claim membership, so the desire to restrict membership has led the tribe to want to use only one document as the legitimate source, so that people who are descended from the tribe pre-1904, but whose ancestors were not considered part of the tribe in 1904 can’t reclaim membership. This one would seem reasonable, except that the Freedman roll is also a list of people who were members of the tribe in 1904, just members who had any black ancestry, so acknowledging both rolls, but excluding all other sources, would seem at least as legitimate.
3) The desire to maintain a tight blood line requirement clashes with the historical fact that the descendants of black slaves of Cherokee members were considered Cherokee (whether they had any Cherokee blood or not). If the Cherokee nation acknowledges that the Cherokee nation has historically not been restricted to people descended from the pre-colonization Cherokee nation, then that makes it harder to argue that someone with only 1/32 Cherokee ancestry should be excluded.
Reason 3 (combined with straight up anti-black racism) seems the most likely reason to me.
The reason that this decision, if carried through, would lead to the end of US government recognition of the Cherokee nation is that the treaty of 1866 explicitly recognized black Cherokee as as part of the Cherokee nation, so the expulsion of the black Cherokee abrogates the treaty. Straight up anti-NA racist power politics mean that at this point, the US will not negotiate a new treaty with the Cherokee if the current one is abrogated.
(I also posted this over at your place rachel, but I don’t know if it actually went through)
Rachel–I don’t agree with what the Cherokee nation did I want to state that emphatically. There is a huge division between black people who claim indigenous ancestry and indigenous peoples and a lot of that division is firmly embedded in racism.
But I wanted to point out that sovereignty issues are incredibly and horrifically complicated. Many many many fights and disagreements happen throughout Indian country because of sovereignty issues. If tribes are *nations* then they shouldn’t be marking citizenship in their nation with blood quantum’s. But the fact is, they live not as nations, but as wards of the state. The reservations they live on can be taken from them at any point and time by the state, and it often is. As a result, even though many tribes hate the fact that they have to use blood quantums to decide who belongs to their tribe (because believe me, they recognize full well that these standards are not their own), they often have to use those standards as a way to protect their sovereignty. In other words, the u.s. has placed them in a position where if they don’t have blood quantum standards and tribal enrollment, they could lose their status as native peoples, and legitimately and legally lose their entire land base.
This has resulted in things like native families living on the rez from the time they were forced onto the rez to begin with, only to lose their citizenship status through intermarriage. They may not have lived off reservation for even a single generation, they may have voted in every single election, gone to tribal meetings etc–and not “officially” be considered native.
The “one-drop” rule for black people (whereby if they even have on drop of black blood, they are considered black by the u.s.), is completely opposite for native peoples–the requirements for “being native” keep getting stricter and stricter. Most tribes it’s necessary to be at least a quarter of the particular tribe in order to be recognized by the u.s. government.
When native peoples are living on the greatest reservoirs of natural resources left in the u.s. is it any wonder that it is legally becoming harder and harder to be native?
Anyway, again, I don’t support what the tribe did–but at the same time, often times sovereignty issues are not mentioned by press because they don’t understand the horrible complications and legal leg locking that the u.s. government has enforced on tribes. Could the big margin in the vote be not so much of a display of racism, but a display of catch-22? That the government has pulled some shitty legal maneuver and the only choice the tribe has to keep their tribal sovereignty is to vote out anybody the government tells them to? It’s happened before and it will continue to happen, so I don’t count it out as a reason this happened–not until I hear from the tribe themselves.
Also, many times, (and I’m not saying that this is the case, I’m only talking in terms of generalities)–citizenship in tribes are talked about in terms of “benefits”–as in “They were denied financial benefits” (from your link about seminole tribe). Many of the people complaining about not getting “benefits” are also not so concerned with other issues like tribal sovereignty, continued genocide, extreme poverty, displacement, chronic outside sexual abuse etc. Often times, the only protection tribes have against the violence committed against them is their treaty given rights. For example, the wisconsin tribes used their treaty protected right to spear fish to keep mining companies (and all the pollution and degradation they bring) out of Wisconsin. So does it help or hurt when every damn person under the sun weakens tribal rights by suing the tribe to “get benefits”? People who have no investment in also ending genocide, sexual abuse, uranium poisoning etc, can sue to “get benefits”? Is that right? (and I won’t even get into the issue of white “shamans” claiming tribal identities to make millions of dollars–or suing tribal peoples for patent rights to traditional spiritual practices)
Anyway, the issue of tribal sovereignty and membership is an horribly complicated issue–something that scholars have spent life times studying. There could be a lot more going on here than outright racism. There also could not be–it may just be plain old racism. But I would check around to see the opinions of native peoples before I start critisizing–lots of times indignant well meaning people who don’t really understand the legal complications do nothing but create more problems–resulting in a further loss of protections for native peoples.
“This has resulted in things like native families living on the rez from the time they were forced onto the rez to begin with, only to lose their citizenship status through intermarriage. They may not have lived off reservation for even a single generation, they may have voted in every single election, gone to tribal meetings etc–and not “officially” be considered native.”
This is the reason an aunt of mine refuses to move. Her house is falling apart, she cant afford to fix even the plumbing (she now has an outhouse for fucks sake) but she refuses to leave.
My father caught all kinds of hell for leaving and marrying white. My mom caught shit for marrying a Native American, even though she has many NA ancestors. (the fact her ancestry isnt Cherokee didnt please my fathers family much either). My aunt (the one who wont leave) once told me I was lucky to “look white”. I was young, but I remember feeling bad that she would envy such a thing and fear it at the same time.
Charles:
Exactly. I didn’t say they were acting admirably; I was just questioning Rachel’s claim that they were blinded to their own material interests by their racism. I think it’s far more likely that their desire to protect their own material interests is feeding their racism. Or for all I know, maybe it’s not about race at all, and just a convenient way to trim down their membership.
My what?
Pheeno:
Privilege is often not beneficial in the long run, but that doesn’t mean that the recipients won’t guard it jealously when it’s threatened.
Strangely the decision to abrogate the 1866 treaty provides the basis for taking the Cherokee’s sovereignity. But in reality the Cherokees will not lose their sovereignity because of their strength. The Federal govenment supported the Cherokee Nation in the Vann litigation.
How many white people claim and are members of the Cherokee Nation? Lots. Their money and membership protects them. If it came down to blood quantum the Cherokees would not exist.
I agree with pheeno about the White Indian – Black Indian labels. For one thing, the group labeled white Indians do not necessarily have European ancestry, they just don’t have black ancestry (actually, that isn’t true either, they just have at least one ancestor in 1904 who had Cherokee ancestry but didn’t have recognized black ancestry). While it is true that this is anti-black racism, that doesn’t mean that it is white anti-black racism (although that may play a part as well).
Also, labeling Native Americans with no Black ancestry as White Indians suggests that there are two kinds of people, whites and blacks, and everyone is one or the other, which is offensive in all sorts of ways.
Brandon,
Aren’t you in favor of strict limitations on legal Mexican immigration and strict enforcement against illegal immigrants? If not, sorry I confused your position with someone else’s. If so, that is what I meant. Probably, if there is a reason to discuss it further, we should continue on an open thread. Sorry for the distraction (and for the insult if you don’t hold the position in the first sentence above).
“If it came down to blood quantum the Cherokees would not exist. ”
Yeah, we would. We dont need the presence of white people, nor the us governments “allowance” of sovereignity to be who we are.
This reminds me of the old saying “everyone likes majority rule until they’re in the minority.”
If you want to have a sovereign nation–sovereign, mind you, not ‘vassal of the U.S.’–then by golly, they have to have the right to set their own laws on immigration and citizenship. That’s one of the things which best defines a nation to start with.
I can think of a variety of reasons why this decision might have been made, and why it might be perfectly justified. The truth is, though, I don’t think it’s really my business.
I am offended by Rachel’s idea that the black members of the Cherokee Nation SHOULD be excludable if they DON’T have any “Indian blood.” The idea that the problem with using the Dawes Rolls is that the Freedmen with Indian ancestry are getting kicked out along with the those who don’t is a pretty poor criticism.
So, the Cherokee should be able to exclude the descendants of their slaves if they can prove that they have no Indian blood?
This is a quote from the http://www.cherokee.org/ web site:
“Cherokee voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the Cherokee Nation Constitution in a special election Saturday, March 3, by a decisive vote of 6,693 (77%) for the measure to 2,040 (23%) against. The amendment limits citizenship in the Cherokee Nation to descendants of people who are listed on the Final Rolls of the Cherokee Nation as Cherokee, Delaware or Shawnee and excludes descendants of those listed on Intermarried White and Freedmen rolls taken at the same time.”
So, if the above is true, the vote was to exclude both “Intermarried White” and “Freedmen”.
Whatever the motivation, it’s still makes me sad, mostly because it means that the Cherokee voting majority doesn’t seem (and I use “seem” advisedly, since I know next to nothing about this) to want to include anyone outside the original native population. Spiritually (not religiously) I have to wonder where this shift is coming from.
I grew up as a Reform Jew, and was taught that anyone who considered themselves Jewish were considered so by the Jewish community. It wasn’t until I started reading the Torah (Five Books of Moses/Old Testament) in my early 30’s and became more familiar with Orthodox Judiasm that I saw how particular observant Jews can be about lineage as well.
Traditionally, if only your mother is Jewish, you’re still considered Jewish.
If only your father is Jewish, you’re not.
There’s something important about the matrilineage, but I don’t know what it is.
From an Orthodox Jewish perspective, if you’re Jewish (see definition above) but don’t observe the commandments (all 600+…not just the 10 big ones) then you’re worse than not being a Jew at all, because by not observing the commandments you’re subverting the whole point of being a Jew, which is to communally observe the commandments, thereby bringing the messiah in this lifetime.
So, in my own culture I understand (but don’t agree) with exclusion. On an individual spiritual level it doesn’t work for me at all. So I’m wondering what it means spiritually to the Cherokee to narrow the definition of Cherokee in terms of “race”.
“am offended by Rachel’s idea that the black members of the Cherokee Nation SHOULD be excludable if they DON’T have any “Indian blood.” The idea that the problem with using the Dawes Rolls is that the Freedmen with Indian ancestry are getting kicked out along with the those who don’t is a pretty poor criticism.
So, the Cherokee should be able to exclude the descendants of their slaves if they can prove that they have no Indian blood? ”
Are black descendants of slaves of white slave owners considered white?
Im offended by people telling Cherokee who is and who isnt Cherokee. Our leaders arent going about it the right way, but it’s still our call to make. We’re not a club.
Pheeno,
It is absolutely your call to make. How would you do it differently?
A grandfather clause. People who are already considered Cherokee remain citizens, but after a certain date new “applicants” must be proven to be either descendants or have blood ties.
Oh, and obviously, remove skin color from the equation all together.
Let me both defend and critique my use of the terms “White Indians” and “Black Indians.” In understand that these terms are indeed problematic, in an ideal world skin color/race/phenotype should not matter, and claims to a Cherokee identity should be based on connection to the culture and documentation that one is connected to the tribe by blood or law–not race.
However, it should not be lost upon people that many of those leading the charge to kick out the Freedmen are people who could pass for white, in terms of their phenotype. I ran across, this website by a man named John Cornsilk. Cornsilk is active in Cherokee politics, and he put up a slate of candidates he opposed and supported. A quick glance at these folks leading the tribe will give you an idea of what the leadership looks like, in terms of phenotype. These folks are indeed very light skinned people, and many of them are obviously of mixed ancestry. Now I don’t think that makes them any less Indian, but I think it is really unfair for these same folks to imply that people who are phenotypically Black are not Indians. Cornsilk is strongly opposed this measure, and if you peruse his site, you can learn more bout the racial politics of all of this. One of the former leader of the Cherokee Nation Ross Swimmer (also a phenotypically white person) is actively involved in the Bush administration and Republican politics. He also lead a charge to purge the Freedmen from voting according to some activists.
I think once one reads some of the message boards and the quotes by Marylin Vann and John Cornsilk the twisted politics of Black vs. White in the Cherokee nation.
I do understand that this is by no means as simple as Black Indians and White Indians. One person on a message board was saying that at the polls he noticed more darker skinned Cherokees than he had noticed for a while. He went on to say that heard them using the n-word.
So quite frankly it sounds like the very light skinned tribe members (who could phenotypically pass for white) and some of the darker skinned non-African Cherokees joined together to oust the Freedmen.
Rich B said, “So, the Cherokee should be able to exclude the descendants of their slaves if they can prove that they have no Indian blood?
Rich, first let me say that the vast majority of folks we are talking about here are people of mixed racial ancestry, so there may indeed be a few cases but not many where people were descendents of Cherokee slaves and do not have any Cherokee “blood.”
In my own opinion, the tribe should include all descendents of the Freedmen, whether they are able to prove either blood ties or legal cultural ties. The reason I personally focused so much on blood ties, is because they are pretty well established and there is a movement afoot here to deny that the Freedmen intermixed with the tribe. These folks have been living together for hundreds of years, adn these anti-black/African divide and conquer tactics re relatively new.
I guess they could pass for white to white people. Personally, I can see the differences beyond lighter skin. White people always assume Im white…Ive yet to meet any Cherokee who have.
“Now I don’t think that makes them any less Indian, but I think it is really unfair for these same folks to imply that people who are phenotypically Black are not Indians. ”
Depends on what they’re using to determine Indianhood. Being mixed doesnt mean your great great great great uncle was cherokee so you are too, and someone (even with lighter skin) who has a great deal more ancestry is indeed in a position to determine that.
bfp said, “Anyway, the issue of tribal sovereignty and membership is an horribly complicated issue–something that scholars have spent life times studying. There could be a lot more going on here than outright racism. There also could not be–it may just be plain old racism. But I would check around to see the opinions of native peoples before I start critisizing–lots of times indignant well meaning people who don’t really understand the legal complications do nothing but create more problems–resulting in a further loss of protections for native peoples. ”
I can’t even begin to understand all of the complexities of tribal laws and the interconnectedness of tribal law and sovereignty, and (in response to Robert) I’m not advocating anybody losing their sovereignty. In fact, I don’t see how a tribal group can be sovereign if the US can come in and take that right away; there is an inherent contradict in there. Unfortunately, we are talking about the US government’s relationship with American Indians, we the US government sets the rules and changes them on a whim.
Having read about this case for a while, my sense is that it is about blatant racism. I am very suspicous of the current tribal leadership, and the past leader, who is now active in Republican politics. This is also why I think their sovereignty will not be threatened over this election the current political connections to the Bush administration will probably prevent this from becoming an issue. In fact, those who have been tryin to force this through likely picked a good time to act.
I highly recommend the Wired News story from my original post from 2005. The DNA part is riduculous, but they do a good job discussing the how the Dawes rolls were constructed. It has only been since the 1980s that this movement to kick the Freedmen out has gained steam. Here’s a brief quote from John Cornsilk’s son David,
I’m not denying that there are other complexities, but we do have to ask why it is only recently that this backlash has begun.
Pheeno,
Check out the pictures associated with this article from wired news.
Notice the second woman on the top; she’s of Freedmen ancestry and they won’t let her in the tribe.
Pheeno said,
“Depends on what they’re using to determine Indianhood. Being mixed doesnt mean your great great great great uncle was cherokee so you are too, and someone (even with lighter skin) who has a great deal more ancestry is indeed in a position to determine that.”
It is interesting that you bring this up. Because there has been a revival of Indian identification that includes many of these great great grandparents folks that you are talking about. And personally I have a problem with that. I’ll use myself as an example. My paternal grandmother’s grandmother is Indian; I guess my great great grandmother. Now if I go out tomorrow and try to seek tribal membership based that there is something a little disconcerting about that. Here I am having been raised as white with little to no connection to that ancestry, and I bring years of that socialization with me.
I too find that troubling…., but I think it is also clear that the Freedmen do not represent this phenomenon.
Ive seen the pictures. Only 1 guy “looks white” to me, and even then he doesnt look totally white.
I do have to say the ones saying have one great great (or great great great) family member…to that I say just one? So what?
The issue some have is this (and this is just one tiny part of a hugely complicated issue)
Unless the freed slaves were actually “adopted” into their individual tribes, by those in the tribes, they arent Cherokee. Those individuals that were NOT welcomed by the tribes were given citizenship by the US government. They aren’t Cherokee. And having a great great great ancestor formally welcomed into the Tribe does not in all cases extend to the descendants forever and ever. Especially when they’re completely removed from us and any issues we face and have been for generations.
*snerks* which you just addressed *L*
I think that bfp identified the issues at stake about as succinctly as possible, under the circumstances. It’s not all about government benefits — it’s equally about the fact that being able to prove tribal status to the USG is important to preserving cultural identity, and at some level, a tribe only exists if there is some shared identity that is other than “voluntary.” Being a reformed Jew versus an orthodox Jew doesn’t quite get at the concept — it’s more like, claiming the right to Irish citizenship because your grandmother was born in Ireland. Sovereign nations make this kind of decision all the time, but they are rarely “traveling nations” in the sense that Native Americans nations are. If you use the term that I have told my children to use (in order to settle the ongoing usage dispute in my house between those who want to say NA versus American Indian), it might be clearer: pre-Columbian indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere.
Pheeno, if you don’t mind my asking, where is the reservation that your Aunt lives on? Are you Eastern Cherokee?
Also, I’d be interested in hearing what you think about the Delaware Tribe and its struggle to separate itself from the Cherokee Nation.
Eastern Cherokee , yes *s*
My aunt lives in North Carolina.
I think the *Lenape are an old tribe and should be respected as such and be recognized. The issue surrounds 14 counties that the Cherokee refuse to give up sovereignty over. I find that sad. It wouldnt hurt my people to give that land to the Lenape and let them control their own money and future.
* this is the name they call themselves and while they accept the name Delaware, out of respect I use their name for themselves.
“A grandfather clause. People who are already considered Cherokee remain citizens, but after a certain date new ‘applicants’ must be proven to be either descendants or have blood ties.”
Osiyo, pheeno:
This is a good proposal. Mine was similar; that the Freedmen (and ONLY the Freedmen) be allowed to use secondary sources (like the Freedman Roll) instead of relying exclusively on Dawes, which we all know is riddled with errors and inaccuracies. Unfortunately, no one’s listening to either one of us. My big concern is, considering what happened to the Seminole when they did exactly the same thing a few years back, and keeping in mind that Judge Kennedy has already suspended CN’s sovereign immunity to allow the Freedmen to sue them, I’m very afraid that the June tribal elections won’t be recognized by the BIA, or thrown out by the federal courts. Either one of these options, even if they restore justice to the Freedmen, will be body blows to tribal sovereignty. It’s really hard to justify the blatant fraud in the petition drive (noted in Justice Leed’s dissenting opinion in the Cherokee Supreme Court) or the ugly racist comments (such as “Protect our daughters!”) coming from the anti-Freedmen camp. I can’t see any way this is going to end well.
Osiyo Crank,
Protect our daughters. Yes, it’s repugnant. On more than 1 level. It’s the excuse racists used to hang blacks. And protect me from what? Making my own decisions? Gee thanks. Here I thought I was raised to be strong and intelligent.
I dont even want to think about the elections being invalidated. It’s *our* duty to rectify any injustices, not the US governments. And it would be a huge blow, one that Im afraid will lead to problems that will have long lasting affects.
The Local Crank said, “that the Freedmen (and ONLY the Freedmen) be allowed to use secondary sources (like the Freedman Roll) instead of relying exclusively on Dawes, which we all know is riddled with errors and inaccuracies.”
This is part of what is so shocking to me because anyone who has studied this knows that the Dawes rolls were created for racist purposes and have glaring inaccuracies.
I’m not sure how the BIA and the federal govt. are going to react because the former Western Cherokee chief is a high ranking official in teh Bush administration, and he got that post in spite of the fact that most of the tribes in this country opposed his appointment.
The whole concept of “blood quanta” is a racist invention designed to cause tribes to slowly become extinct by “whiting them out.” Yes, this vote is repugnant, and it’s also a complete betrayal of our history. As this article I linked to on my blog:
http://thelocalcrank.blogspot.com/2006/12/learn-your-history.html
points out, the Cherokee Nation from 1866-1907 was the ONLY multi-racial, multi-cultural republic in North America. Our ancestors (and our descendents) will condemn us for our short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness. We can only hope that after June we’ll have a new principal chief. Judge Leeds is running, btw. Her web-site is:
http://www.stacyleeds.com/sl/
do da da ga hv i
First, I’d like to compliment the moderator and the participants on their ability to carry on a lively dialogue while showing respect for the opinions of others. It seems to me (as an admitted outsider) that there are two distinct but interrelated issues here: 1. Who is a Cherokee? and 2. Who is a citizen of the Western Band Cherokee Nation? You can apparently be one without the other. For example, my wife’s great-great grandfather was supposedly a full-blooded Cherokee (this hasn’t been established, but for the sake of discussion I’m going to assume it’s true). Was he a Cherokee? Sure. Was he a citizen of the Cherokee Nation? No, because he was neither on the Dawes Roll, nor was he descended from anyone on the Dawes roll. In fact, as far as we know, he never set foot in what is now Oklahoma. Does having a Cherokee ancestor make my wife a Cherokee? Debatable. I would say no because she is 3 generations removed from her Cherokee roots. At most, she’s a person of Cherokee descent, which is about as relevant as my being a person of English, Irish, Scottish, German, Dutch and Norwegian descent. She has no more claim to Cherokee citizenship than I do to citizenship in any of the countries where my ancestors come from.
On the other hand, there are people on the Dawes roll with 1/64th Cherokee blood. Their great-grandchildren (who may be 1/512 Cherokee) are eligible for enrollment as Cherokee citizens (at least in the Western Band), but are they really Cherokee? I suppose that’s a matter of opinion and that it may depend upon what ties they have maintained with the Cherokee community.
As a sovereign nation, the Western Band Cherokee have the right to determine who’s a citizen. However, this right is not absolute. It is subject to federal law, and there is a treaty (as well as federal statutes and federal court decisions) that protects the status of the freedmen and their descendants. I don’t see how this vote will survive a federal court challenge (and I even wonder whether it would survive a challenge in tribal court).
But as far as I can tell, the Cherokee Nation does not take a position on the “Cherokeeness” of anyone who’s not enrolled with them or with the other two federally recognized Cherokee tribes.
“As a sovereign nation, the Western Band Cherokee have the right to determine who’s a citizen. However, this right is not absolute. It is subject to federal law”
Not to quibble, but there is no “Western Band”; there is the Cherokee Nation (which is the successor both to the government at New Echota in the Old Nation and the Old Settlers who emigrated before the Trail of Tears) and there is the Eastern Band (and also the United Keetowah Band). Moreover, the right of the Cherokee (or any other sovereign tribal nation) to determine citizenship is, in fact, absolute and is explicitly not subject to federal law. This is why, when the Okla. Seminole kicked their Freedmen out, the only thing the BIA could do was refuse to recognize the tribal council elected without the Freedmen vote and cut off the funds due them under treaty. The BIA could not directly order the Seminole to allow the Freedmen back in. The only reason the federal courts are involved in the Cherokee Freedmen controversy is due to the clumsy racist rhetoric of the anti-Freedmen forces, the Treaty of 1866, and what Judge Kennedy found to be a history of discrimination by the Cherokee against the Freedmen. Because of these factors, Judge Kennedy rescinded the tribe’s sovereign immunity and allowed the Freedmen to sue the tribe in federal court. This is a unique circumstance. If, for example, the tribal council decided to limit enrollment to those with a 1/4 blood quanta, neither the BIA nor the Federal courts would have any say whatsoever in the matter.
As for the larger issue of what makes one Cherokee (in a cultural as opposed to a legalistic sense), I believe, based upon tribal history and culture, that the issue has nothing to do with blood. Indeed, the very concept of blood quanta has no basis in Cherokee history (Chief John Ross, for example, was “merely” 1/8th) but is instead a racist white invention. A Cherokee, in my view, is someone with an historical connection to the tribe who lives in accordance with Cherokee culture, tradition and values. Realistically, of course, it is impractical to allow every wannabe who decides to “go Native” to become a voting member of the tribe just because they have purchased a turban and a Cherokee-English dictionary. Likewise, it is ludicrous that, as the law is currently written, persons who are completely ignorant of Cherokee language, culture, and tradition, who do not live in the Cherokee Nation and never have and do not participate in tribal life can be enrolled members simply by virtue of the fact that their great great great grandfather decided to take an allotment in 1897. But, if we abandon realiance on the Dawes Roll (which is admittedly racist and riddled with errors), that will further dilute tribal culture and traditions by admitting countless thousands of new enrollees with no real connection to tribal life. There is just no easy answer.
Crank:
It appears that under the 1866 treaty (as well under the federal statutes and case decisions cited in Judge Kennedy’s decision), the Freedmen and their descendants are supposed to have the same rights and privileges as “native Cherokees.” So, it would seem that even if technically they are no longer citizens of the Cherokee Nation, they would still have all the rights of citizens. There is a European precedent for this. At one time citizens of the Irish Republic who lived in the UK were not considered UK citizens, but they had all the rights of UK citizens, including the right to vote in UK elections (I don’t know whether that’s still true today).
Also (and without any desire to quibble on my part either), it looks like the Cherokee Nation Constitution itself puts some limits on the Cherokee Nation’s right to determine who’s a citizen. First, Article I of the Constitution states that the Cherokee will never adopt any law that is in conflict with any federal law (which might be a basis for the Freedmen to challenge the new amendment in Cherokee court). Besides, if the CN decided to abandon the use of the Dawes roll, wouldn’t that require a constitutional amendment (with approval by the President or his representative)?
Of course, the Freedmen’s issue is unique (as you say), and any other citizenship issues would be a matter of tribal law. For example, the federal courts would have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint of a full-blooded Cherokee who was denied citizenship because his ancestors didn’t get their names on the Dawes roll. Whatever relief he wanted would have to come from the Cherokee authorities, right?
Well, the only reason the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is putting forth a change in their consitution is because in the original constitution it stated that the former Black slaves from the emancipation proclamation could be counted in with Natives. This was done in the Treaty of 1866 when the Dawes Rolls were started.
The change to the constitution they wanted to be sure that the consitution stated that in order to be enrolled CHEROKEE you must PROVE Cherokee ancestory by BLOOD!!! And not just squished in cause you were a former Black slave. IF by some means that you can prove your ancestory then you will be let into the tribe.
As for the Cherokee Nation not existing if there were a higher blood quantum. There are still a strong hold of Cherokee Full-Bloods and close to Cherokee full-bloods. Plus…think about it… for a tribe like the Cherokees to have been exposed to white people for more than 300 years you would think that there should be close to none. I think they are doing pretty good in staying true to their roots and culture.
Sprituality is not at questioned here either. There are so many NEW AGE HIPPIES out there trying to make a buck off of being “NATIVE” cause they have some new HOLISTIC treatment that can get you CONNECTED with your INNER SELF which they have learned from some CHIEF/MEDICINE MAN/SHAMAN that is is disguisting!!!
So should the Cherokee be allowed to do as they please with their blood lines in insuring their future…HELL YES!!
IF the US government and the Cherokee Freedmen were so hell bent on getting into the tribe why couldn’t they make their own tribe. You have to be federally recognized and if they are in the Dawes Rolls…they could. The only problem with that is that they would need to prove that they have established some sort of leadership, which they haven’t. Maybe that is something their founding FREEDMEN fathers should have thought of.
The benefits for being Native are little. The only thing that I have seen as far as being FULL BLOODED NAVAJO is the health care. Free health care is basically going to a hospital and waiting for nearly four hours to be seen by a doctor who is not your doctor but someone who will take your case. As far as benefits that is established by your own Nation not the US Government. The US government may give some money to help you get started…but that is all it is…just a lil bit of money…plus its not like BUSH is being nice…he is even cutting costs from the education division.. so those who are so upset about Natives getting money…don’t worry Bush is fixing that. The US government has given me a nice block of government cheese which I am pretty sure the poor black neighborhoods get in the projects too.
Cherokee Nation is not excluding Blacks on color only but on the blood that flows through their veins. IF the Cherokee blood is there and they can prove it they are in…if not then they are out. To me that sounds a lot like the Navajo enrollment policy which has been in place for quiet sometime….
What the Cherokee Nation is doing is nothing new to any other Tribe…all what other wonder…PROBABLY..is why did it take so long…
I highly doubt that color is apart of this but only about the blood…
“First, Article I of the Constitution states that the Cherokee will never adopt any law that is in conflict with any federal law (which might be a basis for the Freedmen to challenge the new amendment in Cherokee court).”
As I recall, without hitting WestLaw, the reason for that was a federal court decision from the 1970’s that applied the 14th Amendment to tribal governments. Personally, I think the legitimacy of that decision is suspect, but there you have it.
“Besides, if the CN decided to abandon the use of the Dawes roll, wouldn’t that require a constitutional amendment (with approval by the President or his representative)?”
Yes, it would require amending the Cherokee Constitution (not that I think such a decision will EVER happen) but no, it shouldn’t require approval of the President any longer. That was one of the stated reasons for adopting the new Constitution. On the other hand, before the Freedmen controversy broke out, there was a war of words between the BIA and Chief Smith over whether that was true or not.
“For example, the federal courts would have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint of a full-blooded Cherokee who was denied citizenship because his ancestors didn’t get their names on the Dawes roll. Whatever relief he wanted would have to come from the Cherokee authorities, right? ”
Yes, absolutely correct. “Tribal sovereignty” is truly a bastardized concept that was been redifined so many times over the centuries that it now seems to mean, essentially, that tribes can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t inconvenience non-Indians, corporations or the Federal Government in any way.
I’m late to this, but I just couldn’t help but point out that this REALLY sheds an unflattering light on the whole Confederate flag thread. Like naked-yellow-bulb-hanging-in-a-dank-dressing-room unflattering.
Specifically, comments like this are shedding the unflattering light:
Are black descendants of slaves of white slave owners considered white?
Said in defense of ousting the black Indians. Because who better to emulate than white slave owners, right?
I have been proud of both My African and Native American Heritage since i was a small small child. There are very [hardly any fullbloods left] few and the ones i know are so dark they look like dark skinned mexicans. I have never felt as bad as I have today. I have been called everything from Black Jap to Negro Chink to Hawaiian Samoan to Puerto Rican Nigga to Chinese Nigga to Nigga Jap to Nigga Nigga. But none of it made me as a human being feel as bad as being told you can only be a nigga instead of what i am. [Afri-indio american or some variation] I really did not matter as long as I am human. I live in NC and noticed that there is a racism among white looking and sometimes brown indians towards black people of any persuasion[ even Mexicans if they are too dark] I did not grow up with that as i have children by my wife who look the range from Indian to African [same parents] because it is in our Blood. Until today I was Proud to be what I am [both sides] now none of it I am being told means s..t. I am the product of one people who ran away and hid in the swamps and another who said; come Brother we are kin from way back [long before columbus] lets be one again. Now I see The Mans trinkets are more important once again. Shame Shame Shame!!! Listen to your selves. Gods first commandment was …never mind . It really does not matter know. I guess like Curtis said, ‘if theres a hell below, We all Gonna Go!!!’
Go back and read please. Thats not in defense of outsting Native Americans of color. Thats in defense of *my* people having the right to decide who is in fact Cherokee. Regardless of color. Unless my ancestors adopted them into the tribes, or they’re Cherokee by blood, they arent Cherokee. Merely having enslaved ancestors doesnt make one Indian, anymore than it makes one white.
Basically, if you werent born one you need an invitation. And we’re the only ones who can give that invitation. Giving it to some peoples ancestors isnt a pass for people today. The US government deciding for us doesnt mean you get it recognized.
And you don’t think enslaving people counts as that invitation. Although you do agree that the desire of many whites (including Northerners) in the 19th century to kick freed slaves out of the country, rather than treating them as citizens, was evil.
If a group of people forces another group of people to become part of their society (as the Cherokee did by owning slaves), it seems strange to say that the people forced to become part of that society are not part of that society because they weren’t invited in. While they may not have been invited in in the sense of being given the option of choosing not to come in, they certainly were brought in.
Of course, the people one enslaves, one does not view as part of one’s own people, which is certainly one of the evils of slavery. It is an evil that the 14th amendment was intended to correct. The rejection of the Freedmen list descendants is a rejection of this principle.
“And you don’t think enslaving people counts as that invitation.”
Generations later? No. Like I said, just because your ancestors were given invitatation does not mean several hundred years later it stands open for you. Especially if you’re generations removed from anything even remotely resembling Cherokee culture. Some of my own ancestors were sold to the carribean. So what, am I of carribean descent now?
“If a group of people forces another group of people to become part of their society (as the Cherokee did by owning slaves), ”
The US government forced the freedmen onto those rolls as cherokee citizens. The Cherokee welcomed many of them. Individually. Specifically. That doesnt mean several generations of descendants, *especially* after those generations have not lived as Cherokee, have nothing to do with Cherokee are automatically Cherokee. Im sorry, but we’re not the country club. Having great great great grandarents who were cherokee and no one else does not make you Cherokee. Even if it *was* by blood.
Now, if you’ve read what Ive said, you’ll note the fact I disagree with kicking out the current descendants of freedmen. But I *am* in favor of new applicants actually having more than some distant ancestor once upon a time. Be it by blood or anything else.
” guess like Curtis said, ‘if theres a hell below, We all Gonna Go!!!’ ”
Cherokee believe mankind’s goal is to find some halfway path or balance between the Upper World and the Lower World while living in This World. The Lower World is full of chaos and instability. Hell? I don’t know that place. As for god? I prefer Yo wah.
“I have been called everything from Black Jap to Negro Chink to Hawaiian Samoan to Puerto Rican Nigga to Chinese Nigga to Nigga Jap to Nigga Nigga.”
My personal favorite Ive been called is wagon burner. I could do without prairie n*gger though. Thats been used by white people and black people and “blacck indians” with an equal amount of spiteful pleasure.
“That doesnt mean several generations of descendants, *especially* after those generations have not lived as Cherokee, have nothing to do with Cherokee are automatically Cherokee”
And I think that’s the crux of the matter. Pheeno may disagree, but I think the majority of enrolled Cherokee today do NOT in fact “live as Cherokee” and have little remaining connection to the culture (and in that respect, the UKB probably has a point). This has nothing to do with blood; it has to do with choices people make in their lives. To use the country club analogy, these are the members who *may* vote for the board of directors (or to kick out other members) but they never come to the dances, never serve on committees, etc. This is sad, because the entire point of having a Cherokee Nation in the first place is to preserve a culture that the US Government has spent 170 years trying to exterminate. On the other hand, there are plenty of others who *do* “live as Cherokee,” honor the culture, maintain the stomp dance grounds, speak the language, preserve the history, but they can NEVER become “official” Cherokee because their great great grandfathers refused to sign the Dawes Roll. But, can you *really* test someone for “cultural identification” as a condition of citizenship? Pheeno is right; there has to be some exclusivity. Just because some New Age wannabe buys a turban and a Cherokee-English dictionary and claims “his soul is Indian” doesn’t mean he should get to join the club. Nor can the Cherokee Nation be defined solely by geography; we saw how well that worked out in 1907. Ho wa! I don’t know what the ultimate answer is. All I can do is continue to proudly say tsa-la-gi tsi-yv-wi-ya, try to do what I can to support and defend my tribe, and pass on what I know to my sons.
pheeno,
Fair enough. I don’t see any reason that the Cherokee should be required to admit anyone whose ancestors have been not Cherokee for several generations. I just don’t see any reason it should be different for people who are descendants of the slaves in the Cherokee nation than it is for the descendants of free people within the Cherokee nation.
What I was objecting to was
Being enslaved by the Cherokee makes you Cherokee in the same way that being enslaved by the US makes you an American. No one forced the Cherokee to own slaves. Each person bought into the Cherokee nation (whether adopted or enslaved) deserved the right to be recognized as a citizen of the Cherokee nation. If they were recognized as a citizen, then their descendants have exactly the same right to be Cherokee as anyone else whose ancestors were part of the Cherokee nation (which we both agree can legitimately vary by how connected they individually are to the culture). It is not okay to say, “Oh, they were just slaves, so they weren’t ever part of us.” It just isn’t.
“My personal favorite Ive been called is wagon burner.”
Okay, that one’s a classic. What’s next? “Custer Killer”?
“Being enslaved by the Cherokee makes you Cherokee in the same way that being enslaved by the US makes you an American.”
Cherokee is a race, not a country one can have residency in. What part of that is so difficult to get?
“I just don’t see any reason it should be different for people who are descendants of the slaves in the Cherokee nation than it is for the descendants of free people within the Cherokee nation. ”
By “free” people of the Cherokee nation I assume you mean Cherokee by race? You cant figure out why it would be different? Because they’re still the same race. If you’re white and move to Mexico, you’re still white. If you have children with a white woman, they’re Mexican residents, but they’re still white. They dont magically become hispanic.
Oh and incidentally, there were free black people living with the Cherokee as well as the 4,600 enslaved.
Prior to the Revolutionary War do you think the Cherokees would have excluded Freedmen? There was a history of adopting peoples of all backgrounds (including the hated “white” Irish) into the tribe. One of the reasons the U.S. government worked so hard to undermine and exterminate the Nations was because of their completely different approach to “racial” and sexual relations. The embrace of blood quantum is illigimate and false as a matter of logic and Cherokee traditions. Any other position is defending the white boy mentality that has damaged all indigenous peoples. As stated by Governor Troup of Georgia who removed the Creek to Ok., “Creeks could aspire to be white, or else whites would see to it they became black.”
“Okay, that one’s a classic. What’s next? “Custer Killer”? ”
*snorts* I wouldnt consider that one an insult. *L*
“There was a history of adopting peoples of all backgrounds (including the hated “white” Irish) into the tribe. ”
Yes, there was. It still didnt extend to every single person for the next 20 generations that Im aware of. Individuals were adopted into tribes, and immediate family. Not 3rd cousin Bob’s neices nephews kid.
“there has to be some exclusivity. Just because some New Age wannabe buys a turban and a Cherokee-English dictionary and claims “his soul is Indian” doesn’t mean he should get to join the club. ”
Or worse, someone who finds that “indian princess” grandmother and applies so they can get a scholarship to college, while an 18 year old living on the reservation is one step away from suicide because he has no future.
Pheeno, you’re spinning out of control. Less gas on the afterburners Man. More blacks doesn’t make you less Cherokee.
“Or worse, someone who finds that ‘indian princess’ grandmother and applies so they can get a scholarship to college, while an 18 year old living on the reservation is one step away from suicide because he has no future. ”
Good point, and such people are beneath contempt. Most of them, though, find themselves in for a shock. As the old saying goes, “A CDIB card and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee.”
“Pheeno, you’re spinning out of control. Less gas on the afterburners Man. More blacks doesn’t make you less Cherokee.”
Not to put words in Pheeno’s mouth, but I don’t think he was saying anything of the sort. However, allowing people into the tribe who have no cultural or historical ties to it whatsoever (regardless of their race) just because a) their fifteenth cousin twice removed was an NDN or b) they have decided their “soul is NDN” (and believe me, damn near every NDN in America has had some well-meaning white guy tell them that, probably more than once) DOES in fact diminsh the tribe, because it fills it with people who see it as just another club (like the Rotarians) or a certificate to go on their wall. Eventually, the “tribe” becomes nothing more than just another social club full of white people. In other words, it ceases to exist. Some critics (NDNs, and even some Cherokee) claim this has already happened to the Cherokee Nation. So, yes, the question of who gets admitted to the tribe DOES affect everyone who is already a part of it.
“However, allowing people into the tribe who have no cultural or historical ties to it whatsoever (regardless of their race) just because a) their fifteenth cousin twice removed was an NDN or b) they have decided their “soul is NDN”
No historical tie? Remember these people were living in the Cherokee Nation, helped build the Cherokee Nation and suffered with he Cherokee Nation and are as connected to the Cherokee Nation as the 260,000 Cherokees who didn’t vote.
This vote was about one thing, which is apparent from the contradictory statements from the Cherokee leadership.
pheeno,
Cherokee is a race (and an ethnicity), but citizen of the Cherokee nation is a nationality. The Cherokee nation doesn’t have that much power to define the Cherokee ethnicity or the Cherokee race (many of the Freedman descendants kicked out or denied citizenship will continue to view themselves as Cherokee), but plenty of power to define citizenship of the Cherokee nation.
Cherokee is a race (if you define it purely by blood ancestry, so invited Cherokee and their descendants aren’t Cherokee and never will be, unless they or their descendants are also the descendants by blood of Cherokee, and blood quanta matters, unless your racial definition uses a one drop rule).
Cherokee is an ethnicity, so someone whose family hasn’t had any association with the Cherokee for several generations isn’t Cherokee, no matter how much Cherokee blood they have (I have a friend who has no cultural connection to any NA tribe, but she estimates that she is more than half NA by blood – racially she is NA, but ethnically she certainly isn’t, she also isn’t a citizen of any NA nation).
Cherokee is a nationality, so someone who is legally recognized by the Cherokee nation as a citizen of the nation is a Cherokee. The Cherokee nation has the power to set its own rules for who is allowed to be a citizen (although other nations have a right to respond to the actions of the Cherokee nation), but having the power to strip an entire class of people of their citizenship, or to selectively deny new applicants citizenship based on their race does not necessarily make it morally right.
I believe that the Cherokee nation is justified in basing citizenship decisions on ethnicity and national origin, but I don’t believe any nation should base its citizenship decisions on race. For nations where ethnicity = race = national origin, using race as a proxy for ethnicity and national origin is okay, but the Cherokee nation is not such a nation.
Brian:
Your comment,
is disrespectful and impedes the discussion.
Thats not in defense of outsting Native Americans of color.
Interesting phrasing. Here I was thinking Indians were already “of color” and it turns out only the black ones are. Is “of color” a Dixie tin-ear phrase for black now, like “urban” is up North?
My Eastern Cherokee ancestors left the tribal lands before the tribe was rounded up like cattle and driven west. My ancestor who took a Cherokee wife was disowned by his own family for doing so. We have nothing to show for our heritage except a handwritten note in a family Bible and the features our blood puts on one or two in every generation. Perhaps we were lucky to miss some of the politics of having First Nation blood.
Crank:
I don’t think there would be all this hub-bub if the Cherokee Nation had made changes requiring newly enrolling citizens to show some historical/cultural tie to the CN. However, the new law doesn’t do that. A great-great-great grandchild of someone on the Dawes roll will still be able to enroll even if he (and his father and grandfather) are so remote from Cherokee culture that he thinks you all call each other “Kee-Moh-Sah-Bee”. But the Freedman descendant who’s maintained his ties (I read somewhere that Marilyn Vann’s father spoke Cherokee) is kicked out.
“Interesting phrasing. ”
It is, isnt it. You may have missed the very early post where I state that “white indian” “black indian” bothers me. In fact, the word “indian” bothers me. But if you have suggestions of what I should call myself and my own people, I have no doubt you’ll let me know.
“I believe that the Cherokee nation is justified in basing citizenship decisions on ethnicity and national origin, but I don’t believe any nation should base its citizenship decisions on race.”
In the case of the cherokee (in my opinion), race has nothing to do with color. This is where I disagree with the vote. It shouldn’t matter if the person is light skinned or dark skinned. I *do* think that more is required though. Just having a great great great grandparent isn’t enough. It’s going back through their geneology and cherry picking. Other less distant relatives are of other origins. Why isn’t the majority of ancestry chosen? For example, some of the people in the article had less than 1% cheokee and 39% european. Why don’t they consider themselves european, if ancestry is really the issue for them? Most white people today have distant relatives that are black, how would the black community respond if some old white dude started calling himself black because he had a great great great grandfather that was black? Would he be approved for minority scholarships? When affirmative action was in place, could he have benefitted from that citing that one distant relative? In discussions about race would he be considered a POC and listened to as one with experience in dealing with day to day racism?
Where does it end? Must we just throw open the doors and allow everyone to claim cherokee nationality? What happens to us then? Does anyone even care?
“I don’t think there would be all this hub-bub if the Cherokee Nation had made changes requiring newly enrolling citizens to show some historical/cultural tie to the CN. However, the new law doesn’t do that.”
We’re both aware of this and have both stated numerous times we disagree with the new law.
It really comes down to agency.
If we claim that folks have agency and what we really mean is that we grant them agency so long as they happen to make decisions we agree with… well, then, they never really had agency in the first place.
Agency includes the ability to make bad decisions as well as good ones. The whole concept revolves around that. So folks here should be cautious of second guessing the actions of the tribe, or of “hoping” that the U.S. government will intervene. By making such suggestions, you’re attacking the agency of the Cherokees as surely as if you had stood there and told them what they could or could not say at tribal council.
I guess I see it as ironic that some folks here–I’d probably put Rachel in that group–would have defended the Cherokees’ rights in other situations. If the U.S. government had done something the Cherokees didn’t like, and you agreed with the Cherokees, you’d be posting in anger. And rightfully so.
But here, because it involves racism (which is a Big Issue for the country, obviously) that philosophy gets ignored. But guess what? It’s just as important, if not more important, that we not interfere even though we think it’s a bad thing. Otherwise, we are letting them rule only by our sufferance… and that’s not any rule at all.
Whether it’s tribal sovereignty or court rulings or governmental rights, sometimes the mechanisms we use to benefit us are used in ways of which we disapprove. Whether we choose react to those discrepancies by attacking the underlying mechanisms is a test both of our ethics and of our ability to see the forest for the trees.
pheeno,
I totally agree. I complete accept that the Cherokee nation should be made up of people who are ethnically Cherokee, and should not simply be open to anyone who has the tiniest bit of Cherokee ancestry. I can also understand using blood quanta from citizens as the proxy for ethnicity (although it is imperfect and arbitrary, it is at least less open to corruption and bias than having some appointed committee that decides if applicants seem sufficiently culturally Cherokee). I just have a very hard time accepting that the descendants of the slaves of the Cherokee (who then became citizens of the Cherokee nation) should be viewed differently than the descendants of free Cherokee (which includes non-blood Cherokee who were invited to join). I can see using descent from both the Dawes roll and the Freemen roll and nothing else, I could see using some other standard based on culture, I could even see closing applications and admitting no one else, but using the Dawes roll alone (either to kick people out, or to exclude new applicants) stinks. It is very hard to see it as anything other than a way of excluding Cherokee who have black ancestors.
I also accept that it really isn’t something I get a say in, as I am not Cherokee by any imaginable standard.
Sailorman,
Up on your high horse again.
It does not deny anyone’s agency to decry their actions.
Nor have sovereign nations ever been immune from being decried here.
Nor is it even inconsistent to support the treaty rights of NA nations, and also remark upon the fact that this vote actually endangers the Cherokee nation’s treaty rights by violating the treaty of 1866.
Sailorman, by that reasoning the Germans were entitled to commit genocide against their Jewish citizens. Sovereignty doesn’t trump human rights, one of which is self determination.
I said: Interesting phrasing. Here I was thinking Indians were already “of color” and it turns out only the black ones are. Is “of color” a Dixie tin-ear phrase for black now, like “urban” is up North?
pheeno said: It is, isnt it. You may have missed the very early post where I state that “white indian” “black indian” bothers me. In fact, the word “indian” bothers me. But if you have suggestions of what I should call myself and my own people, I have no doubt you’ll let me know.
Wow, you really addressed your use of the phrase “of color” to describe black NAs, there. I guess my suggestion, since you had no doubt I’d offer it, is that if you don’t consider yourself “of color,” perhaps you should call yourself white.
“I just have a very hard time accepting that the descendants of the slaves of the Cherokee (who then became citizens of the Cherokee nation) should be viewed differently than the descendants of free Cherokee (which includes non-blood Cherokee who were invited to join).”
I have no problem at all with the descendants of slaves being considered Cherokee, on the surface. My problem is with the descendants that have nothing at all to do with us, never think about us until it benefits them, dont identify with us, know nothing about us except myth and TV stereotypes and *use* our heritage. Because its “cool” or they think they can get something from it.
I also have a huge problem with the way some people suddenly view us as honorary white people in order to ignore the fact we’re still minorities so they can turn the issue into black and white and once again leave out the “red”. And if Im going to be completely honest here, the whole white indian black indian thing pisses me off beyond my ability to explain. Then we get compared to the German Nazis, when *we’re* the goddamned ones being exterminated. And then treaty rights get brought up. Talk about a fucking joke. Treaty rights. Loosely translated, thats what we’re allowed when we’re good little obedient Indians.
“Wow, you really addressed your use of the phrase “of color” to describe black NAs, there. I guess my suggestion, since you had no doubt I’d offer it, is that if you don’t consider yourself “of color,” perhaps you should call yourself white. ”
How about I call myself Cherokee and you can suck it up and deal.
Actually, on second thought, I think I’ll go back to Aniyunwiya. I could use Tsalagi, but thats the Creek name for us that white people couldnt pronounce and came up with Cherokee. (theres no R in our language) And we accepted Cherokee while foolishly trying to aid white settlers and the white government, and even adopted their standards of civilization and thats gotten us nothing but shit ever since.
Charles,
enough of the “high horse” drivel already. If you want to be inconsistent I retain the right to call you on your shit, and if you don’t like it then let’s discuss consistency. Or at least stop claiming that acknowledging problems with consistency is some sort of “holier than thou” proposition.
In any case, you can decry actions all you want: Go ahead and say “that was a shitty move on the part of the Cherokee”.
But you are disingenuous–and plain old wrong, “high horse” notwithstanding–if you fail to recognize the difference between someone who says “they shouldn’t do that” versus “they shouldn’t be allowed to do that”. One is commentary, the other is an attack on agency.
Here, I’ll put it in feminist-speak so you can see it more clearly:
1) women shouldn’t have abortions
2) women shouldn’t be permitted to have abortions
See the difference?
Brian,
I try to stick to a “No Nazi comparison” rule when possible, as it tends to inflame discussions pretty fast. So lets not go there, especially since we don’t NEED to. Unless I’m confused, you seem to be suggesting that choice of citizenship is a fundamental human right…? I’d like to get that clear before I reply.
Hey Crank, I just thought of the perfect solution.
In order to become a recognized citizen of the Cherokee nation, the individual or families will be required to move to a reservation for a period lasting no less than 1 year for total cultural immersion. All cultural activies must be attended. At the end of the year you will be required to pass a test on Cherokee history, which will include demonstrations of cermonial dances, songs and other such displays of cultural knowledge. You will be required to teach this to any and all descendants who wish to continue citizenship. You must learn to speak, read and write the language.
This way, exclusion wont be based on color or even ancestors.
And the people who want to be recognized as Cherokee can be viewed as sincere and our heritage will live on.
Pheeno –
Seems like a damn fine idea to me, to be honest.
One suggestion: make ’em walk to the reservation, too. From Georgia.
pheeno,
Wouldn’t you still get a lot of wannabee’s with that solution?
I guess at least they’d be hard core wannabe’s.
On treaty rights, I live in Oregon and treaty rights are really important out here (that is, native people out here fought really hard over the last 30-40 years to have the rights in the treaties treated as real, and have had some success in doing so). I realize the final treaties imposed on the Cherokee are probably very different and that I’m just showing how ignorant I am by mentioning treaty rights in the context of the Cherokee nation. Sorry about that.
Sailorman,
Thanks for your permission to say it was a shitty thing to do. Please point out to me where I argued that the Cherokee nation should be prevented from doing it. If you are going to call me on inconsistency, then do so. Right now all you are doing is baselessly claiming that I am inconsistence and then remonstrating me for it (actually in the high horse post, you called out Rachel S by name, but not me, but Rachel also made quite clear that she was not advocating the abrogation of the 1866 treaty, so I am not seeing where your beloved inconsistency came into play in her posts either).
“Hey Crank, I just thought of the perfect solution.”
I think you may, in fact, have stumbled upon the perfect solution, but it will never be implemented by the majority of “Rotarian” Cherokee. And if it is, I am *really* gonna have to work on my language skills. Ho-wa!
do-da-da-ga-hv-i
Oh, now I see, Charles.
You took my general “folks” to mean “Charles.” Silly me for not seeing that.
heh. I never get to use this line much, but: It’s not about you.
“I think you may, in fact, have stumbled upon the perfect solution, but it will never be implemented by the majority of “Rotarian” Cherokee. And if it is, I am *really* gonna have to work on my language skills. Ho-wa!
do-da-da-ga-hv-i ”
wa do
No Sailorman, I took your “folks” to refer to people in this thread, particularly Rachel, who you singled out, incorrectly in my opinion. I took your repeated use of you in comment 80, directly addressed to me, to refer to me.
“How about I call myself Cherokee and you can suck it up and deal.”
Being white doesn’t preclude you from being Cherokee. Obviously.
justicewalks writes:
Yeah, but publically and vocally identifying as non-white generally precludes one from being “white”. Sleeping with non-whites will do that as well.
Several different groups of my ancestors came to this country when they weren’t “white”. We didn’t get to be “white” until white people decided it was okay for us to also be “white”.
Saliorman, the point is obvious. The Freedman were born Cherokee based on the 1866 treaty. As Pheeno states a Nation isn’t a club. The Cherokee signed the treaty granting citizenship rights to the Freedmen after they lost the Civil War that was fought in part to decide if slaves were American citizens.
The only reason the Cherokee disenfranchised the Freedmen was because they’re black. This whole argument about wannabees is ridicoulous. No one requires white people to act a certain way to be white. There’s no blood quantum for blacks, whites or Mexicans. Notwithstanding the fact that many Freedmen speak NA languages and practice NA cultural mores (i.e. the burr rabbit tales).
NA frequently complain rightfully about broken treaties like the battle between the Lakota and the US regarding the Black Hills. Here the Cherokee have broken their treaty. So, isn’t it the US government’s obligation to ignore the treaty’s terms since the Cherokees did?
I suggest all of you read this comment over at John Cornsilk’s site. It does a good job clarifying some of the history issues related to this vote. Cornsilk has followed this very closely and has been an activist on the Freedmen issue for years.
Brian writes:
No, it really isn’t ridiculous. There’s money to be made if one is a member of a recognized tribe, and if you follow the money and the sudden growth in claims to tribal membership, it’s obvious (even though correlation does not imply causation …) that the sole reason for claiming membership, or even claiming to be a tribe because there is a bit of that going on as well, is casino dollars.
I know people who are less NA than I am (1/32nd — Cherokee Princess great-great-great grandmother :D ) who are very involved in the tribal politics of running a highly profitable casino. Now, the person I’m thinking of in particular is very honorable about the entire affair and has very communal values, but that’s him and he’s not everyone who’s out to get a piece of the pie.
My personal taken on such things is that if someone were Cherokee “for real” the issue of the Freedmen roll wouldn’t be a problem — they’d be able to identify Cherokee ancestry before or after Dawes, and my personal opinion is that such a person should be accepted by the Cherokee Nation as a member. But that’s just me. If you follow Rachel’s advice and read John Cornsilk’s website, you’d see that there are Freedmen who are also Cherokee.
Pheeno, I like your solution also.
One of the solutions to the not-Jewish-enough conundrum is to have those who want to be considered fully engaged adult Jews in their community to be lead through conversion, which includes the processes and experiences you’ve listed, give or take.
You may appreciate the tradition in the Jewish community of not taking a potential converter seriously until their third request for assistance in conversion.The point being Jewish life isn’t all potato pancakes and chocolate coins, as I imagine Cherokee life isn’t all bread and roses, either.
But conversion isn’t unique to Judaism. To become a citizen of a nation, or a member of most religions requires an initiation period of some length.
Meanwhile…
Can someone help me with this? The official announcement on the Cherokee Nation web site stated: “The vote was to exclude both “Intermarried White” and “Freedmen”.”
Doesn’t that imply that only full blooded Cherokee, or Cherokee who already have some other blood mix, are to be considered Cherokee from now on? What I’m saying is, doesn’t that exclude, as above both “whites” married to Cherokee and “blacks” who were the slave property of Cherokee?
And what about other Native Nations that were held as slaves by the Cherokee?
The only reason the Cherokee disenfranchised the Freedmen was because they’re black. This whole argument about wannabees is ridicoulous.
I’d like to point out in support that the discrimination against blacks in NA communities isn’t limited to well-to-do tribes. My family is from a small town in NC where there is a substantial Halawa(-Saponi) presence and they’re just as discriminatory towards blacks (regardless of how much NA blood they might have) as the Cherokee. And it’s not some unintended consequence of being forced into protecting their poor resources from the hordes of white wannabes with visions of casino dollars in their heads.
I am glad that John Cornsilk wrote so unabashedly about the link between NA culture and white Southern “heritage.”
Eva writes:
There were three different lists made — “Cherokee”, “Freedmen” and “Intermarried White”. What the vote says is that you must have an ancestor on the “Cherokee” roll in order to be a member of the tribe.