Cherokee Nation Ejects Slave Descendants

Cherokee Nation Ejects Slave Descendants

Source Link: news.bbc.co.uk

Members of the Cherokee Nation of native Americans have voted to revoke tribal citizenship for descendants of black slaves the Cherokees once owned.

A total of 76.6% voted to amend the tribal constitution to limit citizenship to "blood" tribe members.

Supporters said only the Cherokees had the right to determine tribal members.

(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?’

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.

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.

Originally posted by snafu7700
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?

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.

Originally posted by snafu7700
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?

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 .

Originally posted by shots

Cherokee Nation Ejects Slave Descendants

Source Link: news.bbc.co.uk

Members of the Cherokee Nation of native Americans have voted to revoke tribal citizenship for descendants of black slaves the Cherokees once owned.

A total of 76.6% voted to amend the tribal constitution to limit citizenship to "blood" tribe members.

Supporters said only the Cherokees had the right to determine tribal members.

(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 3/4/2007 by shots]

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]

Originally posted by snafu7700
i'm only one sixteenth cherokee, does that mean i'm also worthless in their eyes?

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.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
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]

Originally posted by dAlen
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.

They are going by the census of 1906 :

Officially, the election will ask voters whether to amend the Cherokee Nation Constitution. Overriding the 1866 treaty, it would limit citizenship to those who can trace their heritage to “Cherokee by blood” rolls, part of a census known as the Dawes Rolls of 1906. The Freedmen would automatically be denied citizenship because the Dawes Rolls, a census commissioned by Congress to distribute land to tribal members, put the Freedmen on a separate roll that made no mention of Indian blood.

nytimes

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

Originally posted by shots
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 ....

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.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
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 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.

Originally posted by shots
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]

Originally posted by FlyersFan


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.

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?

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.

Good Grief, the debate still continues to this day?

If that isn't racism it's certainly a manifestation of a racial inferiority complex. I mean after all it WAS the white man that all but annihilated the natives.

So basically a white person thats 1/8th Cherokee is a tribal member but a black person thats HALF Cherokee is not? And to this day they are still "iffy" on whether to allow Cherokee with black blood into the tribe? Wow.

Listen my grandmother was half-Cherokee but I never claimed to be Native, yet I'd always be surprised to see those blond-haired blue-eyed individuals dressed up in Native gear and claiming to be one. Even if the blood link went back generations. Not only that, they were readily accepted into the group.

This article reminds me of something I heard during a debate regarding the Muslim mosques and racial acceptance. One member of the church, a young Muslim guy said something to the effect of: "We are accepting of other races and no one goes out of their way to point out the differences, however usually when a black joins they are allowed to work in the daycare areas...etc...but when a white man joins it's as if the church wants to make him the next Imam!" It was funny but a little sad too.

I'd noticed this before but I was surprised that a Muslim actually said it themselves.

I say the black Cherokee decedents, whose relatives were actually SLAVES of the Cherokee deserve as much as anyone else to have a place in the tribe.

Give me a break.



[edit on 5-3-2007 by lee anoma]

Originally posted by lee anoma

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.

Good Grief, the debate still continues to this day?

If that isn't racism it's certainly a manifestation of a racial inferiority complex. I mean after all it WAS the white man that all but annihilated the natives.

So basically a white person thats 1/8th Cherokee is a tribal member but a black person thats HALF Cherokee is not? And to this day they are still "iffy" on whether to allow Cherokee with black blood into the tribe? Wow.

Listen my grandmother was half-Cherokee but I never claimed to be Native, yet I'd always be surprised to see those blond-haired blue-eyed individuals dressed up in Native gear and claiming to be one. Even if the blood link went back generations. Not only that, they were readily accepted into the group.

This article reminds me of something I heard during a debate regarding the Muslim mosques and racial acceptance. One member of the church, a young Muslim guy said something to the effect of: "We are accepting of other races and no one goes out of their way to point out the differences, however usually when a black joins they are allowed to work in the daycare areas...etc...but when a white man joins it's as if the church wants to make him the next Imam!" It was funny but a little sad too.

I'd noticed this before but I was surprised that a Muslim actually said it themselves.

I say the black Cherokee decedents, whose relatives were actually SLAVES of the Cherokee deserve as much as anyone else to have a place in the tribe.

Give me a break.

[Quote]I agree with you and many of those black descendents could have more Cherokee blood in them than many white native descendents. By using the 'Dawes Rolls' they are discriminating against black descendents whom some even have a full-blood Cherokee grandfather, which is why I think it's ridiculous to go by an 1866 treaty.[edit on 5-3-2007 by lee anoma]