Cherokee Nation Ejects Slave Descendants

Cherokee Nation Ejects Slave Descendants

Source Link: news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 3/4/2007 by shots]

Here's a link to a NYT article--you may be required to sign up to read this article.
It more fully explains this bizarre turn of events.
It should be noted that this battle is far from over.

Putting to a Vote the Question ‘Who Is Cherokee?’



Another Indian nation--the Seminoles--waged a similar battle against the Seminole Freedmen.
en.wikipedia.org...

Further background
en.wikipedia.org...

just goes to show you....racism isnt a white's only club. i'm only one sixteenth cherokee, does that mean i'm also worthless in their eyes?

Thanks for the added sources and articles DTOM interesting reading for sure.

Question, Do you get a portion of their casino revenues? I doubt it and that is what this is all about. A select few want to lower the tribes numbers which will increase their income, while throwing out those that were enslaved by their forefathers.

dont know....i've never been impressed enough with any of the tribes to even bother with tracking down my official line and submitting it. i simply dont care. in fact, i'm ahelluva lot prouder of my scottish roots than my native american ones.

Explain how thats racist? They where slaves, they are not Cherokee? .. I fully support the decision.

Actually, there are those descendents of the slaves who married into the Cherokee nation. So, they are some percentage Cherokee.

It's not a cut and dried decision, imho.
Read the NYT article
Putting to a Vote the Question ‘Who Is Cherokee?’

[edit on 4-3-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

Ugh..boyoboy, some more stink.

Certainly there is more to the story than just what we are reading, maybe the gov. threatened to cut off monies because of a growing population and they had no other course to survive? I mean, just by itself, it looks like real bad governance...

Ok, its their tribe... whatever they decide goes.... I wont be surprised if many mixed whites end up being kicked out of the tribe as well. There are many white americans, probably all of you whose families have been here for over a century or so, who are mixed with indian tribes. Hell, I have several fmily members names on the dawes rolls each belonging to different tribes, but im not about to go join a tribe.

The indians werent just slaughtered, although a greaty many were, there were, as bad as this sounds, breeded out. I guess if they wanted to be absolutely sure they should have DNA tests to find out, but Id bet they find agreat deal of people with some sort of native american ancestry. Im willing to bet if your ancestry is scotch/irish,english, or any of the other early groups, you probably have some indian in there somewhere. Maybe even black .

Your post says "ejects slave descendants"

Yet in the bbc link you provide it says limit to "blood tribe members".

Now let me ask...is descendant not someone that comes though a blood line?
If so, then they are not seeking to eject 'descendants', and your article backs up what Im saying.

And again, what is the need or desire for non-blood members to claim to be Indian?

"Im afro-american-cherokee-jew" how long of a list does someone need...seriously!

My ATS blog about 'confessions of a racist'

let me try this out for fun (titles, etc. that mean nothing)

Im American-Indian-Irish-British-Norwegian-Hungarian (Well Im not Hungarian, but I live with them, so like these people, I will claim it. )

All Americans are mixed mud...I know a blonde head, blue eyed 'blood' Indian...
Come on guys, those that are complaining about this...this is enough, I grew up hearing this type of talk...and it just creates further division and self pitty.
(See my blog link above to article dealing with this)

[edit on 5-3-2007 by dAlen]

It has to do with tribal membership .. not being 'worthless' or not.
This is about money allotments. The slaves weren't tribal members.
The tribe has a right to decide who is Cherokee and who isn't. The people
they deemed 'non Cherokee' were just that .. non Cherokee ... and the
tribe has a right to state that.

I disagree. That is like the US Government saying all African Americans cannot be citizens even after they know darn well it was Americans who brought them here and bought and sold them to start with. Sure it may have been the Brits, French whoever, but the premise still stands.

Keep in mind many of those slave descendants may have been white children who were kidnapped or perhaps bought by chiefs who wanted white squaws.

No one can deny that many of those slaves fathered children for other tribe members and that alone makes them legal descendants


[edit on 3/5/2007 by shots]

They are going by the census of 1906 :

nytimes

It's using this arbitrary line that is causing this uproar.

Not at all. It's a matter of blood. To be a card carrying member of a tribe in the USA, most require that you be at least 1/4 of that bloodline and that you can prove it.

If you wish to disagree, so be it.

I still say that the tribes can decide who is Cherokee and who isn't. Obviously those who aren't Cherokee, but are claiming to be, just want the free money and grants from the government. It's not a tribal pride thing .. it's a free money thing.

I have a rather mixed opinion on this. But, after some thought, all that I can say is that tribal membership is certainly something that the tribe should decide for itself. In the past, tribal membership was often determined by the government. That doesn't make any sense as how can the government make rulings upon a culture or society? At least this decision was made by the tribe itself.

I happen to be Lithuanian/American (living in Canada). When Lithuania finally broke free from the seventy years of Soviet occupation, one of the first things that the Lithuanians did was to deny citizenship to Russians who may have been born and raised in Lithuania. After all, the Russians were not Lithuanian. They did not speak Lithuanian or share in the rich culture of Lithuania. It may smack of racism but, nevertheless, it is understandable.

Now, in Lithuania and the other Baltic states, it is necessary for non-Balts to speak the language to have any right to remain in Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia. In Lithuania, it is necessary to actually be Lithuanian to be a citizen! I imagine that this example can be applied to the membership of the tribes in question. It only makes sense that the tribe itself can determine membership. While this might not seem "fair" to others (especially to non-natives), this is a viable response to maintaining the integrity of this tribes' culture, heritage and lineage/bloodline especially after being tainted by years of integration -- something that would have never occured had not the white man interfered in the affairs of the native-americans.

I agree it is a money thing and you can take the table and turn it around and look at it from the other side. What the Cherokees are doing is reducing their numbers so they can make more money from casino profits. See it goes both ways.

Sure. Absolutely.

The thing is that the money is for the tribal indians. There are other avenues that the non-indians can use to get money if they need it.

The other thing is that the tribes should have absolute right to decide who is an indian and who isn't. For instance - a black man (or a white woman or whoever) living miles and miles away, who have no tribal connections, is NOT an indian. They are just trying to get free money.

edited once to fix sentence

[edit on 3/5/2007 by FlyersFan]

But in this case they are indians/native Americans they have cherokee blood in them, something you cannot remove can you?

What about those members that were kidnaped from other indian nations, are they no longer cherokee?