NAFPS Forum

Odds and Ends => Etcetera => Topic started by: Don Naconna on January 13, 2010, 01:30:30 am

Title: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 13, 2010, 01:30:30 am
The fact is that that black people who have the right to enroll have systematically been denied enrollment, while people with little or no blood who are in fact white have been enrolled. It is a historical fact, tribes who practiced racial slavery continued to practice racial discrimination after the civil war and that mean keeping people who were blood Indians with black mixture out of tribes. Racial discrimination is not the sole preserve of white people. The CNO for example has no relies soley on the Dawes Rolls, and everyone knows that Dawes was a pro white racist and a supporter of the majority white Cherokee leadership.
I have Cherokee blood, but do not claim to be an Indian, because I am not an American and frankly have no connection with Americans Indian, black or white. I am an an anti racist activist and a Canadian. That means that I am opposed to racism from Indians, white and black people.
Title: Re: Jerry Monroe & the Binay "Tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf on January 13, 2010, 01:52:57 am
Quote
The fact is that that black people who have the right to enroll have systematically been denied enrollment, while people with little or no blood who are in fact white have been enrolled. It is a historical fact, tribes who practiced racial slavery continued to practice racial discrimination after the civil war and that mean keeping people who were blood Indians with black mixture out of tribes. Racial discrimination is not the sole preserve of white people. The CNO for example has no relies soley on the Dawes Rolls, and everyone knows that Dawes was a pro white racist and a supporter of the majority white Cherokee leadership.
I have Cherokee blood, but do not claim to be an Indian, because I am not an American and frankly have no connection with Americans Indian, black or white. I am an an anti racist activist and a Canadian. That means that I am opposed to racism from Indians, white and black people.

I'm assuming your talking about the Cherokee Nation.  There's no evidence that Freedmen who were also Cherokee by blood were systamatically NOT put on the by blood rolls.  What evidence do you have of this?  I'd like to see it?  There is no evidence of this.  There are over 1500 Cherokee citizens who are also listed on the Freedmen rolls.  If it did happen, it was the exception to the rule.   



Also, about the Dawes Roll
Title: Re: Jerry Monroe & the Binay "Tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf on January 13, 2010, 02:10:31 am
Quote
The fact is that that black people who have the right to enroll have systematically been denied enrollment, while people with little or no blood who are in fact white have been enrolled.

There's no evidence of this either.  This is a Cherry picking fallacy Don. As a matter of fact, why do you think so many people who applied to Dawes were denied??  Because a lot of them were white folks trying to pass for being Mixed blood Cherokees so they can get allotments. Thats why.   Over 250,000 applied to Dawes and only about 100,000 were accepted.  These were probably some of the first wannabees and exploiters.  The Cherokees are one of the most documented people on earth.  Even if officals were bribed, to put someone on with no blood,  it would have been hard to get on the by blood rolls without evidence.  If this did happen, it was extremely rare.  What evidence do you have of this????  that whites got on the by blood rolls? There's no evidence of this.  The Dawes Rolls were extremely accurate in regards to who did and did not have Cherokee blood.  Cherokee familes have been documented since the 1600's.   

Why do you keep bringing up the BQ issue??  Your either Cherokee by blood or your not.  You seem to advocate for the black freedmen "No blood quantums", while always bashing the mixed blood low BQ Cherokees of white ancestry.  I have never heard you bash the Cherokee citizens of predominaly black ancestry.  You seem to be quite the hypocrite Don.


After reading many of your post, I'm starting to get the sense and feeling that far from being the anti racist you always claim to be, your in fact a racist againts whites and mixed blood Cherokees of white ancestry.  Thats just my opinion!  am I wrong?

The entire Dawes Roll is public record.  Show me some evidence about the freedmen, and the so called whites with no Cherokee blood getting on the Dawes. Show me the evidence Don.  Put up or shut up. And if you show me some evidence that can convince me, then I'll shut up.   

Title: Re: Jerry Monroe & the Binay "Tribe"
Post by: bls926 on January 13, 2010, 06:21:28 am
And the 2007 election that took Cherokee citizenship away from the Freedmen also took citizenship away from whites. Plain and simple . . . You have to have an ancestor on the Dawes Roll, listed as Cherokee by Blood. No Cherokee blood = not a citizen. Doesn't matter if you're black or white.
Title: Re: Jerry Monroe & the Binay "Tribe"
Post by: Don Naconna on January 13, 2010, 02:17:51 pm
Why can a white person with 1/264 Cherokee blood be enrolled and a black person with 1/16 blood cannot, as is the case with many freedmen. Why can't you admit that Indians are just as racist as any other Americans? I am not an American and have no desire to be identified as anything other than a Canadian, but I do have problems with any people who are in denial. Slavery, Jim Crow even apartheid were part of the history of the 5 tribes, why are you all in such denial. When racism is part of your history and you deny it you will never overcome it. As I have said before, I remember the civil rights movement fighting segregation in the CNO in the 60's, so be honest, no different than Selma and the Birmingham Alabama.
Title: Re: Jerry Monroe & the Binay "Tribe"
Post by: Rattlebone on January 13, 2010, 07:28:06 pm
Why can a white person with 1/264 Cherokee blood be enrolled and a black person with 1/16 blood cannot, as is the case with many freedmen.

 Do you have one shred of proof this is true?

I have to agree with Blackwolf about you. I do believe you are an advocate of blacks with no Indian blood staying on the rolls, and though claiming to be non racist; you are racist against mixed bloods with white blood and not against mixed bloods with mostly African blood since you say nothing about them.

 In several threads in which this topic has came up, I have questioned you about disenrollments going on in other tribes, and much much more.

 On each and every occasion, you ignore my questions and give no answers.

 Maybe this is because in all due fairness, you know if you answer them it will hurt your arguments in favor of the Freedmen.
Title: Re: Jerry Monroe & the Binay "Tribe"
Post by: Don Naconna on January 13, 2010, 08:57:04 pm
As I have said before, I have no dog in this fight. I am not an advocate for anyone, I do not identify with any race or ethnicity, that must be very puzzling to ethnocentric people. My ethnicity in trircial and my loyalties are to NO race or ethnicity, merely my country, Canada. If I had any pro black prejudice why would I spend so much time and energy exposing black frauds and phonies.  I have also stated that I believe in justice and truth. I believe that the action taken by the CNO were unjust and wrong, as well as being a violation of the 1866 treaty. I have known freedmen who like Marilyn Vann can document her blood quantum and she was summarily disenrolled.
The Cherokee held slaves based on race, is that not correct. They fought for the slave owning confederacy and still many support the confederacy, so called "flaggers". They practiced racial apartheid after slavery. Black Cherokee had to live in black towns and even after 1954 schools were still segregated in violation of the federal law. Public accomodations in the CNO were denied to black Cherokee, freedmen and all black people who came to the reservation. That was not segregation by the state government, that was CNO law. If you check you will find that the NAACP was involved in desegregation during the 50's an 60's in the CNO.
What seems to confuse people is that at the end the civil war the Reconstruction was establised to bring the former slaves to full citizenship. Indian slave holding nations signed treaties which conformed to the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. That meant conferring full tribal franchise to former slaves. Those black people regardless of status or blood quantum were given second class citizenship in the CNO which was removed in 06. That violated the 1866 Treaty and woul be no different than if the state of Georgia revoked the 14th and 15th amnedments, taking away black citizens citizenship and franchise. NO DIFFERENT.
I have heard this nonsense about Indian masters being kinder than whites, please if you take someone's liberty and labour, the ethnicity of the enslaver in not relevant. What aboout the 1842 Cherokee Slave Revolt and the brutal repression that followed. Slavery in the US after 1800 was entirely racially based, an it was in the 5 Nations. The reality is that if you great grandparents were eracists, then they taught you grandparents to hate the dsecendants of slaves, and the next generation. Racism is not genetic but like religion is taught. Why are folks in denial! It appears that many people have a convenient view of history that makes all their ancestors saints and all others devils.
Now that the 32 million black Americans have significant political power they are determine to use that power to right the wrongs of the past and restore what is rightfully theirs.  Will the CNO survive I doubt it this may establish a whole new paradigm.
Question if you believe that Indians should be compensated for the loss of lands. should black people not be comnpensated for their ancestor's labour? Justice is cannot abe a double standard, can it...
Title: Re: Jerry Monroe & the Binay "Tribe"
Post by: Rattlebone on January 13, 2010, 10:00:40 pm

Question if you believe that Indians should be compensated for the loss of lands. should black people not be comnpensated for their ancestor's labour? Justice is cannot abe a double standard, can it...

  The US government honoring treaties that promised they would do certain things in exchange for the loss of land is not compensation in the same way as giving reparations to blacks.

 The vast majority of reservations both then and now were put on places in which you could not farm, or most other things to survive or make a living on. The government and the Indian nations put on those lands knew it then, and they know it now.

 To leave those lands as bad as they may be to this very day, for the most part means acculturation and assimilation into the mainstream American society. To me that means extinction of an entire people.

 In my eyes those things that government does in honoring those treaties, though they do it very badly; are one of the few things preventing extinction today.

 So I really don't see a comparison between reparations to black people alive today over slavery back then in the same light as I do upholding treaties provisions that provide things that can not be obtained on tribal land because to this very day, many are on lands that a barely livable.

 The United States government has never ever gave any sort of reparations to the Black man, and yet it's congress and the CBC within it believe that the Indian should do what the white man never has???

  Now don't get me wrong here, I am not in favor of disenrolling the Freedmen. If the Cherokee Nation wants to be seen as Nation, and not just some domestic dependent; it is probably better of them to honor the 1866 treaty which gives the Freedmen citizenship.

 By definition, a treaty is a signed agreement between two sovereign nations. So in that regards the CNO as a Sovereign power should uphold the treaty with another nation, even if that nation is as guilty as sin of breaking treaties. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 However I do notice you saying how the tribes here are not really true nations etc etc, and yet you do constantly bring up the treaty of 1866.

 Considering how the definition of a treaty is a signed agreement between two sovereign powers, that still makes you a hypocrite for wanting a treaty honored by a group of people who you say are not really a nation.

  You claim to be not be for any group, and yet you still ignore my questions in regards to the CBC and the dis enrollments of NDN's all over the US. If you, like the CBC, has nothing to say in regards to that issue while harping on this Freedmen issue; then I still think Blackwolf's notion that you just might be racist might still be true.

 I have yet to ever seen you speak on other tribal disenrollments, just like I have never seen anyone from the CBC speak on it. Ironically, unlike you, the champion of putting the crackdown on the CNO has tribes in her own state guilty of dis enrollments; yet she has never made a issue out of that as far as I know.
Title: Re: Jerry Monroe & the Binay "Tribe"
Post by: Don Naconna on January 13, 2010, 11:40:45 pm

I do not believe that there are any truly sovereign nations within the borders of the US. Also the federal government does have the power to simply remove recognition just as it has denied recognition to many legitimate tribes in the past.
Would you agree that unless a "nation" has complete control of all activities within its boundaries it is not truly sovereign. The US has no power over the governing of my country, except economic pressure, nor does Britain, France or Russia. Canada is sovereign, we are an independent nation, does any Indian nation have that sovereignty. No, you are all Americans  and American and state citizens. Indian sovereignty comes from the federal government and it can be taken away by the federal government. You cannot renounce your citizenship and still live in the US without a green card. I know I was born in the states and lived there on a green card because I gave up my US citizenship when I became naturalised here.
The fact that Indians are such a small part of the population, and that the vast majority of Americans are not bound by the guilt of the 18th and 19th centuries. Their ancestors came through Ellis Island, not on the Mayflower. It would be politically naive to suggest that the relationship between tribes and the federal government will continue. Most voters, black, white and Latino don't believe that they have an obligation to less than 2% of the population. The same is true here, there are more people who were born outside of Canada than the entire aboriginal, Metis and Inuit population.
Black voters have made their feelings quite clear through the CBC, they are tired of seeing Indians with as they see it special rights and its their taxes that pay for those priviledges. And as they see it the CNO uses federal money to practice racial discrimination in violation of federal law and treaties. If the tea baggers, white right wingers, are any indication of public opinion, tax dollars to special interest groups including Indians will end sooner rather than later.
As to the comment about me being a racist, that is pure nonsense. Some folks use that word to describe anyone who has a different opinion than you. My wife is French Canadian and Wendake (Lorretteville, Quebec) , my family is so racially mixed that none are identifiable as any race other than mixed. We speak 2 languages in our home and I have been active in the human rights movement for over 40 years. However people who cannot recognise that not everyone in their race or ethnicity is not a racist and have not enslaved people an been racially prejudiced in the present, is a racial chauvinist. If you believe that all things that Inians have done were good and all things than non Indians do is bad who is the racist? I don't and never have been a racist racially prejudcied or a national or racial chauvinist. I have the same problems in black groups where folks believe that everyone who has any black blood has to hate whites, which is basically the same they call me a racist when I criticise black folks. Bferoe I use a word as loaded as racism you should really read Webster Dictionary definition.

What will tribes do, how many can continue to exist without federal funds? Simple rule in democracies the majority rules and the majority are not Indian. The same was true when black people were denied political power, but now they have it.
Title: Re: Jerry Monroe & the Binay "Tribe"
Post by: critter - a white non-ndn person on January 14, 2010, 01:16:33 am
I could be really wrong here, but from what I understood and observed of the Menominee are truly sovereign. And I suspect others are as well.  They have their own laws, courts. 

As for compensation to blacks, I think that's entirely different than the treaty issue.  And I don't agree with it, with compensation.  Might as well compensate women too then, for the time when the general mindset was that women were 'property'.   

I don't know why always going on about the racists things people did or didn't do.  I don't know what point is trying to be made here.  I don't recall ever reading anywhere on here that someone thinks all things that ndn's have done were good.. obviously the ndn's who're now making money on selling culture are not doing something good.. 

I just don't understand why you're always writing on the *same* subject.  People have been racist, and some are still racist, and probably some future people will be racist too.  Not sure what is supposed to be done about it here?  Or what the point is?  That it is brought up again and again?  I personally have no clue why.. what you are trying to get, or wanting out of it.  But apparently it's important to you.. so..  never mind my interruption..

butting out now.. I just wanted to mention what I personally observed of Menominee.. and that they are sovereign. 
Title: Re: Jerry Monroe & the Binay "Tribe"
Post by: Don Naconna on January 14, 2010, 01:44:23 am
As far as reparations I am not an American and its not my taxes. But if you don't see that enslaving people, stealing them from their homeland,forcing them to work without pay for generations, raping their women and then after they were "liberated" forcing them to live in a Jim Crow world is not tantamount to losing the land. That's a double standard!
I didn't support reparations when I lived in the states because I understand economics and social dynamics. It would be a physical impossibility to pay reparations without bankrupting the national economy. It would be an entirely unworkable situation and would alienate the millions of Americans who did not benefit from slavery. The lowest estimate I've seen was over 100 trillion dollars.
I really doubt that the current status quo will continue for just those reasons, population and lack of political and economic power. Every large ethnic group has political power base on their numbers, except Indians. There is a Hispanic Caucas and a black caucas in congress and they represent their ethnic groups interests, who represents Indians? To go into this century expecting that evut racerything would continue is simply unrealistic.
And no many people, in fact most people where I live and even in the US are not racists. A small and vocal minority are, however. To say that people will always be racist is simply wrong. Just as you learn to be a racist, education destroys the ignorance that allows racism to fester. If people cannot change how did segregation end, PEOPLE CHANGED! They had more education and more contact with other people and races making them see that their stereotypes were rooted in lies and prejudice. I went to integrated schools, grew up with kids of all races, learned 2 languages before I graduated from high school, married interracially and raise 2 kids without race, because I was never isolated. Prejudice grows in isolation and is fed by ignorance of others.
Title: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 14, 2010, 05:18:01 am

I do not believe that there are any truly sovereign nations within the borders of the US. Also the federal government does have the power to simply remove recognition just as it has denied recognition to many legitimate tribes in the past.
Would you agree that unless a "nation" has complete control of all activities within its boundaries it is not truly sovereign. The US has no power over the governing of my country, except economic pressure, nor does Britain, France or Russia. Canada is sovereign, we are an independent nation, does any Indian nation have that sovereignty. No, you are all Americans  and American and state citizens. Indian sovereignty comes from the federal government and it can be taken away by the federal government. You cannot renounce your citizenship and still live in the US without a green card. I know I was born in the states and lived there on a green card because I gave up my US citizenship when I became naturalised here.
The fact that Indians are such a small part of the population, and that the vast majority of Americans are not bound by the guilt of the 18th and 19th centuries. Their ancestors came through Ellis Island, not on the Mayflower. It would be politically naive to suggest that the relationship between tribes and the federal government will continue. Most voters, black, white and Latino don't believe that they have an obligation to less than 2% of the population. The same is true here, there are more people who were born outside of Canada than the entire aboriginal, Metis and Inuit population.
Black voters have made their feelings quite clear through the CBC, they are tired of seeing Indians with as they see it special rights and its their taxes that pay for those priviledges. And as they see it the CNO uses federal money to practice racial discrimination in violation of federal law and treaties. If the tea baggers, white right wingers, are any indication of public opinion, tax dollars to special interest groups including Indians will end sooner rather than later.
As to the comment about me being a racist, that is pure nonsense. Some folks use that word to describe anyone who has a different opinion than you. My wife is French Canadian and Wendake (Lorretteville, Quebec) , my family is so racially mixed that none are identifiable as any race other than mixed. We speak 2 languages in our home and I have been active in the human rights movement for over 40 years. However people who cannot recognise that not everyone in their race or ethnicity is not a racist and have not enslaved people an been racially prejudiced in the present, is a racial chauvinist. If you believe that all things that Inians have done were good and all things than non Indians do is bad who is the racist? I don't and never have been a racist racially prejudcied or a national or racial chauvinist. I have the same problems in black groups where folks believe that everyone who has any black blood has to hate whites, which is basically the same they call me a racist when I criticise black folks. Bferoe I use a word as loaded as racism you should really read Webster Dictionary definition.

What will tribes do, how many can continue to exist without federal funds? Simple rule in democracies the majority rules and the majority are not Indian. The same was true when black people were denied political power, but now they have it.


Quote
I do not believe that there are any truly sovereign nations within the borders of the US.

 Then that makes you a hypocrite because you continue to cite the 1866 treaty, and a treaty is a signed agreement between two sovereign nations.

 Of course in reality, the tribes today are domestic dependents. This does not mean they are not sovereign or true nations. Domestic dependent is sorta like being a child, you are your own person but have a parent overseeing some of what you do. Hence the word "dependent" within the phrase.

 This is no to say however that the tribes could not totally manage themselves without the US government stepping in. At this time my tribe is 98% independent of the US government, and so we need very little from them.

Quote
Also the federal government does have the power to simply remove recognition just as it has denied recognition to many legitimate tribes in the past.

 The United States can send troops into Canada if it wanted, just as it has Iraq and other places and do so with just about the same ease.

 Sure the United States can eliminate a tribal government with the stroke of a pen, but would that action be any more just or unjust as in an outright invasion of another country?

 It would surely be subject to damnation by other nations and the UN just the same.

 Of course in regards to you bringing up plenary power of the US government over the tribes, that is just you trying to further reach a way to argue in favor of the freedmen by expressing the power of the United States.

  It's almost as if you are bragging about the US and it's ability to commit such an injustice since you do not believe in the power of the tribes to exercise their sovereignty. You almost sound like a far  right winger when you say things like this.

Quote
Would you agree that unless a "nation" has complete control of all activities within its boundaries it is not truly sovereign.

 Actually, I would not agree.

 The concept of a nation state with an ethnic group all nice and tightly fit within a specific border is a European notion.

 Though the United States does not have one specific ethnic group within it's borders, the idea in which you are pushing here is still a very European minded notion. There are many nations in places like Asia in which there might be a central government recognized by other nations and the UN, there are still tribal nations and groups  within those borders. They do in fact exercise a large degree of autonomy and self rule. If other nations across the world have existed like this, and still are; then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that it can not be done in Canada and the United States.

 Furthermore, long before the coming of the European the nations here did have our territories, and I see no difference in them and the territories held by nations today.

 However many tribes had areas that were neutral and shared by more then one nation. So again your notion of a nation can not exist within a nation is still a false one of European mindset.

Quote
The US has no power over the governing of my country, except economic pressure, nor does Britain, France or Russia.

 At any time with some international incident, as I said earlier, the United States could very much put more then just economic pressure on your nation of Canada. Even just economic pressure can be hard on a country. Just look at the devastation caused on countries like Cuba that have suffered decades of embargo.

Quote
does any Indian nation have that sovereignty.

 Again, your ideas about sovereignty are European in nature. Furthermore nations like Iran have full sovereignty, and yet the United States believes it has the right to tell them if they can posses nuclear weapons or not. The only difference between Iran and an Indian nation is the size of the land mass, the population, and the presence of a military.

 These are just degrees in sovereignty, and you are just using them in ways to argue that the sovereignty of tribal nations does not exist, when in fact they do.

Quote
No, you are all Americans  and American and state citizens.

I know Canadians with dual Canadian and American citizenship. That of course makes this aspect of your argument invalid.

 As member of domestic dependent nations, we are full members of both our tribal nations and the United States.

Quote
Indian sovereignty comes from the federal government and it can be taken away by the federal government.


 Completely and totally wrong!!

 The tribes posses what's called inherent sovereignty, which by definition means having always been sovereign This is no different then any other nation that has always been sovereign.

 So the federal government can not give what a nation has always had. Now since the tribes have been invaded and now are administered as domestic dependents, and that is not unlike if the US invaded another country and occupied it indefinitely while still allowing that particular nation some degree of autonomy.

Quote
The fact that Indians are such a small part of the population, and that the vast majority of Americans are not bound by the guilt of the 18th and 19th centuries. Their ancestors came through Ellis Island, not on the Mayflower.  

 Well with that argument in mind, then that would mean that the majority of Americans owe black people nothing for slavery.

 That is unless you chose to continue to be a hypocrite and think that Indians should be paying for things you now are here claiming the vast majority of Americans are not responsible for.


Quote
Most voters, black, white and Latino don't believe that they have an obligation to less than 2% of the population.

 Again, another fallacy on your part with this argument.

 The vast majority of voters used to be in support of segregation and other Jim Crowe laws, but did that mean they were just in supporting that???

 Do you believe that the majority of people do not need to own up to obligations their country gave to anther group of people when it committed genocide upon them and took their land and resources?

Quote
Black voters have made their feelings quite clear through the CBC

 In actuality, most black voters are not even aware of this issue. Those that have heard it are just as misinformed and wrong about it as you are.

 You can't claim the Cherokee Nation is racist over the Freedmen issue when it has open enrollment and more people of black majority blood then it has people who are full blooded Cherokee. These blacks Cherokee in tribe are in no danger of losing citizenship whatsoever.

What we have here is Diane Watson and others in the CBC being hypocritical for getting involved in this issue, when Watson has tribes in her own back yard that are guilty of disenrolling members, and yet she says not a word.

 To me that is Racism.

Quote
they are tired of seeing Indians with as they see it special rights and its their taxes that pay for those privileges.

  How do you know this, have you spoken to every black person in the United States about this issue? Most blacks in the United States that I have ever talked to, have been very supportive of Native Americans since our histories are similar.

 The Freedmen issue might cause a stir in some that hear about it, but when it is pointed out that there are thousands of black Cherokee in the nation in no danger of losing citizenship.

 YOU yourself continues to point out how you do not think the tribes are actual nations.

 If what you say is true, then what are tribal governments then? I would assume then that going by your logic they are entities of the Federal Government created to be social services for those with Indian ancestry.

 It that is true, then going by your argument; Indian tribes are social services reserved for Indians and therefor not intended for people without a certain ancestry. If blacks need social services, or reparations for having slaves as ancestors, then those should be taken care of by the federal government with things such as social security, welfare etc....just like any other American in this country.

Quote
they see it special rights

 If anyone see's what is the US government upholding treaty stipulations as special rights, then they are surely ignorant and need an education.

Furthermore, if these black people you claim are tired of seeing Indians get so called special rights, then by all means why are we even having this argument when the same one would fall against blacks and what has happened to them.

 In that regards, nobody owes blacks in this country a single penny.

Quote
What will tribes do, how many can continue to exist without federal funds?

 You need to educate yourself about tribes in the United States, and not argue based on stereotypes. There are many tribes today that receive very little from the federal government, and do not need much from them.

 If it were not for the federal government making sure the tribes that are dependent on them remain that way, the vast majority would have needed next to nothing from them as well.

[Al's note: Split thread, retitled it, and moved it to Etc.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 14, 2010, 06:25:31 pm
It appears that once again people seem to have a rather distorted view of the historical context of these documents. Remember the Cherokee fought for the defeated confederacy. In fact the Cherokee Braves commited atrocities against the freedmen at Cabin Creek after the treaty at Appomattox. I am not a racist but I can tell you that many people in the CNO ARE! People who owned slaves were racists slavery in the US was based on race entirely after 1783. But further people who segregated black people after slavery were racists and people who excluded blacks from citizenship because of race are racists. I can tell you that many freedmen have more than 25% blood quantum and were still excluded. As to the issue of Diane Watson and disenrolled California Indians, that is as far as I know in the courts.

Treaty of 1866 is the equivalent of the 14th and 15th amendments, and this treaty was abrogated by the CNO. The Dawes list didn't exist in 1866. So to apply the Dawes list as the sole source for citizenship is in fact in violation of the treaty signed by the CNO in1866. While some may argue that the 06 decision was motivated by anything other than race is simply absurd.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13th Amendment
Slavery was an institution in America in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Southern states, with their agricultural economies, relied on the slavery system to ensure the cash crops (cotton, hemp, rice, indigo, and tobacco, primarily) were tended and cultivated. Slaves were not unknown in the North, but abolition in the North was completed by the 1830's. In 1808, the Congress prohibited the slave trade, not a year later than allowed in the Constitution. A series of compromises, laws, acts, and bills tried to keep the balance between the slave states and the non-slave states. For a more thorough history of slavery, see the Slavery Topic Page.

South Carolina voted to secede from the United States as a result of Abraham Lincoln's election to the Presidency. Lincoln had, over time, voiced strong objections to slavery, and his incoming administration was viewed as a threat to the right of the states to keep their institutions, particularly that of slavery, the business of the states. More states seceded, eleven in all, forming the Confederate States of America. The secession movement led to the Civil War. In the waning days of the war, which ran from 1861 to 1865, the Congress approved an amendment to abolish slavery in all of the United States. Once the CSA was defeated, approval of the 13th Amendment was quick in the Northern states. By the end of 1865, eight of the eleven Confederate states had also ratified it. Proposed on January 31, 1865, it was ratified on December 6, 1865 (309 days). Eventually, all of the CSA states except Mississippi ratified the 13th after the war; Mississippi ratified the amendment in 1995.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14th Amendment
The ratification of the 13th Amendment was a major victory for the North, and it was hoped that with the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, the effects of slavery in the United States would quickly diminish. The original plan to readmit states after acceptance of the 13th was supported by President Andrew Johnson, but the Radical Republicans, as they became known, wanted more than just a return to normalcy. They wanted to keep the power they had attained during the war years. The South did not make it easy for Johnson, however, and the so-called Black Codes started to be passed in Southern states. Congressional inquiries into the Black Codes found them to be a new way of controlling ex-slaves, fraught with violence and cruelty.

The ensuing Reconstruction Acts placed the former CSA states under military rule, and prohibited their congressmen's readmittance to Congress until after several steps had been taken, including the approval of the 14th Amendment. The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen. The amendment passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868 (757 days).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15th Amendment
The last of the Reconstruction Amendments, the 15th Amendment was designed to close the last loophole in the establishment of civil rights for newly-freed black slaves. It ensured that a person's race, color, or prior history as a slave could not be used to bar that person from voting. Though a noble idea, it had little practical effect for quite some time, as the Southern states found myriad ways to intimidate blacks to keep them from voting. The Congress passed the amendment on February 26, 1869, and it was ratified on February 3, 1870 (342 days).

Though ratification of the 15th Amendment was not a requirement for readmittance to the Congress of the Confederate states, one of the provisions of the Reconstruction Acts required that the states include a provision in their new constitutions that included a near-copy of the text of the 15th. All of the CSA states except Tennessee, which was immune from the Reconstruction Acts, eventually ratified the 15th Amendment.

 
 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 14, 2010, 06:35:04 pm
Know the Truth About Cherokee Citizenship
 
The Facts on Cherokee Citizenship

MYTH: You need to have a large degree of Cherokee blood to be eligible for citizenship.
FACT: The Cherokee Nation requires no blood quantum. To be considered a Cherokee citizen, you need one Indian ancestor listed on the 1906 federal census of our people, known as the Dawes Rolls. With that one Indian ancestor, a person is part of our Cherokee family regardless of what other heritage he or she might have. For eligibility information, please visit http://www.cherokee.org/Services/Registration/146/Default.aspx.
 
MYTH: The Cherokee Nation is kicking African-Americans out of the tribe.
FACT: The Cherokee Nation is among the most diverse of Indian tribes with thousands of citizens who share African, Latino, Asian, Caucasian and other ancestry, including more than 1,500 descendants of former slaves. All have at least one Indian ancestor on the Dawes Rolls. African-Americans with an Indian ancestor on the Dawes Rolls have been, and will continue to be, citizens of the Cherokee Nation. See for yourself --  watch a video of Cherokee Nation citizens.
 
MYTH: The March 2007 Cherokee Constitutional amendment election allowed adopted whites with no blood quantum listed on the Dawes Rolls to remain citizens.
FACT: First, the Cherokee Nation has no blood quantum requirement. To be a citizen, one must have a single Indian ancestor listed on the Dawes Rolls. Second, the Constitutional amendment affects the citizenship of all non-Indians who were granted citizenship rights under a 2006 tribal court ruling, regardless of their ethnic background. This means that, in addition to affecting 2,867 descendants of those who were originally enrolled as non-Indian Freedmen, the amendment also affected nine descendants of Intermarried Whites
 
MYTH: Non-Indians who have long been Cherokee citizens are now being “disenrolled.”
FACT: The March 2007 Constitutional amendment only affected certain people who were granted tribal citizenship under a 2006 tribal court ruling, which came down just one year before the amendment passed. This vote affirmed the people's passionate belief that you need one Indian ancestor listed on the base roll to be a Cherokee. Since the amendment's passage, in May 2007, Cherokee tribal courts temporarily reinstated those who had been affected by the amendment pending the outcome of the litigation over this issue.   
 
MYTH: It is unfair to rely on the Dawes Rolls as the base roll of the Cherokees to prove Indian ancestry.
FACT: The Dawes Rolls are not perfect, but they are the best, most authoritative historical document we have to determine who our Indian ancestors were, going back 100 years.
 
The Truth About Our History
MYTH: The Freedmen and other non-Indians who were affected by the March 2007 Constitutional amendment had long been part of the Cherokee Nation.
FACT: The non-Indians who were affected by the March 2007 amendment became citizens only following a 2006 tribal court ruling. Since 1975, the Cherokee people have spoken several times that, to be a citizen, one must have one Indian ancestor listed on the Dawes Rolls.
 
MYTH: The Cherokee Nation is expelling all the descendants of their former slaves.
FACT: There are more than 1,500 descendants of former slaves who are Cherokee citizens today because they can find an Indian ancestor listed on the Dawes Rolls. The Cherokee Nation is offering free genealogical expertise to assist any descendant of Freedmen who wants to research whether they can find such an Indian ancestor and thus become a permanent citizen. That said, slavery was a grave injustice and a painful chapter in our nation's history, when 2% of Cherokees owned slaves. It should be noted, however, that the Cherokee Nation voluntarily freed these slaves in 1863.
 
MYTH:  The Cherokee Nation has broken the Treaty of 1866.
FACT: The Cherokee Nation has fully honored its treaty obligations.  Based on the history and the law, today's Freedmen descendants who cannot find an Indian ancestor on the Dawes Rolls have no right to Cherokee citizenship. Subsequent congressional action in 1902 closed the Cherokee rolls as of that year, limiting enrollment to those already born as of September 1, 1902. It was in 1975, with the new Cherokee Constitution, that the Nation sought to rejuvenate itself and once again define itself as a tribe made of Indians. Regardless of what anyone believes, federal and tribal courts are currently reviewing these issues.
 
The Truth About Legality
MYTH: The special election that the Cherokee Nation held on March 3, 2007 was illegal.
FACT: The election was legal, and not one complaint was filed in tribal court about its conduct. The Cherokee people cherish our democratic freedoms, and we paid dearly for them. These include the right to vote and to determine for ourselves the meaning of our Indian identity. The record turnout for this constitutional vote proved that Cherokee identity is an issue that is close to the heart of the Cherokee people.
 
MYTH: Voter turnout for the special election was extremely low.
FACT: More than 8,700 people voted, which was a higher turnout than the vote for the Cherokee Nation's Constitution in 2003.
 
The Truth About Our Motives
MYTH: Cherokees are motivated by racism to only want full-blooded Indians in the tribe.
FACT: This is a vicious lie. The Cherokee Nation welcomes every eligible Cherokee citizen regardless of his or her other racial heritage and embraces its thousands of citizens who share African, Latino, Asian, Caucasian, and other ancestry.  Race has nothing to do with citizenship. If you have one Indian ancestor on the Dawes Rolls, you are eligible to be a Cherokee citizen.
 
MYTH: The Cherokee Nation wants to keep more gaming revenues for itself.
FACT: This issue has nothing to do with gaming revenues or other resources. The Cherokee Nation is one of the few Indian tribes that do not distribute gaming revenues to individuals. Instead, the money benefits the entire community beyond the Cherokees, as we invest gaming revenues in services like health care, education and public roads and bridges. Overall, this is about weaving together a great, multi-ethnic nation through one common thread – a shared connection to our Indian ancestors.
 
The Truth About the Political Context
MYTH: The March 2007 amendment was orchestrated by Cherokee Nation Chief Chad Smith and tribal leadership.
FACT: The amendment got on the ballot properly through a citizens petition with 3,000 signatures, according to tribal law. Cherokee Nation officials took no official position on either side of the vote, and the government never sought to influence anyone's vote. The Cherokee people exercised their cherished democratic right to determine for themselves the meaning of their Indian identity.

http://freedmen.cherokee.org/FactsAboutCherokeeCitizenship/tabid/730/Default.aspx (http://freedmen.cherokee.org/FactsAboutCherokeeCitizenship/tabid/730/Default.aspx)
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 14, 2010, 06:45:22 pm
Very good article from a conservative group that supports the freedmen. These are not my views, nor do I agree with much of what in on that site...
http://www.cosmicconservative.com/weblog/?p=1696
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 14, 2010, 06:50:50 pm
Is Joe Byrd a racist?

Ex-chief: Cherokees reviving racism
 
CRITIC
Former Cherokee Nation Chief Joe Byrd: “We cannot discriminate. We cannot be prejudiced in today’s time and yet call ourselves leaders of the state.”

 
By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau
Published: 9/29/2007  1:57 AM
Last Modified: 9/29/2007  1:57 AM

He blasts the tribe's efforts to oust freedmen descendants.
WASHINGTON -- Former Cherokee Nation Chief Joe Byrd said Friday that his tribe's efforts to disenfranchise descendants of former slaves have allowed racism to resurface.

Without referring to him by name, Byrd blamed Chief Chad Smith for not stepping forward to stop those efforts.

Smith responded by accusing Byrd of making "hollow and desperate" allegations against his tribe to "salvage his devastated political aspirations."

"Basically he just called our own people racists, and it is fundamentally false," Smith said, recalling that Byrd voted for a bill 15 years ago that required Cherokee ancestry for tribal membership.

When asked about past votes, Byrd said he could not recall that issue ever coming before the council when he was a member.

Byrd sparked the exchange with an appearance at a forum on the freedmen descendants issue sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and hosted by U.S. Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a critic of the tribe's move against the freedmen descendants.

Others on the panel included Jon Velie of Norman, an attorney for the freedmen descendants; Marilyn Vann, founder of a descendants group and a lead plaintiff in a lawsuit on the issue; Edward Crittenden, former tribal adviser and now an advocate for the descendants; and Rusty Creed Brown, a member of the Delaware Tribe of Indians.


 "That's all he has to do is to do the right thing, and we can go home and leave the freedmen as they are, part of the Cherokee nation," Byrd said in an obvious reference to Smith.
"A 1866 treaty guarantees full citizenship and rights. Now for some reason in this time, where I thought that type of treatment was gone, we are resurfacing racism here."

A few minutes later, again without identifying Smith by name, Byrd made comments that appeared to be directed at the current leader of one of the nation's largest tribes.

"We cannot discriminate. We cannot be prejudiced in today's time and yet call ourselves leaders of the state," he said.

Speaking at times in Cherokee, Byrd spoke of the close ties the tribe has had with the original slaves, dating to the infamous Trail of Tears, and their descendants.

"This issue is not about sovereignty," he said. "This issue is about doing what is right."

As he was leaving the forum, Byrd was asked whether he was calling Smith a racist.

"I am just saying let us not make this what it is," he said. "We can't jeopardize 560 tribes because we want to move some people out of the tribe. That's the big issue right now. We cannot bring the other tribes into this."

Byrd said the United States has the prerogative to break treaties with tribes, but a tribe has never broken a treaty.

In another dramatic break with Smith, Byrd repeatedly praised Watson, who has introduced a bill that would strip the tribe of its estimated $300 million in annual federal funding and suspend its right to conduct its gaming operations in an attempt to force it to drop its efforts against the freedmen descendants.

"I really think it speaks to the fact he is more interested in himself than he is the welfare of the Cherokee people, and he will do anything to advance his political interests," Smith said.

Byrd is a senior adviser to the Watts Consulting Group, one of former Oklahoma Republican Rep. J.C. Watts' companies.

Smith noted that one of the firm's clients is the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians.

"So the strategy is a very simple one," he said. "He wants to harm or destroy the Cherokee Nation so his client can pick up the pieces."

Smith said Byrd knows that Cherokees are not racists.

"It is a function of ancestry, not race," he said, explaining the amendment approved in March that kicked off the current controversy with Watson and others in Congress.

On whether the 1866 treaty granted citizenship to freedmen and their descendants, Smith said Byrd needs to read the treaty and understand a subsequent law passed by Congress that clarified that issue.

"His first term was a disaster," Smith said. "He gave the Cherokee Nation a black eye by refusing to abide by our systems."

Smith pointed out that he has twice defeated Byrd in tribal elections.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 14, 2010, 06:56:07 pm
David Cornsilk and Mike Graham (Mike Cherokee) debate, you decide.Mike is a racist and David Cornsilk is an advocate for the civil rights of the freedmen.
More to come...

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.native/browse_thread/thread/8020ec8515b9d02a/bd6fc3c644d0d13d?q=racism+101&rnum=2
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 14, 2010, 06:59:23 pm
William Loren Katz in a friend and colleague who wrote Black Indians. he wrote this in response to the Cherokee expulsion of the freedmen descendants...

 Disturbing Expulsion
Racism and the Cherokee Nation
By WILLIAM LOREN KATZ

As President Bill Clinton and others arrived in Selma, Alabama for the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" march that prodded Congress to pass the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the Cherokee Nation chose a lower road. It voted overwhelmingly for an amendment to their constitution that revokes citizenship rights for 2,800 members because their ancestors included people of African descent.

Marilyn Vann, president of the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes, has long fought racism from both governmental officials and indigenous figures. In this instance, she claims, Cherokee leaders misled voters by insisting "freedmen don't have Indian blood", "the freedmen were forced on the tribe", "the freedmen do not have a treaty right to citizenship", "the people have never voted on citizenship provisions in the history of the tribe", and "the amendment will create an all Indian tribe." Cherokee voters were also influenced by the racist charge "that the freedmen if not ejected, would use up all of the tribal service monies."

The design of the amendment, Vann points out, is patently discriminatory. It removes membership from descendants of enrolled African Cherokees whose documentation of Indian ancestry was affirmed by the Dawes Commission more than a century ago as well as those without documentation of Indian ancestry. On the other hand it accepts Cherokee members with white blood or even people whose ancestors are listed as "adopted whites."

This development comes at a moment of re-examination of African and Indian alliances that followed 1492. Governor Nicolas de Ovando of Hispaniola arrived in the Americas in 1502 with a Spanish armada that carried the first enslaved Africans. Within a year, Ovando wrote to King Ferdinand that the Africans "fled to the Indians and never could be captured." To the fury of Europeans, Native Americans, the first people enslaved in the New World, accepted African runaways. Indians saw no reason to face the invasion alone.

In their maroon colonies beyond the European settlements that dotted the coastlines of the Americas, each group contributed invaluable skills. As victims of the triangular trade, Africans brought their unique experience of European intentions, weapons, and diplomacy. Native American villages offered runaways a safe haven for families and a base for operations, and allowed the two peoples to forge the first "rainbow coalition." So ubiquitous were maroon communities that a French scholar called them "the gangrene of colonial society." Seeing these alternative societies as a threat to their hegemony, Europeans repeatedly deployed search and destroy armies.

British colonial officials in what is now the United States required Indian Nations to sign treaties promising the return of Black runaways. (There is no record of any fugitives being returned!) To keep Native American villages from becoming an escape hatch, officials from Florida to Canada offered Indians staggering rewards for runaways. And to that same end, British traders introduced African slavery to the Five Nations -- the Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks and Seminoles. Once these Nations adopted European-style dress, Christianity and African bondage, they were called "The Five Civilized Tribes." In Florida where the terrain permitted guerilla warfare, African Seminoles played a commanding role in a resistance that at times tied up half of the U.S. Army, held the U.S. military forces at bay from 1816 to 1858, took 1500 U.S. military lives, and cost Congress $30,000,000.

By Nat Turner's slave rebellion of 1831, southern planters, frantic that leaks in their labor system would have explosive consequences, joined with whites seeking valuable Indian land, to demand removal of the Five Nations. President Martin Van Buren had 7,000 U.S. troops drive 60,000 Indians, including black members, to distant Oklahoma. As thousands perished on this "Trail of Tears," Cherokees of every color and station comforted one other.

Even before they reached Oklahoma African bondage dominated the social, political and economic life of the Five Nations, and created the class and racial divisions evident today. A minority of Cherokees with white blood owned slaves, claimed a superior status and rose to leadership. "Pure Indian blood" Cherokees, the majority, became "inferior." African Cherokees, slave and free, were relegated to the lowest rung. However in the 1850s Heinrich Mollhausen, a noted German artist, visited the Indian Territory and described a form of bondage unlike any southern plantation:

These slaves receive from the Indian masters more Christian treatment than among the Christian whites. The traveler may seek in vain for any other difference between master and servant than such as nature had made in the physical characteristics of the races; and the Negro is regarded as a companion and helper, to whom thanks and kindness are due when he exerts himself for the welfare of the household.

In 1860 Cherokees in Oklahoma owned 2,511 slaves, and at the outset of the Civil War, Cherokee leaders, pressured by pro-slavery Indian Agents and virtually surrounded by Confederate armies, agreed to support the Confederacy. However, Opothle Yahola, a Creek chief and pacifist, was able to lead 7,600 people -- including half of the Seminole Nation, Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks and others, to Union lines in Kansas. By April 1862 the young men of this multicultural exodus had joined the Union Army and helped free slaves in Missouri.

The defeat of the Confederacy allowed U.S. officials to scrap its Indian treaties. Whites who had forced African slavery on Indians now demanded Indians accept Lincoln's "new birth of freedom." The Seminoles, who had long treated their African members as allies rather than slaves, embraced equality. Cherokees followed. African Cherokees soon ran barbershops, blacksmith shops, general stores and restaurants or became ferryboat operators, cotton-gin managers, teachers and postmasters. O.S. Fox, editor of the Cherokee Afro-American was enthusiastic:

The opportunities for our people in that country far surpassed any of the kind possessed by our people in the U.S. . . . It is nonsense for any Afro-American to emigrate to Africa or anywhere else if he can make a living in the Indian Territory.

In 1879 African Cherokees, petitioning for full equality, based their appeal on a shared history:

The Cherokee nation is our country; there we were born and reared; there are our homes made by the sweat or our brows; there are our wives and children, whom we love as dearly as though we were born with red, instead of black skins. There we intend to live and defend our natural rights, as guaranteed by the treaties and laws of the United States, by every legitimate and lawful means.

How ironic and sad that people of African Cherokee lineage still have to fight for natural rights being denied them by the New World's first victims of virulent bigotry, imported by the European invaders.

William Loren Katz is the author of Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage. His new, revised edition of The Black West [Harlem Moon/Random House, 2005] also includes information on the Philippine occupation, and can now be found in bookstores. He can be reached through his website: www.williamlkatz.com
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 14, 2010, 07:02:32 pm
This article is very good at presenting the freedmens case...

Commentary:  Analysis
Who's the Racist Now?
Attorney General Eric Holder once called the U.S. "a nation of cowards" for discriminating against its black citizens. How is it now that his department is helping the Cherokees of Oklahoma to expel its black citizens?
Friday, August 21, 2009By Anita Crane
Article Tools
  Print
  Discuss
 
With his reaction to the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, President Obama diverted attention from his ill-formed healthcare agenda by throwing racism into the mix. We all know how that turned out and since the American people were not silenced, Obama’s fans in Congress and media are trying to brand us as bigots. But when will pundits at the New York Times, the Huffington Post, and MSNBC question Obama’s part in a real federal case of racism?

Lest we forget, Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, condemned the United States as “a nation of cowards” who discriminates against its black citizens. In that Black History Month speech, Holder also promised, “[T]his Department of Justice, so long as I am here, must and will lead the nation to the new birth of freedom so long ago promised by our greatest president.” However, under Holder the Justice Department is helping the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (CNO) to expel its own black citizens, the descendents of Cherokee slaves known as “Freedmen.”

According to our 1866 Treaty with the Cherokee Nation, Cherokee Freedmen and their descendants “shall have all the rights of native Cherokees.” These rights include voting in tribal elections, per capita representation in Cherokee government, as well as assets and benefits bestowed by the U.S. Department of the Interior through its Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

Since the treaty can be abrogated only by an act of Congress, in 2007 Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA) introduced a bill to cease federal funding of the Cherokee Nation until the Freedmen’s rights would be restored. She also requested support from presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL.). As reported in The Hill, Obama refused in 2008. In part, he replied, “Discrimination anywhere is intolerable, but the Cherokee are dealing with this issue in both tribal and federal courts.” Watson’s bill died with the 110th Congress. Nevertheless, Obama’s golden opportunity has arrived. The 1866 Treaty, a supreme federal law, says the president of the United States “is hereby authorized and empowered to correct such evil.”

Justice Department v. Black Cherokees



sponsored by

Related Articles
Opinion
Even prolifers can be blinded by Culture of Death
Caribbean
General says Obama should go 'off script' in HaitiWhile Bill Clinton was president, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma attempted to expel its Freedmen in 2000. Consequently, the Interior Department withheld funding to that tribal nation because it had violated its 1866 Treaty with the United States. As George W. Bush was president, the Seminole Nation filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Interior Secretary Gale Norton, and it lost the case in 2002. Federal funding resumed to the Seminole Nation after its Freedmen were reinstated.

Likewise, over the centuries, the Cherokee Nation has attempted to disenfranchise its black citizens. Under Chadwick Smith, principal chief since 1999, the matter has come to a full-blown crisis because he claims that the Freedmen have no tribal rights unless they can prove Cherokee blood through the federal government’s Dawes Rolls.

From 1898 to 1907, the scene for racism was set by government agents who took the Dawes Rolls to determine members of the Cherokee Nation. Jon Velie, lead counsel for the Cherokee Freedmen, explained that those agents took it upon themselves to segregate people according to perceived race. “As a result,” said Velie, “the Freedmen were subjected to Jim Crow laws and other forms of state-sanctioned discrimination.”

On the Dawes Rolls, some persons are labeled as “Cherokee by Blood” and others as “Cherokee Freedmen.” Yet the 1866 Treaty lacks any requirement of Indian blood for Cherokee Freedmen to be tribal citizens.

Still, under Smith in 2003, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma denied certain Freedmen their right to citizenship, and others with Cherokee voter cards were physically blocked from the polls. Smith was reelected and an illegal ballot measure was passed to remove federal oversight of amendments to the Cherokee Constitution.

Therefore, Marilyn Vann established the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes Association in Oklahoma City. She and numerous other black Cherokees filed a 2003 federal lawsuit against Secretary Norton in the same court that settled the Seminole case.

Ironically, like many Freedmen, Vann has Cherokee blood. She said, “I am a person of mixed African, Cherokee and Chickasaw descent. As a Freedman, my citizenship is guaranteed by the Treaty of 1866. But Chief Chad Smith uses some of the Cherokee Nation’s hundreds of millions of dollars to file frivolous lawsuits against the Freedmen and block the progression of our federal lawsuit.”

Smith, a lawyer, and his attorneys have tediously delayed the Vann case. He and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma were inserted as defendants. Meanwhile, the BIA permitted violations to the 1866 Treaty. Then, after Vann and her fellow Freedmen won a Dec. 2006 hearing, Smith and the CNO filed an appeal.

In May 2008, five hired guns, including Cherokee Nation contract lobbyist and lawyer Lanny Davis, represented Smith and the tribe in the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In July 2008, Judge Thomas Griffith issued the court’s decision that Vann, et al, may proceed with their lawsuit against tribal officers, but a district court must determine whether they can sue the Cherokee Nation itself.

Griffith wrote, “Denying the Freedmen the right to vote in tribal elections violates the Thirteenth Amendment and the 1866 Treaty, so the Cherokee Nation cannot claim tribal sovereign immunity against a suit complaining of such a badge and incident of slavery. … The tribe does not just lack a ‘special sovereignty interest’ in discriminatory elections – it lacks any sovereign interest in such behavior.”

Currently the case is pending against Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Smith.

Nevertheless, 11 days after Obama was inaugurated, Justice Department lawyer Amber Blaha filed a hefty motion to dismiss the Vann case. So the court’s decision could disenfranchise an estimated 25,000 black Cherokees and their descendents, but Eric “New Birth of Freedom” Holder hasn’t withdrawn the motion to dismiss it.

Cherokee Nation v. Citizen Nash

In 2007, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma further breached the 1866 Treaty with a constitutional amendment expelling its Freedmen.

Freedman Raymond Nash, a resident of Nowata, Oklahoma, who earns his living as home improvement contractor, voted against the amendment via absentee ballot.

After the vote, the CNO registrar sent some 2,800 black Cherokees notice of tribal disenrollment, indicating they had 30 days to send a written appeal. When 386 replied, the CNO filed a class-action lawsuit in its own District Court of the Cherokee Nation as Raymond Nash v. Cherokee Nation Registrar.

Nash said, “People had been calling me and asking what this case is. I said, ‘No. It can’t be me because I don’t know [any]thing about this.’”

The CNO court provided an attorney to represent Nash and the other so-called plaintiffs. When that attorney was disbarred, the court appointed Ralph Keen II, a 2003 tribal council member. Keen said the suit was filed according to tribal law. He also admitted, “I’m not sure they [the Freedmen] realized anything because the notice that was mailed out by the Cherokee Nation did not offer a good description of the legal appeal process.” Jon Velie said Nash didn’t receive notice until two years after the CNO filed this suit in his name. Keen said he notified the Freedmen 30 days prior to the July 17, 2009, hearing for summary judgment and the Cherokee court’s decision is pending. Keen also said, “And if we prevail, we could literally render the two federal actions moot.”

Evidently, filing the tribal case in Raymond Nash’s name wasn’t pleasure enough for Smith and his collaborators. On Feb. 3, 2009 – the same day that Holder took his oath of office – the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma filed a federal lawsuit against Nash and four other black Cherokees, plus Secretary Salazar, in the U.S. District Court for Northern Oklahoma. Again Velie said the Cherokee Nation didn’t notify Nash or his fellow defendants, but he found out and took up their case. In other words, the unsuspecting black Cherokees could have lost rights for all Freedmen as soon as they failed to show up in court. Furthermore, Mike Miller, communications officer for the CNO, didn’t dispute Velie’s claim.

Keen has petitioned the court to intervene for the Freedmen in this case, but Velie opposes it as another CNO attempt to be on both sides. In May, under Holder’s nose, anti-Freedmen Justice Department lawyer Blaha filed as Salazar’s defense attorney. The case is stalled as all parties await court decisions.

The President’s Power

Considering the Freedmen’s plight, on April 30, 2009, Rep. Diane Watson and six other U.S. representatives, including John Lewis (D-GA), sent Attorney General Holder a letter requesting that he launch a full investigation. So far, Holder has not replied.

Excluding the Freedmen, Mike Miller estimates 290,000 Cherokee citizens. He said, “Congress has unilaterally shredded many aspects of the Treaty of 1866 and one of those aspects had to do with the treaty rights of non-Indians.” He also said that federal courts “have specifically stated that non-Indian freedmen descendants do not have the right to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation.”

As noted above, federal judges of the Vann case have ruled precisely the opposite.

Thus, on June 8, Watson introduced a House bill to sever government relations between the United States and the Cherokee Nation until the CNO restores full tribal rights to its Freedmen.

Watson’s bill threatens losses of at least $380 million in annual federal funding to the CNO, $5 million in stimulus funds, plus the other assets and benefits. In March, when Smith testified before a House appropriations subcommittee, he referred to the 1866 Treaty to bolster his request for a $40 million increase to cover health services in 2010. Yet according to Smith’s agenda, and despite ever increasing Cherokee casino revenues ($441.2 million in 2008), Freedmen would be ineligible. In fact, one Freedman in the Vann case was denied treatment for glaucoma until she got legal assistance. And on the CNO website, Smith decries Watson’s bill as an injustice to the needy, but he expects Obama to do nothing for the Freedmen.

No wonder. On June 15, President Obama rewarded the rogue Cherokee Nation by announcing the new position of senior policy advisor for Indian Affairs. He appointed Kimberly Tehee, a Cherokee, and said, “he will provide a direct interface at the highest level of my administration.”

Now, under Eric Holder, the Justice Department is trying to prove his absurd notion that the United States is a nation of cowards. Blacks in Nowata tell 62-year-old Raymond Nash that there must be a reason he’s the Cherokee Nation’s sacrificial Freedman. Indeed there is reason and President Obama has the lawful power to end it. New York Times, Huffington Post, and MSNBC, do tell us: Who is a racist?

Anita Crane is a freelance writer and journalist. See AnitaCrane.com
 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 14, 2010, 07:10:02 pm
More on racism and the freedmen...

Original Pechanga's Blog
Pechanga's Casino fuels greedy faction of tribal members to deny civil rights to rightful members. PECHANGA'S Chairman Macarro claims sovereignty, but immunity from prosecution doesn't = Innocence of Action.

Friday, August 21, 2009
Cherokee Freedmen: President Obama "Who is the Racist Now?" Atty Gen Holder "Who is the the Coward NOW?
 
Columnist Anita Crane calls out our President Barack Obama and our Attorney General Eric Holder for their handling of the Cherokee Freedmen issue. (one that we've chronicled here often)

With his reaction to the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, President Obama diverted attention from his ill-formed healthcare agenda by throwing racism into the mix. We all know how that turned out and since the American people were not silenced, Obama’s fans in Congress and media are trying to brand us as bigots. But when will pundits at the New York Times, the Huffington Post, and MSNBC question Obama’s part in a real federal case of racism?

Now, it look like Chad "OUR slaves were treated well" Smith is trying some end arounds our Federal laws. And maybe their HUGE donation helped the Cherokee Nation in this case.

Evidently, filing the tribal case in Raymond Nash’s name wasn’t pleasure enough for Smith and his collaborators. On Feb. 3, 2009 – the same day that Holder took his oath of office – the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma filed a federal lawsuit against Nash and four other black Cherokees, plus Secretary Salazar, in the U.S. District Court for Northern Oklahoma. Again Velie said the Cherokee Nation didn’t notify Nash or his fellow defendants, but he found out and took up their case. In other words, the unsuspecting black Cherokees could have lost rights for all Freedmen as soon as they failed to show up in court. Furthermore, Mike Miller, communications officer for the CNO, didn’t dispute Velie’s claim.

President Obama and AG Holder can provide justice in this case IMMEDIATELY. Why won't they? Don't be a COWARD Mr. Attorney General and Mr. President, you have a CLEAR example of racism in front of you. Unless you DO belive that because the Cherokee slaves WERE treated well, the Cherokee Nation deserves some special consideration??
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: earthw7 on January 14, 2010, 08:48:34 pm
i could careless about the cherokee
But I have relative tribes in canada
This Don is saying that my relatives have
no rights in canada. he is saying they they don't matter
then then he says that we are only nations because the US government
we have always been a nation before that guy named columbus
got lost and today and if there was no federal money we would still
be a nation the only differnce is we would close off our borders.
We have 14 reservation and a few in three of the canadia provence under our nation that is
lot of land.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 14, 2010, 09:00:47 pm

Quote
i could careless about the cherokee
Thanks for the support earthw7!

In all you listed Don, I still don't see one shred of evidence that Freedmen of Cherokee blood were SYSTEMATICALLY taken off or not put on the Cherokee by blood rolls.  Nor have I seen evidence that whites with no Cherokee blood SYSTEMATICALLY got on.  These whites that are always mentioned are listed as "Intermarried Whites" on the Dawes Roll.  Any intermarried white on the Dawes Roll, just for the very nature of being listed on the Dawes Roll as an "Intermarried" white" would mean that he or she was married to a Cherokee man or woman, and it would be logical to conclude that their descendants would be Cherokee by blood.  Because the wife or husband would be of course Cherokee and their descendants would be mixed blood.  With that said, there were about 10 or so descendants of "Intermarried" whites who were NOT ALSO descendant from the Cherokee spouse.  This happened for example, when an "Intermarried White” would divorce, or for whatever other reason have a child with a different non Cherokee partner.

That’s all well and good that you listed the opinions of Cherokees such as Joe Byrd and Cornsilk in regards to the Freemen issue.  I can tell you now though that their opinion is in the minority whether it be with full bloods or mixed bloods.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 14, 2010, 09:05:29 pm
I I am nt appears that once again people seem to have a rather distorted view of the historical context of these documents. Remember the Cherokee fought for the defeated confederacy. In fact the Cherokee Braves commited atrocities against the freedmen at Cabin Creek after the treaty at Appomattox.

 
 

 If anyone needs to get their history straight, it's you. The Cherokee, just like other tribes in eastern Oklahoma did not fight in the Civil War as a "tribe." They were just as divided in the matter as the United States. Your constant statements of how "the Cherokee" fought for the confederacy are false ones, and are not unlike trying to say something as preposterous as "the northern states fought the northern states in the Civil War."

 The facts are that the Cherokee Nation and other tribes split into factions just like the United States and it's northern and southern states, with one side being pro Union and the other being pro Confederacy. In fact during the war, members of the Cherokee Nation fought each other, and members of other tribes including my own too fought each other.

  These statements and twisting of history on your part to further your agenda I find offensive considering men like my gg grandfather were against slavery, and fought our own people in the white man's war to free the black man.


Quote
In fact the Cherokee Braves commited atrocities against the freedmen at Cabin Creek after the treaty at Appomattox.

 You act as if only the Cherokee were guilty of such atrocities. There was at least one case where black soldiers went into a Choctaw town of mostly women and children, and slaughtered them. In retaliation for those atrocities, that black unit was hunted down, and it's men killed and or tortured to death.

 So if you wish to talk about war time atrocities, please take the time to mention every single one of a similar nature.

What you are doing in this thread is twisting history and historical things to meet your agenda.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 14, 2010, 09:06:22 pm
Quote
The design of the amendment, Vann points out, is patently discriminatory. It removes membership from descendants of enrolled African Cherokees whose documentation of Indian ancestry was affirmed by the Dawes Commission more than a century ago as well as those without documentation of Indian ancestry. On the other hand it accepts Cherokee members with white blood or even people whose ancestors are listed as "adopted whites."

Quote
A minority of Cherokees with white blood owned slaves, claimed a superior status and rose to leadership. "Pure Indian blood" Cherokees, the majority, became "inferior." African Cherokees, slave and free, were relegated to the lowest rung. However in the 1850s Heinrich Mollhausen, a noted German artist, visited the Indian Territory and described a form of bondage unlike any southern plantation:

This article is alluding to the fact that light skin Cherokees all had slaves and claimed a superior status.  For anyone that knows anything about cherokees, they would agree that The pure indian blood thing really wasn’t the only determining factor in classifying mixed bloods and full bloods.  It had more to do with whether one spoke the language fluent and lived a Cherokee life.  Red Bird Smith would be considered full blood even thought he didn’t have a 4/4 BQ.  The Cherokees integrated the children of whites and Cherokees, not the other way around.  The vast majority identified as Cherokee and not white. That’s just how it was.  Now the citizenship issue is more of a political definition of an independent Nation.  Racial in the sense that one must possess Indian blood, but not in the sense of being racially Indian. At least not entirely anyway  

The Dawes Rolls weren’t’ the only Cherokee rolls.  So if there were incidents of Freedmen with Cherokee blood not being put on the Dawes Roll, then I would assume that they at least might have an ancestor on some other Cherokee roll before the Dawes Rolls 1898-1906.  Lets say pre 1906.  Even if someone was 3/4 black freedmen, and 1/4 Cherokee, then they would have one full blood grandparent.  This grandparent would have 2 full blood parents, and their parents would have parents, cousins and so on and so forth.  I’m not going to list all the other Cherokee rolls and censuses, but Here’s a few other rolls.  If these Freedmen had high BQS, then I’m assuming they would be on the Drennen Roll of 1852.  That would mean if a full blood from these rolls intermarried for 2 generations with blacks, then they would be a 1/4 by blood during the Dawes Roll.  ( Give or take a few years )
And if they had low BQ’s like the Cherokees with the ½56 degree that Don mentions all the time, then that would mean were talking about pre Trail of Tears. Nothing wrong with low BQS, ( you are or you aren’t) just trying to make a point.   So I’ve listed a few of these rolls also that would have taken place in the East.  The low BQ Freedmen would at least be able to trace to these rolls.  One could make the argument that they were systematically not put on any and every roll because the family continued to intermix with blacks, but this is highly unlikely.

After studying the issue based on evidence, not heresy, I’ve concluded that there actually were at least some cases of Freedmen not being put on the by blood rolls.  But I’ve also concluded, that these cases were the exception to the rule, not the norm,  and the overwhelming majority of Freedmen don’t have Cherokee blood.  It’s a shame that some of them at least were not put on the by blood rolls, but That’s our rolls and they are ours.  Are they flawless.  No.  Were they pretty accurate.  Yes.  Don, if you have any concrete evidence that a substantial number of  Freedmen are in fact Cherokee by blood, I’d like to hear about it or see the evidence.  Opinions from Cherokees is fine.  But I go more on evidence then hearsay.


Old Settler Rolls 1851,
Reservation Rolls 1817
Emigration Rolls 1817-1835
Henderson Roll 1835
Mullay Roll 1848
Siler Roll 1851


Here’s the Cherokee Heritage Center’s website that deals with Genealogy. The CN has even offered to help Freedmen and offer them genealogical help free of charge in helping them trace their ancestry.  


http://www.cherokeeheritage.org/cherokeeheritage/genealogy.html

 

Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 14, 2010, 09:12:39 pm
i could careless about the cherokee



 Why the disrespect Earth? Would you like it if somebody said the same about your people in times of bad? It seems that everyone regardless of their tribe is giving Lakota people support over Crow Creek; so why come in this thread and make such a statement?
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Paul123 on January 14, 2010, 09:17:02 pm
@BW,
Isn't it true that the CN has given every Freeman that was on the rolls A free certified genealogist?
And put them back on until the courts rule on this?
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 14, 2010, 09:40:25 pm
Quote
@BW,
Isn't it true that the CN has given every Freeman that was on the rolls A free certified genealogist?
And put them back on until the courts rule on this?

Absolutely  Paul. 

Quote
MYTH: The Cherokee Nation is expelling all the descendants of their former slaves.
FACT: There are more than 1,500 descendants of former slaves who are Cherokee citizens today because they can find an Indian ancestor listed on the Dawes Rolls. The Cherokee Nation is offering free genealogical expertise to assist any descendant of Freedmen who wants to research whether they can find such an Indian ancestor and thus become a permanent citizen. That said, slavery was a grave injustice and a painful chapter in our nation's history, when 2% of Cherokees owned slaves. It should be noted, however, that the Cherokee Nation voluntarily freed these slaves in 1863.


I don't the exactly who they should contact.  But I would contact the Cherokee Nation Tribal Complex main switchboard and ask.  They would know who to contact or where to transfer them.  They can also contact the Cherokee Nation Heritage Center and ask. 

Don get your pen and paper out and write these numbers down.  Pass it on to any Freedmen friends you have that need to establish that they are Cherokee by blood, or maybe you need the info for yourself. Good Luck.

Cherokee Nation
918-453-5000
(OK Toll Free) 1-800-256-0671
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 14, 2010, 09:42:11 pm

Cherokee Heritage Center
Contact Information

Gene Norris, CGSM, Board Certified Genealogist at genealogy@cherokeeheritage.org.

(918) 456 - 6007 ext 6159

http://www.cherokeeheritage.org/cherokeeheritage/genealogy.html (http://www.cherokeeheritage.org/cherokeeheritage/genealogy.html)
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 14, 2010, 09:56:14 pm
 Don keeps talking about how bad the Freedmen have had it.

 Well I would like to know what makes the lives of the Freedmen soo much harder then any other person of African descent in the United States, to the point if they are not kept in the Cherokee Nation, it would prompt the CBC to terminate the Cherokee Nation??


 Furthermore, hands down the truth is, that in the United States; the American Indian in general has had worse then, and is still suffering more then the average black person.

 So all that in mind,

 DON CAN YOU FINALLY ANSWER WHY THE CBC IS NOT SAYING A WORD ABOUT THE DISERNOLLMENTS GOING ON IN TRIBES IN WATSONS OWN BACKYARD IN CALIFORNIA, AND CAN YOU SAY WHY YOU HAVE FAILED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION YOURSELF AFTER I HAVE NOW ASKED IT MANY TIMES?
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 14, 2010, 10:13:01 pm
If anyone wants to support the Cherokee Nation on the Freedmen issue, then they should support this man and his campaign for Congress.     He’s running against Don’s partner in disinformation, US House of Representatives from California’s 33rd District Diane Watson.  Not only does he support the Cherokee Nation, but he also supports Tribal Sovereignly.  And this issue effects ALL American Indians and Tribes, NOT JUST the Cherokees.  earthw7 mentioned this before in one of her other posts. 

Felton Newell

http://www.feltonnewell.com/ (http://www.feltonnewell.com/)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5V46VzWJSQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5V46VzWJSQ)
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Paul123 on January 14, 2010, 10:14:02 pm
Quote
@BW,
Isn't it true that the CN has given every Freeman that was on the rolls A free certified genealogist?
And put them back on until the courts rule on this?

Absolutely  Paul.  


Isn't it also true that if a potentially disenfranchised Freeman can prove that they have any NDN blood that they will stay enrolled? as opposed to someone like me that must prove that their ancestor was not just NDN but must be one listed on the Dawes rolls and ONLY the Dawes rolls. ?

Sounds to me that the Freeman ARE getting special preference. I'm not complaining, that's Tribal Sovereignty.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 14, 2010, 10:41:16 pm
Quote
Isn't it also true that if a potentially disenfranchised Freeman can prove that they have any NDN blood that they will stay enrolled? as opposed to someone like me that must prove that their ancestor was not just NDN but must be one listed on the Dawes rolls and ONLY the Dawes rolls. ?

Sounds to me that the Freeman ARE getting special preference. I'm not complaining, that's Tribal Sovereignty.

No.  The point was to see how many of these claims have any truth to them.   Meaning, in regards to Cherokee Freedmen who had Cherokee blood not being put on the by blood rolls.  The enrollment procedure is pretty clear.  You have to have an ancestor on Dawes.  Even if you have a direct link to other Cherokee Rolls you wouldn't be able to enroll with the CN.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Paul123 on January 14, 2010, 11:00:25 pm
Quote
Isn't it also true that if a potentially disenfranchised Freeman can prove that they have any NDN blood that they will stay enrolled? as opposed to someone like me that must prove that their ancestor was not just NDN but must be one listed on the Dawes rolls and ONLY the Dawes rolls. ?

Sounds to me that the Freeman ARE getting special preference. I'm not complaining, that's Tribal Sovereignty.

No.  The point was to see how many of these claims have any truth to them.   Meaning, in regards to Cherokee Freedmen who had Cherokee blood not being put on the by blood rolls.  The enrollment procedure is pretty clear.  You have to have an ancestor on Dawes.  Even if you have a direct link to other Cherokee Rolls you wouldn't be able to enroll with the CN.


OK my bad, I thought that was an exception for the Freeman.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 15, 2010, 08:47:36 pm
 I don't recall anyone in this thread saying they thought the expulsion of the Freedmen was a just or right thing to do.

 Most of the discussion has centered around the tribes right to do it based on sovereignty, and dispelling the charges of racism because of it.

I for one have never said I was in favor of it, or even liked the idea. Most on here would agree that I have argued against the actions of tribes doing similar things based on BQ, corruption etc.

 However my argument in this thread does center around the a tribes right to chose it's own membership, just like the tribes have done since before the coming of the Europeans.

 The basis of a lot of my argument is that people like the CBC, Watson, and Don are all for stepping into internal tribal business, and doing so with the desire to see the tribe dissolved if they do not adhere to the wishes of these  people such as Watson, the CBC etc, when they do not even mention other tribes doing the same thing across the country.
 
 If these people wish to use plenary power, or wish to see it used in the case over a dis enrollment issue of the Freedmen, then by all means be fair and look into or step into the same issue going on all over the country.

 There are real Indians in this country who are undeniably Indian losing the right to be who they are, and it takes no research to see who they are; it's clear when you look upon them and see they are undeniable Indian.

 So to me  in this argument is the hypocrisy of only tackling such an issue by the CBC, who of course are black people themselves, wailing for justice while ignoring the fact that this is not an issue only found in the CNO.

 Would men like Don Naconna be up in arms like they are now, if some group in congress of mostly white men, wanted to terminate the Cherokee Nation for dis enrolling the white looking people who had no proof they were Cherokee but were some how members?

I certainly think not.

 Until the larger issue of dis enrollment in other tribes is discussed by Watson and their supporters, that I say that is the true racism and hypocrisy in this issue.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: earthw7 on January 15, 2010, 08:56:42 pm
Frist i want to say do care about the cherokee it just that
so many people have problems with them,
When I listen to this racist named Don I get upset because
he talks just like your aveage anglo/saxon/christian refusing to
understand history, make up his own history to fullfill his agenda.
I know he is mixed so he don't have a culture or way of life.
Then on top of it can't see his own racist statement as being
racist. 
He makes statement about being a canadian citzen forgetting
about all our tribal relatives who live in their homelands in canada.
They fight each day to keep their ways.

He spread lies and misinformation
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Paul123 on January 15, 2010, 09:32:31 pm
Just My 2 cents worth:

If within the first 3 mins. (or 3 paragraphs as in this case) someone says something like:
Well those damn,,,
White people,
Black people,
Irish people,
Mexican people,
Thin bloods,
NDNs,
Freeman,

Are to blame for all of my peoples problems.

Or if (also as in this case)
no matter who's talking about what, one of the above mentioned peoples keep coming back up as the villain. 

Well you might be a raciest, but it all depends on the conversation.

Now don't get me wrong, each of those above mentioned peoples have their place in conversations but, I see a pattern here. It's that pattern that I'm talking about.

To much of anything can be a bad thing.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 15, 2010, 10:18:09 pm
That’s a good point that Rattlbone makes.  I think Rattle has shown by supporting the CN in this that he is a fair and balanced person that can see both sides of the issue.  As opposed to Don who seems to be blinded by hate and resentment.  The Cherokee people voted in 2007 on this issue.  Although I voted to keep the CN a tribe of Indians ( Indian by blood ), if the vote would have went the other way, then I wouldn’t have questioned it ( even though I wouldn't have agreed with it.  But, yes it is a sovereignly issue. 

Earth, I know you do care about other tribes such as the Cherokees.  I guess what you said was said at the spur of the moment and could be taking out of context by someone if they didn’t know you or at least have come to know you from your other posts.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Unegv Waya on January 16, 2010, 12:01:02 am
Correct me if I have misunderstood something about the Freedmen issue over these past couple of years  and am wrong about this but didn't the vote only affect those Freedmen who could not be traced back to the rolls?  I have understood that not all the Freedmen were affected regardless of linage.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 16, 2010, 01:04:31 am
Quote
Correct me if I have misunderstood something about the Freedmen issue over these past couple of years  and am wrong about this but didn't the vote only affect those Freedmen who could not be traced back to the rolls?  I have understood that not all the Freedmen were affected regardless of linage.

All Cherokee Freedmen can be traced back to the Dawes Rolls.  The issue is that they ( the Freedmen ) are not "Cherokee/Indian by blood" and are not listed as such.  Also, about 9 or 10 descendants of Intermarried Whites on the Dawes Roll who were not also descended from a Cherokee by blood were also deemed not to be eligible for Cherokee Citizenship.  The only exception of not being descended of someone Cherokee by blood but eligible for Cherokee Citizenship are the descendants of Delaware and Shawnee Indians by blood listed on the Dawes Roll.  So the Cherokee Nation wants to keep the Cherokee Nation a tribe of Indians.  And I agree with that.  That’s what was reaffirmed in 2007 when the issue was voted on by the Cherokee people.  A lot of people are trying to make it look like the Cherokee Nation is racist for that.  Its funny that these very same people who believe this that I have confronted, are so ignorant about the whole issue.  Some like Don will argue that a great number of Freedmen were, because of their skin color, not put on the Cherokee by blood rolls.  No evidence of this has ever been given neither by him nor anyone else.  I only know of a few cases that seem to have any merit.  People have quoted these few isolated cases on the Internet and in Newspapers to make it appear like it was widespread and that many or most Freedmen had Cherokee blood.  This was far from the case.  With that said there are over 1500 Cherokee Citizens by blood who also are descended from Cherokee Freedmen.  For me and most Cherokees, its not about if they are black skin or white skin, but that they are “Cherokee/Indian by blood”.

But even most Freedmen supporters aren’t really relying on that argument for their case.  They say that the Treaty of 1866 was broken, and that because of that Treaty, the Freedmen descendants have the right to Cherokee citizenship regardless of not having Cherokee/Indian blood.  It all comes down to Tribal Sovereignty.  The Cherokee Nation decides who its citizens are. Not the Federal Government, not the Congressional Black Caucus, nor anyone else.  This is an Intertribal matter and everyone else needs to keep their noses out of our business.  That goes for everyone.  Including certain Canadian Citizens on this site that feel they have the right to preach to us.  Where in the world were all these Civil Rights Activist at when Indian People needed them the most??  They were nowhere to be seen!
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: LittleOldMan on January 16, 2010, 03:45:36 am
BlackWolf/Rattlebone:  Cure my ignorance please.  I am attempting to get this old brain wrapped around this matter.   Fact: In order to be a citizen of the CNO one must be able to trace a direct descent to a listed person on the Dawes roll.  The Dawes roll was made up of people who were recognized as Cherokee at the time the roll was made.  I also suppose that people who were legally adopted by one of these people were also considered to be citizens regardless of BQ.  If I am correct on this would their citizenship status descend to their offspring or would it stop with the adopted person.  As I also understand the original treaty granted to certain former slaves(Freedmen) citizenship in the CNO.  Was this citizenship supposed under the treaty to be passed on to the Freedman's offspring?  Now to the question.  What happened to cause the CNO to take up this whole matter in the first place.  It is to be understood that as a sovereign entity the CNO has the inherent right to set it's own criteria for citizenship just as the US, UK,France, or Canada.  Clear this up for me please. Degadageyusesdi with respect I am "LittleOldMan"
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 16, 2010, 04:44:04 am
Quote
Fact: In order to be a citizen of the CNO one must be able to trace a direct descent to a listed person on the Dawes roll.

Yeah, but the key is that one must have a BQ.  Not a minimum BQ, just a BQ.  Even though Freedmen were on the Dawes Roll, they weren’t Cherokee by blood.  Same goes for Intermarried Whites.  Both Freedman and Intermarried Whites were both legal citizens of the Cherokee Nation at one time.  This is a fact.  After the 1866 Treaty they would have considered them both Cherokee Citizens.  So in that aspect, back then, white folks married to Cherokee citizens and the Freedman who met certain criteria and lived within the boundaries of the CN yes your right would have been citizens of the CN. 

Quote
If I am correct on this would their citizenship status descend to their offspring or would it stop with the adopted person.

Stop at the adopted person.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 16, 2010, 04:47:45 am
Quote
Was this citizenship supposed under the treaty to be passed on to the Freedman's offspring?

No, but Freedmen supporters will argue otherwise and this is part of the whole controversy.  Well, for the majority of Cherokees its not a controversy.  Its not something I could explain in a few paragraphs.  I’ll give you a link to read. 

Quote
What happened to cause the CNO to take up this whole matter in the first place.

LOM, this isn't an issue that just popped up a few years ago or 5 or 10 years ago.  This has been an issue off an on since 1866. 
I think this has to do with the core belief about what makes up an Indian Tribe, and in this case the CN.  A tribe of Indians.  Even today, if non Cherokee Citizens marry a Cherokee citizen, they do not have to right to ask for citizenship.  Although it was like that in the 1700's, and 1800's.  What were talking about here is the blood issue.  Haven’t it or not.  This is the only think in my opinion that binds Indian Tribes together.  Without that, what do we have?  Now of course there is culture and traditions, which is of course very important.  But our blood is what holds our Tribe together.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: LittleOldMan on January 16, 2010, 11:01:47 am
Thanks.  There must be an unbroken descent biased on Blood no matter how diluted correct. That is, to be a CNO citizen.  I very much agree each nation has the right to determine it's own criteria.  If I am correct the CNO is only speaking to citizenship not whether a person is Cherokee 4/4 or 1/256. Then to restate, a person must be able to have a direct tie back to a Cherokee by Blood who is also listed on the Dawes roll.  On a slightly different note what does the future hold for Tribal entities who would like to keep their Identities both of culture and BQ.  Won't this be impossible.  Seems that in order to avoid the inbreeding the BQ will decrease to the point that the race has gone out of existence  genocide then will be complete.  Large Tribes like the Dene that have a "Born For" and a Born To" system may last longer but the dilution will come to them also in time.  Does it then yield that Culture may eventually be the key in tying the the Tribe together.  Are the Elders thinking of this and planning for the future?  Just some questions that come to me a 4 AM.  Comments please.  Thanks again with respect "LOM"
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Unegv Waya on January 16, 2010, 03:46:24 pm
That much I did understand, Black Wolf.  I know there are Freedmen who trace to the final rolls but not by blood.  I understand also that there are some Freedmen who do trace back to native blood lines and that they were not affected by the vote.  Is that not the case?
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 16, 2010, 07:00:44 pm
Quote
Thanks.  There must be an unbroken descent biased on Blood no matter how diluted correct.
Quote
If I am correct the CNO is only speaking to citizenship not whether a person is Cherokee 4/4 or 1/256.

Correct on both accounts. 

Quote
On a slightly different note what does the future hold for Tribal entities who would like to keep their Identities both of culture and BQ. Won't this be impossible. Seems that in order to avoid the inbreeding the BQ will decrease to the point that the race has gone out of existence genocide then will be complete.

The CN has a vibrant full blood and traditional community.  There will still always be full bloods and traditional people.  I believe there are about 8,000 full bloods in the CN or close to that number.  But then again you have light skin Cherokees who would be considered full blood by culture.  Some have green and blue eyes put participate in ceremonial life and speak the language.  Many people use this concept of BQ because they are filtering it through their own non Cherokee belief system.  But you also have the UKB of around I think 12,000 or so. They cap their BQ at 1/4.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 16, 2010, 07:03:11 pm
Many people have a stereotypical Hollywood ideal about what an Indian Nation should look like.  While I do agree that a full blood community and Traditional people are important and the backbone of a tribe, it is not the only way in 2010, ( over 500 years after Columbus set foot in the Americas” to define an Indian Nation.  And yes, Don, they are sovereign.  This is a concept that even one of my little nephews can grasp about citizenship and being a citizen of a Nation..  You’re a citizen of the US, France, China, etc. Its fascinating that grown adults can’t seem to understand it.    Indian Nations have their own citizens also, and ONLY THEY determine who is and is not. 

I would counter that just the opposite has occurred with the CN in regards to the BQ.  More citizens means more political and economic clout in the United States. All Cherokees have a common bond of having Cherokee blood.  Whether you’re a full blood or just have a drop.  I do agree with you though that tradition and culture are important.  I think the CN is addressing this issue in Oklahoma with their community organizations and even in places like California and Texas with the Satellite comminutes. 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 16, 2010, 07:12:41 pm
When the time comes in the not to distant future when Tribal Sovereignty is again threatened. ( Make no doubts about it, ( ITS COMING and just a matter of time ).  300,000 citizens will be more important then 10,000.  Same goes for the Navajo.  The only argument that can be made about the BQ is in regards to services.  More enrolled members means less services to go around.  But this isn’t always the case, as more members also mean more funding.  Depends how you look at it.  That’s why there has been a lot of disenrolment in places like California.  But these tribes will begin to see that in the long run that they are only hurting themselves.  Don touched on this in his post about how.  America and Canada is changing.  He said there were more foreign born people in Canada then the entire Indian population there.  That should put things into perspective.  There are more foreign born immigrants in New York City alone then the entire number of enrolled members of Federally Recognized Tribes in the entire United States of America.  Many of these people look at themselves as oppressed people in their own countries of origin and sometimes even here, and many are completely ignorant about American Indians.  I’m not going to name the country here, but I recently met an immigrant that has been here about 10 years who came from a particular country, and  I got to making small talk with him.  To my surprise he never even heard of the Lakotas or the Cherokees and he thought that all the Indians were gone as he put it.  This is a true story. Then you have a lot of other Americans whether it be white or black who think we get special rights.

Don is on target when he talks about the Right Wingers and Tea Baggers who always thought we had special rights to begin with becoming restless now combined with the fact that America is going bankrupt ( it already has ), and we have more and more immigrants who don’t have the inherent guilt about what the White Invaders did here, and in some cases never even heard of the Lakotas and Cherokees so it will be interesting to see what awaits our Tribal Sovereignty in the not so distant future.  Anyone that knows what happened in our not so recent  past with the Indian Termination Policies knows what I’m talking about.  History ALWAYS repeats itself and ALWAYS will.  American Indians instead of worrying about BQS and residency requirements and who knows the ways and who was raised white, etc,etc should start uniting as American Indians.  We are already seeing encroachment on Tribal Sovereignty with the Casinos. Casinos aren’t going to last forever.  The same goes for water rights and mineral rights, and a long list of other so called “special rights” that isn’t only the opinion of our Canadian Friend Don.  He’s got a lot of company out there..  American Indians need to unite now.   
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 16, 2010, 07:13:48 pm
Quote
That much I did understand, Black Wolf.  I know there are Freedmen who trace to the final rolls but not by blood.  I understand also that there are some Freedmen who do trace back to native blood lines and that they were not affected by the vote.  Is that not the case?

sorry white wolf, just saw your post.  Exactly.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: LittleOldMan on January 16, 2010, 08:18:21 pm
Thank you BW  I believe that we are on the same page.  I also like what the CNO is doing with the satellite communities.  I have seen so much cultural wrongheadedness on the powwow trail that it very much needs to be addressed properly.  Now, I do not know the right way to do this, but it makes sense to me that if the three Federal Cherokee tribes were to address this in a good way that the problem of state tribes would be lessened. It might not get rid of all the egocentric frauds but by educating those of Cherokee descent in proper culture it could lessen their effect greatly. I am not calling for some type of second class citizenship here but some way of enlisting all people of Cherokee descent so as to protect the future of the culture and the Tribes.  With respect Degadageyusesdi I am "LittleOldMan"
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 16, 2010, 09:15:32 pm
Quote
Thank you BW  I believe that we are on the same page.  I also like what the CNO is doing with the satellite communities.  I have seen so much cultural wrongheadedness on the powwow trail that it very much needs to be addressed properly.

http://www.cherokee.org/Organizations/Communities/Default.aspx[/quote]] (http://[quote)
Quote
http://www.cherokee.org/Organizations/Communities/Default.aspx
[/url]

I agree, but the thing about these communities is that they are only set up ( or potentially set up ) in areas that have a significant number of Cherokee citizens who actually live in that particular area.  And educating the enrolled citizens is what they were or are set up for.  I'm not saying its not a good thing for non enrolled citizens to go to them and learn, but just that not everyone will live in an area that has one and wants to learn about Cherokee culture.

So unless you live in Calironia, the Houston, Texas area, New Mexico, or Central Florida, you really don't have many options other then taken a trip to Oklahoma or NC.   
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 16, 2010, 09:16:41 pm

The link wasn't working. Here it is again
http://www.cherokee.org/Organizations/Communities/Default.aspx (http://www.cherokee.org/Organizations/Communities/Default.aspx)
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: LittleOldMan on January 16, 2010, 09:32:37 pm
That's fine it has to begin somewhere.  Doesn't mean it has to stop let the good grow.  May take awhile but it may be meant to happen.  Perhaps we will all come together again one day.  "LOM"
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Paul123 on January 17, 2010, 11:09:20 am
@BW,
you said in post 46:
When the time comes in the not to distant future when Tribal Sovereignty is again threatened. ( Make no doubts about it, ( ITS COMING and just a matter of time ).  300,000 citizens will be more important then 10,000.  Same goes for the Navajo.  The only argument that can be made about the BQ is in regards to services.  More enrolled members means less services to go around.  But this isn’t always the case, as more members also mean more funding.  Depends how you look at it.


Are you prognosticating?


Also,  If 300,000 citizens are more important than 10,000.
Then It would seem that 800,000 would be more powerful than 300,000.

(sorry, I couldn't help but beat that horse one more time.)

Including the Freeman, (if they want to be included). After all this is a thread about them. 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 17, 2010, 03:08:28 pm
Quote
Also,  If 300,000 citizens are more important than 10,000.
Then It would seem that 800,000 would be more powerful than 300,000.

Your assuming that everyone who claims Cherokee ancestry is in fact of Cherokee ancestry.  Its not 500,000 Paul.  I’m using 500,000 because I”m assuming your adding the 300,000 enrolled Cherokees to that number of 800,000.  Its not even 200,000 or 100,000.  A conservative estimate would be under 10,000 of people not enrolled in one of the three Federally Recognized Tribes but who may have Cherokee ancestry.  And that’s being extremely generous as its probably less then even that number. Any reputable Cherokee Historian, American Historian, Anthropologist, or Genealogist will tell you the same thing.  Most of those stories of Cherokee ancestry are in fact just that. STORIES.  I guess you missed the boat on this one Paul.

Quote
Including the Freeman, (if they want to be included). After all this is a thread about them.


There are about 1500 enrolled decendents of Freedmen.  Freedmen decendents who can't enroll but may have Cherokee ancestsry would be only handfuls of people.  It woudln't be a significant number.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Paul123 on January 17, 2010, 04:48:42 pm
Quote
Also,  If 300,000 citizens are more important than 10,000.
Then It would seem that 800,000 would be more powerful than 300,000.

Your assuming that everyone who claims Cherokee ancestry is in fact of Cherokee ancestry.  Its not 500,000 Paul.  I’m using 500,000 because I”m assuming your adding the 300,000 enrolled Cherokees to that number of 800,000.  Its not even 200,000 or 100,000.  A conservative estimate would be under 10,000 of people not enrolled in one of the three Federally Recognized Tribes but who may have Cherokee ancestry.  And that’s being extremely generous as its probably less then even that number. Any reputable Cherokee Historian, American Historian, Anthropologist, or Genealogist will tell you the same thing.  Most of those stories of Cherokee ancestry are in fact just that. STORIES.  I guess you missed the boat on this one Paul.

Quote
Including the Freeman, (if they want to be included). After all this is a thread about them.


There are about 1500 enrolled decendents of Freedmen.  Freedmen decendents who can't enroll but may have Cherokee ancestsry would be only handfuls of people.  It woudln't be a significant number.

Not really,, I was just giving you some talking points.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: E.P. Grondine on January 17, 2010, 11:16:22 pm
There are about 1500 enrolled decendents of Freedmen.  Freedmen decendents who can't enroll but may have Cherokee ancestsry would be only handfuls of people.  It woudln't be a significant number.

Unless you happen to 1 of that number. Then its a significant number.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Paul123 on January 18, 2010, 01:39:40 am
While I do fully support any Tribe to do as they wish, the numbers game that this thread now seems to be debating needs some attention.

The numbers all depend on who is doing the counting.  As E.P. Grondine said even 1 is important if your that one. However the actual numbers given by the CN say of the total number of dis-enrolled Freeman was about 2800,,,  not 1500 total Freeman and just a handful that were disenfranchised.

As for the numbers of NDNs I mentioned:
 I mentioned 1/2 a million people that already self identify as Cherokee yet they are not enrolled in one of the 3 fed Tribes and that number got cut down in less than one paragraph to below 10,000.

Of the above mentioned people that say they are Cherokee the figure of more like 1 million Total that would claim Cherokee ancestry (not counting the other 2 fed Tribes/Bands). This number comes from the CN.  Of this, About 300,000 are enrolled, 500,000 un-enrolled people that say they are Cherokee, The other 200,000ish are the ones that will be glad to tell you about their NDN Princess gggGrandmother but don't claim to be Cherokee.  As BW says most all of these 200,000 can't prove it or won't even bother to check.

Of the 2 un-enrolled groups there are at least 300,000 that won't find any proof. and sure of them perhaps some have out right lied about their genealogy but,  that still leaves a couple hundred thousand that would more than likely be an asset to the Tribe not a liability. But if a time comes when they are needed they may not feel welcome and would just stay where they are (where ever that is).

All of these numbers, whether they be the Freeman or all of the Cherokee combined are but a very small number these days. When it comes to power in Washington DC hell the NRA has more power. Even if in the wildest dreams the Cherokee Nation would unite with everyone the numbers wouldn't amount to much more than the attendance of 2 or 3 good football games.

Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 18, 2010, 02:51:32 am
Quote
However the actual numbers given by the CN say of the total number of dis-enrolled Freeman was about 2800,,,  not 1500 total Freeman and just a handful that were disenfranchised.


The 1,500 number is the number of Cherokee citizens who are Cherokee by blood but also have a Freedmen ancestor on the Dawes Roll.  They are not Freedmen, they are "Cherokee".  The (2800) were people who only have Freedmen ancestors listed on the Dawes Roll and are not Cherokee by blood.  Even though the 1500 also have Freedmen ancestors, for the CN, they are not Freedmen, they are Cherokee.  Just as the many Cherokee citizens who are part Scotish, are not Scotish, they are just Cherokee.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 18, 2010, 05:06:37 am
Quote
As BW says most all of these 200,000 can't prove it or won't even bother to check.

 
And also, most people that claim Cherokee heritage aren't running around in buckskin and bone choker necklaces on claiming to be Elders, Chiefs and pipe carriers.  Most have probably never even been to a powwow and are just normal people.   Even a lot of celebrities claim Cherokee heritage such as Johnny Depp, Chuck Norris, Michael Jackson, President Clinton, President Obama, Cher, Rosa Parks, James Earl Jones, Kevin Costner, etc.  I've had neighbors, teachers, friends, in laws, co workers, classmates, and people I just bump into on the street all tell me they are part Cherokee.  Some of them probably do have Cherokee heritage, but at some point you have to realize that it is just numerically impossible for this to be the case with all of them.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Paul123 on January 18, 2010, 11:55:00 am
Agreed, But I wonder,, has anyone ever done that math? I did a very rough quickie on those that can't be accounted for from the TOT. I think that about the absolute best one could hope for today from them would be around 20,000. The problem with the others is that there is no way to know for sure how many there were that weren't found/didn't go. To have 1/2 a million people today there would have had to have been at least 20 to 30 thousand of them back then. That is A LOT of NDNs. to lose track of. But you would also have to take into account that there would have been a bunch from several other Tribes that somehow all turned into Cherokee today. I don't think that there are very many Kickapoo wannabees today. (know what I mean Vern)?



(math check:
1200 unaccounted for from the start till the finish of the TOT.
toss out 200 that may have died or never had kids
assume 5 kids per
for 4.5 generations
toss out 2500 for a mortality rate.)


Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 18, 2010, 09:53:05 pm
Quote
The problem with the others is that there is no way to know for sure how many there were that weren't found/didn't go.


This is true.  You can really only talk in general terms. 

Quote
I did a very rough quickie on those that can't be accounted for from the TOT. I think that about the absolute best one could hope for today from them would be around 20,000.

Your 20,000 number is high but I'm not going to argue about that.  I think the general idea is established. We can say a best case scenaro is this number, a most likely scenario is that number and this number is pure fiction ( meaning the 500,000+ number).  Now of course there are also other factors such as how many offspring did a Cherokee man or woman produce, and how many offspring did those offspring have etc, etc.  What we can say without a doubt is that most of the hordes of people in Georgia and a few other states who claim Cherokee heritage are bogus claims.  One would just have to look at history to understand that.  Some states that probably do have people with some legit claims of being Cherokees are Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Texas.  A few settled there and thus lost their Cherokee citizenship, so there are probably at least some people there who are Cherokee by blood.  The problem now is that even there its hard to sort out the fakes from the legit claims.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 18, 2010, 10:03:18 pm
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kbr01-15.pdf (http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kbr01-15.pdf)

There were 729,533 people on the 2000 Census who identified as Cherokee. This is on page 10.  I do'nt know what the poplation was of the three federally recognzied Cherokee tribes  back then.  But of course it would be less then the 300,000 of today.  So it would probably be safe to say that half a million of that number weren't enrolled in the year 2000. 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: critter - a white non-ndn person on January 18, 2010, 11:09:38 pm
I can't imagine what it would be like if you suddenly had 200,000 people showing up wanting 'in'.   ?? 

Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 19, 2010, 12:09:38 am
Quote
I can't imagine what it would be like if you suddenly had 200,000 people showing up wanting 'in'.   ??

Thats already happened. 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: critter - a white non-ndn person on January 19, 2010, 12:48:23 am
Well, I mean physically showing up in one place.. congregating.. and demanding...  but I suppose it's not much different than having 200,000 across the country doing so. 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 19, 2010, 04:19:59 am
I found some more numbers that might be of some interest.  The Cherokee Census of 1835.  This was taken in the East right before the Trail of Tears.  You also hear hordes of people all over the SE and beyond claiming that their ancestors "walked off the Trail of Tears".  Well if thats the case then their ancestors should be on this roll/Census.  Here's the numbers I found for this Census.  The reason a lot of people can't find a Cherokee ancestor is because most likely that ancestor never existed in the first place.

Cherokee Census of 1835
16,542 Cherokees
1,592 Slaves
201 whites intermarried with Cherokees

What also should be noted about the Freedmen is that they were in fact Cherokee Citizens after the Treaty of 1866, so a freedmen at the time would be considered Cherokee even though they didn't have a BQ.  The same goes for intermarried whites.  They would have been Cherokee Citizens at the time.  Some of these Freedmen and white people who had Cherokee spouses even spoke Cherokee and were intergrated.

So one must be careful about looking at the History.  Also, the Dawes Rolls were put together about 40 years after the Treaty of 1866.

  Tribal citizens were enrolled under several categories under Dawes

Citizen by Blood
New Born Citizen by Blood
Minor Citizens by Blood
Citizen by Marriage
Freedmen (former black slaves of Indians)
New Born Freedmen
Minor Freedmen
Delaware Indians (those adopted by the Cherokee tribe were enrolled as a separate group within the Cherokee)

 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 19, 2010, 04:28:34 am
Here's a few more Cherokee Rolls. If you really are Cherokee by blood, chances are you can prove it somehow and somewhere.  Even if your not enrolled in one of the 3 Real Cherokee Tribes for one reason or the other, then you should still be albe to come up with at least a shred of evidence somewhere.

 http://www.archives.gov/genealogy/heritage/native-american/ (http://www.archives.gov/genealogy/heritage/native-american/)

1817 Reservation Roll  (those requesting a reservation). The 1817 treaty allowed for a six hundred and forty acre life estate per head of household, which upon the death of the grantee, or abandonment of the land by the grantee, reverted to the state; microfilm Group 75.

1817 Emigration Roll  (1817-1835 Old Settlers) microfilm A21.

1835 Henderson Roll  (also called the Trail of Tears roll). 16,000 plus Cherokee residing in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee who were supposed to remove to Indian Territory under New Echota Treaty of 1835; microfilm T496.

1848 Mullay Roll  (resided in North Carolina). 1,517 Cherokee remaining in North Carolina after removal. Taken as a result of an Act of Congress; microfilm 7RA6.

1851 Old Settlers Roll  This is the Roll of those still alive in 1851, who were already resident in *Oklahoma* by 1839, when the emigrants arrived. This group was about 1/3 the total Cherokee population in what is now Oklahoma. Note: it is important to recognize that this census did not include those “Old Settlers” who remained in Arkansas, Texas, or Mexico; microfilm M-685, Reel 12.

1851 Siler Roll  (Cherokee East of the Mississippi) microfilm 7RA6.

1852 Chapman Roll  (Cherokee East of the Mississippi) The Chapman Roll was taken in 1851 by Alfred Chapman . This roll, which followed almost immediately the Siler Roll, was a result of many complaints by various Cherokees of having been omitted by Siler (JWJ) microfilm M-685.

1852 Drennen Roll  (Emigrant Cherokee in Indian Territory). This roll was the first census of the emigrants/new arrivals of 1839. This was the “Trail of Tears” survivors, or New Echota Treaty Group; microfilm M-685.

1854 Act of Congress Roll  (Cherokee East of the Mississippi) microfilm 7RA6.

1860 Census  (of whites in Cherokee Nation)

1867 Tompkin Roll  microfilm 7RA4.

1867 Census of Cherokee East of the Mississippi  microfilm 7A29.

1867 Kern-Clifton Roll of Cherokee Freedmen , January 16, 1867.

1869 Sweatland Roll  (resided in North Carolina ) NARA roll, but number not found.

1880 Cherokee Census  microfilm 7RA7.

1880 Lipe Roll  microfilm 7RA33.

1883 Cherokee Census  microfilm 7RA29 Reels 1 & 2.

1883 Cherokee Roll  microfilm 7RA56.

1883 Hester Roll  (Cherokee East of the Mississippi) microfilm M685.

1886 Cherokee Census  microfilm 7RA58.

1890 Cherokee Census  microfilm 7RA60.

1890 Cherokee Payment Roll  (The Receipt Roll) microfilm 7RA59.

1890 Wallace Roll  (of Cherokee Freedmen in Indian Territory)
((Wallace Roll of Cherokee Freedmen in Indian Territory. These rolls were created because the Cherokee citizenship of many ex-slaves of the Cherokee in Indian Territory was disputed by the Cherokee tribe. The establishment of their status was important in determining their right to live on Cherokee land and to share in certain annuity and other payments, including a special $75,000 award voted by Congress on October 19, 1888. A series of investigations was conducted in order to compile the rolls of the Cherokee Freedmen. These investigations were conducted by John W. Wallace, 1889-1890; Leo E. Bennett, 1891-92; Marcus D. Shelby, 1893; James G. Dickson, 1895-96; and William Clifton, William Thompson, and Robert H. Kern, 1896-97.))

1893 Cherokee Census  microfilm 7RA54.

1894 Starrs Roll  microfilm 7RA38.

1896 Old Settlers Payment  (for Descendants of Old Settlers) microfilm 7RA34.

1896 Cherokee Census  microfilm 7RA19.


 
1898-1902 (1914) Dawes Roll
((Rolls of Citizens and Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes in Indian Territory consisting of 634 pages of names. The Dawes Commission was organized in 1893 to accept applications for tribal enrollment between 1899 and 1907 (some were added as late as 1914), mostly from Indians who resided in the Indian Territory which later became the State of Oklahoma. Tribal membership entitled qualified individuals to land allotments from the U.S. Government. These enrollment records were eventually published as the Dawes Commission, also known as The Five Civilized Tribes, which consisted of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole Tribes.))
 

as Found in the Dawes Commission Roll


Cherokee by Blood
“by blood” means the individual’s parent(s) were Cherokee, and (generally) that the parents had appeared on a previous census of the Cherokee - but not always.    Source: Glen Davis

Minor Cherokee by Blood
For purposes of Dawes, “minor” means the individual was born during the enrollment period which, for the Cherokee in Oklahoma ended 01 Sept 1902. (There are some children on Dawes who were born between 1902 & 1906 - they were admitted if their parents were on the 1902 Roll.)    Source: Glen Davis

Delaware Cherokee
Those listed as Delaware were adopted into the Cherokees. The Delaware reservation was in the very northeast corner of Indian Territory.    Source: Glen Davis

Cherokee by Intermarriage
White spouses who were adopted into the tribe as Cherokee.

Cherokee Freedmen
Ex-slaves (of African descent) of Cherokee citizens. Before the Dawes Commission Freedmen had to also established that if they removed from Indian Territory prior to or during the Civil War, they returned thereto prior to Feb. 11, 1867 and resided continuously therefrom. Once these two criteria were “proved up” Freedmen were admitted to Cherokee citizenship.    Source: Preston L. Washington


 

1900 Cherokee Nation Census 

1907 Council Roll of Eastern Band Cherokee  microfilm #M-1104, 1-348

1908 Churchill Roll  (Cherokee East of the Mississippi) microfilm #M-1104, 1-348.

1909 Guion Miller Roll . A Roll of Eastern Cherokee containing 343 pages. Many Cherokee living in Indian Territory or Oklahoma are included in this list.

1924 Baker Roll . The final roll for the Eastern Band of the Cherokee. The Eastern band was able to avoid allotment but the roll still exists and is now the enrollment roll. #M-1104, 1-348 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 19, 2010, 05:30:13 am
I got this from the National Archives Website ( link on previous post.  It covers what I said before about how the descendents of White People who tried to sneak and bribe their way on the Dawes Roll to get allotments are now claiming to be Cherokee.

  Census of Intruders
If you haven't found your ancestor listed on any rolls of persons recognized as tribal members, you should check for lists of "Intruders". The correspondence between tribal officials and agents is full of complaints about non-Indians living on tribal land and sometimes includes lists of the names of these people with a request that they be removed. The Cherokees compiled a census of intruders in 1893 which has been microfilmed by the Fort Worth Branch (control number 7RA-55) and censuses taken by the tribe in 1880 and 1890 (microfilmed as 7RA07 and 7RA08) contain separate schedules of Intruders. Many of the persons enrolled by the Dawes Commission found non--Indians living on the lands they selected as allotments. The Commission investigated these complaints from 1901 to 1909 and the indexes to these intruder cases are available on microfilm (7RA5-3) at the Fort Worth Branch. Many Outalucks are the descendants of these "intruders".
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Paul123 on January 20, 2010, 12:34:59 am
A researcher's dream come true would be if/when these rolls become available from the internet. Surely someone is digitizing those antiquated microfilms. But the likes of Ancestry.com and Footnotes.com would buy up the rights to them. 

I love rummaging through this sort of stuff. If you have any good links please post them. 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 20, 2010, 04:11:16 pm
I would say total reliance on a single roll,  written by a white man who was a racist, is like letting the British take a census before they evacuated Yorktown. Only those "Americans" on the list would be citizens. I don't believe that makes any more sense than using the Dawes Rolls as the sol determinant of who is and who is not Cherokee.
There is only one real reason for expelling the freedmens descendants, race. How can black people see it any other way. First who are the freedmen descendants of slaves owned by the Cherokee. It was called racial slavery, because it was solely based on race. They were segregated within the CNO based solely on race. Then they were expelled from the tribe, solely because of race. Its not about sovereignty, that's a politically correct  word for racism.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: critter - a white non-ndn person on January 20, 2010, 04:32:53 pm
Seriously, I can't take this any longer.  Don you cannot read, or rather, you cannot comprehend the meaning of words strung together in a sentence.   No, I'm not going to copy and paste the obvious points you apparently can not see.  That would be akin to showing a blind man a picture.  You cannot see it.. although, perhaps not entirely your fault .. 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Defend the Sacred on January 20, 2010, 07:18:20 pm
Its not about sovereignty, that's a politically correct  word for racism.

No, Don, Tribal Sovereignty is a damn serious issue. You seem really hell-bent on insulting NDNs here. I'm going to let your comments stand so people can see you for what you are. But be aware: You are treading on thin ice.

You are free to discuss your opinions on the rolls, but I haven't heard you say anything new for quite a while. The rest of us are watching you retread these same arguments, ad nauseum. It's tiresome. All that's changed is that the level of your insults to NDNs has increased. That is not acceptable.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 20, 2010, 08:57:50 pm
I am not a racist, and don't like being called one, simply because I disagree with some folks on some issues.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: critter - a white non-ndn person on January 20, 2010, 10:57:58 pm
I am not a racist, and don't like being called one, simply because I disagree with some folks on some issues.

Just a guess.. but I'm thinking the people here...  And those you are calling racist...  feel the same way...  ?
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 21, 2010, 03:37:19 am
If I'm a racist what is John Cornsilk? Is Marilynn Vann a racist? What about David Cornsilk? I could go on and on. Its pretty clear to me that I'm in good company because those people agree with me. Like I said when you have no logical or rational argument, play racism. Sorry that doesn't work with me and with people who have been fighting racism all their lives.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 21, 2010, 04:09:30 am
Quote
If I'm a racist what is John Cornsilk? Is Marilynn Vann a racist? What about David Cornsilk? I could go on and on. Its pretty clear to me that I'm in good company because those people agree with me.

Even a minority of Cherokee Citizens voted in favor of the Freedmen.  What does this have to do anything?  That's their opinion and their entitled to it. 

BUT THIS IS ABOUT YOU DON!  "YOU"!  And "YOUR" words and comments speak for themselves! 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 21, 2010, 04:14:54 am
If I'm a racist what is John Cornsilk? Is Marilynn Vann a racist? What about David Cornsilk? I could go on and on. Its pretty clear to me that I'm in good company because those people agree with me. Like I said when you have no logical or rational argument, play racism. Sorry that doesn't work with me and with people who have been fighting racism all their lives.

 Since you wish to bring up the John Cornsilk, I can tell you that though he might be pro-freedmen; I have never seen him speak the racism you have.

 Though me might be pro-freedmen, I have never seen him speak the racism you do against Cherokee mixed bloods with European/Cherokee ancestry.

You can clearly see in this thread that the views and racism you speak on this thread are not what Cornsilk believes in.

http://64.38.12.138/boardx/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=37784

Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: bls926 on January 21, 2010, 04:28:00 am
If I'm a racist what is John Cornsilk? Is Marilynn Vann a racist? What about David Cornsilk? I could go on and on. Its pretty clear to me that I'm in good company because those people agree with me. Like I said when you have no logical or rational argument, play racism. Sorry that doesn't work with me and with people who have been fighting racism all their lives.

There's a difference. John & David Cornsilk and Marilyn Vann don't wish the CNO would cease to exist. You have stated that is your wish for the CNO. These people don't scoff at sovereignty, as you do. While all three may have some harsh things to say about Chad Smith and the current government, none advocates the demise of the Cherokee Nation. You, on the other hand, can't wait to see that happen. I don't ever remember reading anything from the Cornsilks or Vann with as much venom toward mixed-blood Cherokee with white blood, as I've read from you during the past few months. The only thing you have in common with these three is the desire to see the Freedmen readmitted to the Cherokee rolls.

Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: critter - a white non-ndn person on January 21, 2010, 04:38:51 am
If I'm a racist what is John Cornsilk? Is Marilynn Vann a racist? What about David Cornsilk? I could go on and on. Its pretty clear to me that I'm in good company because those people agree with me. Like I said when you have no logical or rational argument, play racism. Sorry that doesn't work with me and with people who have been fighting racism all their lives.

There is no logical or rational argument coming from you.  Evidence has been posted as to *why* those freedmen were removed from enrollment.  It is no one's fault but your own if you cannot understand the words being spoken(typed).  You only wish to continue on without looking at the evidence being shown to you.. yet you provide no evidence of your own except that some people agree with you.

Perhaps its not that they agree with you.. maybe it's that YOU agree with them without having investigated their claims fully.  And now, you are either unable or unwilling to even consider that the information provided by them is false.  

*edited* left my words even though they are in mistake since I do not know or have read the words of the people Don is citing.  But I am leaving it so Don and others can see how his false words and the slant he makes on what these people do stand for.  By stating the things you've said (ie: they agree with you) you have created a lie, since they do not agree with you.  If you are going around saying they stand for this racism you keep spouting, you may wish to be careful of not getting sued for slander. 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: bls926 on January 21, 2010, 06:21:52 am
Critter, maybe you don't fully understand the Freedman issue. Arguing that the Freedmen should not be denied citizenship does not make Don Naconna a racist. Many people, Cherokee and non-Cherokee, feel this way.

The Freedmen were made citizens of the Cherokee Nation by a Treaty signed in 1866, long before the Dawes Roll. There were no stipulations as to whether they had Cherokee blood or not. They had walked the Trail of Tears, had suffered and died, were part of the Nation. The Mvskoke, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole all signed similar treaties after the Civil War. Forty years later the census was taken and members of the Five Tribes were listed on the rolls as "by blood" or as "Freedmen". Why did they make this distinction? First, every adult "by blood" member was given an allotment. With the "Freedmen", only the head of household, husband, was given an allotment. Meant there was one less piece of Oklahoma being handed out to Indians per family. Add to that, Indians "by blood" were not allowed to sell their land; "Freedmen" could dispose of their allotment. Meant there were potentially more pieces of land that white settlers would be able to buy. Dividing the citizens of the Nations into "by blood" and "Freedmen" was simply a way to get additional land for settlement by whites. What was supposed to be Indian Territory forever took less than 100 years to become the state of Oklahoma.

I can see both sides of this issue. The Treaty of 1866 made the Freedmen citizens of the Cherokee Nation. In reality, they'd been accepted as members of the Nation for generations. However, every Nation has a right to determine its own citizenship requirements. It was put to a vote and the majority of Cherokee voted to base citizenship on the Dawes Cherokee By Blood Roll, no exceptions. Do some Freedmen have Cherokee blood? Definitely. This can be confirmed by earlier rolls; but, CNO does not base its enrollment on earlier rolls. CNO could have decided to establish a BQ cut-off, like the EBCI and the UKB have. As a sovereign Nation, they could have done whatever their citizens wanted. But then I come back to the Treaty of 1866. If the CNO breaks this treaty, they become no different that the United States. Then I think, why not? How many treaties have been broken by the U.S.? I'm not enrolled with the CNO, so I really don't have a dog in this fight, other than how the repercussions will be felt by everyone.
          
Don's views on sovereignty and statements like Indians need to get out of the 19th century are racist. He condemns the entire CNO as prejudiced, which is far from the truth. He seems to particularly disapprove of Cherokee-white mixed bloods, while championing the cause of the Freedmen. These things constitute his racist behavior, not holding fast to his belief that the Freedmen should be readmitted to the Cherokee rolls.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: critter - a white non-ndn person on January 21, 2010, 06:54:58 am
Yes, I understand that, or most of it that was posted in response to Don.. 

But,  I was speaking about him calling the Cherokee racists and then stating that those other people agreed with him.  He slanted what those people 'agreed' with ..  Anyone such as myself reading through all his rants of racism, then reading those final words, that those people agreed with him, would conclude that they too believe the Cherokee are racists.  It's good other people spoke up and clarified that they do not agree with Don regarding this. 

For me, mostly what I'm reading is (other than the other posters who are posting actual information) all I'm reading is Don's proclamation of the Cherokee being racists.  Then he states these other people agree with him.  Don doesn't provide any other real information, just keeps making these statements.. and now as far as I can see, has stated these people agree with him. 

Maybe I'm just highly confused..  that is a definite possibility..  but the discussion of why they CNO chose to go with BQ on the rolls for establishing citizenship seems entirely lost in the rant of racism.  Except for the few who continue to provide real information..  but then the discussion just gets revamped with rants of racism.  So yeah, could be I'm just confused on what this thread is supposed to be about.  :)   

I can delete or edit my previous posts if preferred?  No issue to me to do so..   

Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 21, 2010, 02:53:55 pm
taken from black on black crime coalition

BLACK ON BLACK CRIME STATISTICS

While African Americans comprise 13.5% of the U.S. Population, 43% of all murder victims in 2007 were African American, 93.1% of whom were killed were African Americans.

Victimizations of African Americans from violent crime which include the following; rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple Assault was 24.3% in 2007, with the highest percentages of victimizations within the age ranges of 15-24 totaling a percentage greater than 38%.

Would someone please tell me what this biased statistic has to do with the freedmen or th CNO. NOTHING! This was sent to me by Rattlebone to somehow justify his position on the freedmen. This is clearly racist in both its intent and to has nothing to do with the freedmen. That is why I have posited allalong that this is about race not about sovereignty. Because people believe the stereotypes they want to exclude black freedmen from the CNO. A questionm how many black people are you folks in touch with, and how do you think they would react if you sent you don't support the freedmen because black people are violent criminals. Thats racism!
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 21, 2010, 05:11:26 pm
taken from black on black crime coalition

BLACK ON BLACK CRIME STATISTICS

While African Americans comprise 13.5% of the U.S. Population, 43% of all murder victims in 2007 were African American, 93.1% of whom were killed were African Americans.

Victimizations of African Americans from violent crime which include the following; rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple Assault was 24.3% in 2007, with the highest percentages of victimizations within the age ranges of 15-24 totaling a percentage greater than 38%.

Would someone please tell me what this biased statistic has to do with the freedmen or th CNO. NOTHING! This was sent to me by Rattlebone to somehow justify his position on the freedmen. This is clearly racist in both its intent and to has nothing to do with the freedmen. That is why I have posited allalong that this is about race not about sovereignty. Because people believe the stereotypes they want to exclude black freedmen from the CNO. A questionm how many black people are you folks in touch with, and how do you think they would react if you sent you don't support the freedmen because black people are violent criminals. Thats racism!

 You know, you have a nasty habit of omitting parts of conversations or ignoring certain aspects of things just so you can push your agenda.

 It really doesn't surprise me that you would try and pull this BS here that you are now doing. Of course you left out the full content of that private conversation, and did not bother to put here why I pointed out those statistics, just like you failed to tell everyone here how you told me "Indians are the most violent people in the United States."

 I gave those statistics to you because you kept point out how "bad the freedmen have it," and were saying so in private to try and almost make it look as they were still being treated like slaves; even to the point you try and make it seem as if they have it worse then the average person of African American ancestry. Of course you say a lot of that here as well, so it should be no surprise to anyone.

 From there I pointed out how Native Women are assaulted, raped, and murdered at a much higher rate then other women in the United States, and that this most almost always at the hands of NON Natives. Should be no surprise that crime against Native women most often comes from white men.

 I then showed you statistics showing how in the Black community, black on black crime is a huge problem. The sources I cited to you actually came from a website ran by black people who are trying to end this problem.

  It was at this point where you made the statement about how "Indians were the most racist people in the United States" or something to that effect.

 Then you tried to blame the violence against Native women on Native men in such a way as to indicate that Native men are the biggest offenders of this crime. On the contrary it is NON Indians who are the biggest offenders of it.

 Even the crimes against Native women on reservations could possibly be blamed on NON Indians since many reservations today have their land being mostly owned by NONS, and even have at times more NONS on the reservation then actual tribal members.

 All of these things are facts based on statistics. You can try and cry racism or foul for me pointing them out to you, and say that they are made up by racist white men or any other argument you can come up with. In that case, I think you just need to take off your tinfoil hat that makes you cry racism and conspiracy towards everyone else; when in reality your failure to address every aspect of the issue at hand while continually blasting  Cherokee/white mixed people shows the true racism may be actually coming from you.

 If you wish to point out things I said, please do so in the full context of what was said, and not just pick out certain part of a conversation to try and make it seem as if I was saying things I did not say.

 Furthermore, I did share the full conversation you and I had with others on here, and so I am sure they could also agree I was at no time being racist towards anyone.

 
Quote
That is why I have posited allalong that this is about race not about sovereignty

 You are a total hypocrite and a big fat liar!!

 In the course of this argument, most of us have been very supportive of both tribal sovereignty, and people of black/Indian heritage.

 Anyone who knows me can tell you that for the most part I am against the concept of BQ, and do not view other Indians in terms of color. Where I live I know Indians that look black, white, and of course full blooded Indian. I see them all as Indian, and all as family.

 Ever single person in this thread with the exception of YOU has spoken things that indicate they see things the same way. At no time has anyone ever said that people of mostly black heritage enrolled in the Cherokee Nation or any other Indian nation is not Indian and should not have membership.

 On the contrary, you have constantly blasted white looking Indians, and all have seen you do such in blanket statements. Blanket statements in my eyes equal both racism and ignorance.

 You have also consistently  failed to address my points about the issue of disenrollment in tribes in which people who were mostly Indian were being disenrolled. Just like you failed to address why the CBC has also not said a word about those cases, and yet only focuses on an Indian issue of membership when black people are involved.

 So it is as clear as the sun on clear summer day, that in regards to this issue; you are all about race.

Quote
Because people believe the stereotypes they want to exclude black freedmen from the CNO.

 At no time has one single person done or said such a thing in any of the conversations in this thread. Just like I said no such thing in private to you either.

 Had you posted up the full conversation you and I had in private, it would be dead clear to anyone that you are clearly lying through your teeth here. If not that, then your reading comprehension is poor.

 You tried taking my words out of context in private even when I explained to you that you were wrong about what you were coming back at me with.

Quote
A questionm how many black people are you folks in touch with, and how do you think they would react if you sent you don't support the freedmen because black people are violent criminals. Thats racism!

 You are doing nothing here but further expanding on your lies to make it seem as if I and others have said things that none of us ever have.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 21, 2010, 05:22:06 pm

 Don,

 If you are going to constantly send me private messages, and then come out here and lie about what I said or put things out of context to make it seem as if I was saying things I was not; then do me a favor and keep any dialogue between us in PUBLIC ONLY.


Anyone else,

 If you would like to see the private messages between Don and myself just ask and I will share them. I do not want to clutter up this thread with them, but they will prove that Don not only twists things said in private, but is a liar to boot.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Unegv Waya on January 21, 2010, 05:33:16 pm
With some trepidation I must ask the following: Wasn't the real reason for the treaty of 1866 because of racial prejudice against the Freedmen?  True, there were Freedmen on the TOT but weren't a significant number of them former slaves who did not walk on the trail but were gathered up after the war? 

I've always had the impression that the then federal and state governments did not want to accept these blacks as citizens so they basically made the tribes take them in.  Initially weren't the Freedmen, along with all the NDNs, not considered to be citizens of the US?

nvwatohiyadv
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 21, 2010, 05:33:27 pm
Figured I would post up this private message to show how Don twists things

********************************************************************************

The bigot always cites only those statistics that back up his/her racism.
The fact is that Indians on reservations are more violent than any other ethnic group in the US.
"and some tribes have murder rates against women 10 times greater than the national average."
Your statistics don't say anything about Indian on Indian crime, why because you want to prove that black people are genetic predisposed to violence, a common white racist stereotype.
What about gangs and crystal meth (Cracker Crack), smuggling, gang warfare. Black people who are middle class and live in ghettos commit no more crimes than any other ethnic groups. Racist believe that black people are violent therefore they fear them.
You are just a white racist calling themselves Indian. The facts are not what you claim.
I have not created statistics as you have. My sources are quite clear. You as I said are a racist because you rely ob generalisations and false stereotypes.
Its also obvious that because of your biases that you cannot make rational decisions or follow logical arguments. Believe me I do enjoy shooting bigots down with their own words. Prejudice is based on irrational unproven and deep seated feeling of inferiority so that the bigot transfers self hate to another group, i.e. your stereotypes of black people.

Justice Department targets violent crimes on reservations
Memo cites offenses against women, children
Devlin Barrett Associated Press PrintEmailretweet
2 Share4                    
Close [X]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Tags: Indian reservations Justice Department
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department on Monday ordered prosecutors in 33 states to step up their efforts to combat persistently high violent crime on Indian reservations, particularly offenses against women and children.

Attorney General Eric Holder was to announce the initiative after his deputy, David Ogden, issued a memo to federal prosecutors in those areas instructing them to do more to fight tribal crime – a problem the Justice Department has long been accused of ignoring.

Ogden’s memo also said 47 new prosecutors and FBI personnel will be assigned to handle such crimes.

On tribal lands, federal officials are usually responsible for prosecuting serious crimes. While the nationwide crime rate continues to fall, statistics show American Indians are the victims of violent crime at more than twice the national rate – and some tribes have murder rates against women 10 times greater than the national average.

Often, law enforcement on reservations is stretched thin across wide geographic areas.

Still, little is known about what exactly is happening on reservations or how the incidents are handled. Data has been sparse for decades and crime surveys rarely separate out tribal statistics.

Ogden wrote in the memo that the new demands being placed on prosecutors will help make reservations safer “and turn back the unacceptable tide of domestic and sexual violence there.”

The issue of jurisdiction has also long been an obstacle. The Justice Department shares responsibility for Indian crime with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is part of the Interior Department, and with state and tribal governments. Jurisdiction over a crime can vary by state, by the severity of the crime and by whether the victim and suspect are Indian or non-Indian.

While the Bureau of Indian Affairs polices reservations, the Justice Department’s role involves investigating and prosecuting crimes that fall under federal jurisdiction and administering grant programs designed to reduce crime on reservations.

Democrats in Congress criticized the Bush administration for not doing more to address the problem and for declining to prosecute many crimes in Indian country. While campaigning on Indian reservations last year during the Democratic primary, Barack Obama promised more protections for tribes, including efforts to improve law enforcement.

Separately, Justice Department officials gathered in Washington to discuss the dangers of stalking nationwide. The most recent figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics found 3.4 million people are stalked every year.


taken from black on black crime coalition

BLACK ON BLACK CRIME STATISTICS

While African Americans comprise 13.5% of the U.S. Population, 43% of all murder victims in 2007 were African American, 93.1% of whom were killed were African Americans.

Victimizations of African Americans from violent crime which include the following; rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple Assault was 24.3% in 2007, with the highest percentages of victimizations within the age ranges of 15-24 totaling a percentage greater than 38%.



  You have a nasty habit of putting words in the mouth of others. I said nothing about genetic predisposition of blacks or anyone else. I do not believe such things,and am very much aware of the socio economic factors in such statistics that cause such things to be.

 However you were trying to paint it as if these Freedmen had it so bad, and almost as if they were still slaves themselves; which of course is  hypocrisy. I then pointed out the crimes against native women, which your article fails to point out are done more so by NON Indians then they are by Indians. Since most of the perpetrators are white, are we going say that whites are "genetically predisposed to violence." I think not, as that is no more true  then trying to put such false accusations against black people or any people.

 So far to date now only YOU have said anything racist since you have now said that Indians are the most violent people in the US.

 It is not surprising that your little link fails to give the racial break down of the offenders of crimes against Indian women based on their race. Obviously you are under the impression that reservations are still mostly occupied by NDN people only. A great deal of even large reservations in the United States today have almost the majority of their land holdings owned by NON Indians. At the same time, a great deal of the population is also NON Indian. I do believe the Nez Perce Reservation in Idaho is nearly 85% NON Indian owned now, and the population is also about 85% NON Indian.

 So before you come at me putting words in my mouth, and then backing those words YOU put in my mouth with racism words against Indians; get your facts straight first.

 Oddly enough in this message to me, it seems how you want to take the blame off black on black crime and put it entirely on whites etc. However in the same message, you want to say Indians are the most violant and blame crimes you "think" we are committing on us ourselves. Not only are you a hypocrite, but obviously a racist to boot.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 21, 2010, 07:00:27 pm
Whitewolf said
Quote
Wasn't the real reason for the treaty of 1866 because of racial prejudice against the Freedmen?

They were slaves of a small minority of mostly mixed blood Cherokees.  Slavery based on race is racial prejudice in its worse form.  If Don would have read mine and other's post, he would realise that many of us agree with him there.  In that sense of course there WAS racial prejudice in the sense of having slaves based on their race 

Quote
True, there were Freedmen on the TOT but weren't a significant number of them former slaves who did not walk on the trail but were gathered up after the war?

The Trail of Tears was 1838 and 39.  The Treaty of 1866 was only about 25 years later, so we can safely assume that a lot of these freedmen were the offspring of the ones that came from the East.  I guess your talking about slaves that were taken in between 1839 and the start of the Civil War.  I don't know about this or how many there were. 

Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Moma_porcupine on January 21, 2010, 07:11:32 pm
Reading through this I am wondering if part of this discusion is based on misunderstandings.

I also have been concerned reading Don's many anti NDN comments , but I have been wondering if as a person of color he has experienced discrimination so often he attributes every experince of being excluded as prejudiced rather than understanding people can be excluded for other reasons. If he is really hurting from a life time of being wounded by prejudiced, he might not realize his anti Indian comments are not just a fair eye for an eye way of trying to even things up.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 21, 2010, 08:54:06 pm
Sorry Moma, that's quite inaccurate. I wonder how anyone would not consider statistic about black on black crime relevant to this topic, if not to imply that somehow the freedmen are criminal. Implicit are stereotypes, the basis of prejudice. You assume that I am reflecting solely on my own experience, well to some degree because of my age 62, but because of my views and long held beliefs. Too many people define racism as only effecting their group, I don't. The practice of slavery based on race and solely on race is racism, as is discriminating solely on the basis of race after slavery. Both are morally repugnant, and inexcusable whether in the 18th century or the 21st. To excuse a group that has historically practiced racism because of the current status is truly a double standard.
So make no mistake about this I am not anti Indian, anti white, anti black, I am seeking justice and justice has no colour or tribe.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 21, 2010, 09:05:06 pm
Sorry Moma, that's quite inaccurate. I wonder how anyone would not consider statistic about black on black crime relevant to this topic, if not to imply that somehow the freedmen are criminal. Implicit are stereotypes, the basis of prejudice.

 You know, even in the face of things being put where everyone could read them, you still try and come in here telling bold faced lies.

 That is not a misunderstanding, but rather seems like you trying to twist things into something else.

 At no time has anyone even mentioned statistics on crime rates in this thread and/or related it to the Freedmen as a way to justify their dis enrollment.

 The only time such things have been discussed was in private between you and I, and you and I only. In the course of that discussion between you and I, it is plainly clear that I was simply comparing crime rates and issues concerning racial hatred against native women in such a way as to try and indicate to you that it is very possible that Natives suffer rates of racial hatred to the point of murder that might exceed those experienced by other people including black people.

 In making that point to you, I was in no way using those statistics in any sort of way that was meant to be racist towards black people, or tie that issue to the freedmen.

 Since I have posted that private message up, it should be clear to anyone who reads the exchange in private that what you are saying here is 100% false.

 The only thing I am guilty of here is comparing two bad things together as if one happening to one group is more or less a bad then what happens to the other. Of course it was  a direction in the conversation I think you started more so then myself.


 So you can quit lying now

 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 21, 2010, 09:16:49 pm
I think Rattlebone's made his case.  Don's just taking things out of context ( As usual ).  Anyone that has kept up with Rattlebone's post, (not just here but on other topics) would know that he's clearly not a racist.  I think that most people on here can clearly see how Don is once again trying to twist the facts to suit his own agenda.   
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 21, 2010, 10:33:34 pm
I think the Treaty of 1866 should be looked at and the CN's side of the story should be taken into consideration regarding this Treaty. Many people have only heard one side of the story in regards to the Treaty of 1866.

 http://freedmen.cherokee.org/Portals/13/Docs/Briefing%20on%20History%20and%20Cases.pdf (http://freedmen.cherokee.org/Portals/13/Docs/Briefing%20on%20History%20and%20Cases.pdf)

Why Freedmen Descendants Without an Indian Ancestor Listed on the Base Rolls Are Not Eligible for Citizenship in the Cherokee Nation

I. Summary
The Cherokee Nation's opponents in current federal litigation and certain Members of Congress continue to misstate and twist the facts about the history and law – in addition to ignoring prior Congressional acts -- concerning Freedmen descendant citizenship. These opponents and Members of Congress are trying to punish the Cherokee Nation because they disagree with legitimate and lawful actions it has taken in determining its citizenship laws.
This briefing clarifies the confusion created by the Cherokee Nation’s opponents. As a matter of right, Cherokee citizens have allowed only those who can trace their Indian ancestry to the base rolls taken by federal government in 1906 to become citizens of the Cherokee Nation. As explained below, the above-mentioned requirement for citizenship in the Cherokee Nation fully complies with the 1866 Treaty and the subsequent Congressional acts that modified the Treaty.
The Cherokee Nation has the power to define its tribal citizenship. Congress exercised its plenary power by superseding the 1866 Treaty in 1902 and 1906. As a result, the claims of citizenship in the Cherokee Nation by Freedmen descendants and others were extinguished. Since 1906, the Cherokee Nation itself has exercised the legitimate and lawful right of determining its citizenship – a basic right exercised by more than 500 other Indian tribes in the United States.

II. Article IX of the Treaty of 1866 Between the United States and the Cherokee Nation and Its Meaning
Article IX of the 1866 Treaty states: "They [the Cherokee Nation] further agree that all freedmen who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former owners or by law, as well as all free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months, and their descendants shall have all the rights of native Cherokee."

The U.S. Court of Claims in 1896 interpreted the following language in Article IX of the Treaty: "and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months, and their descendants …"
The Court ruled that the language was:
. . . intended for the protection of the Cherokee Nation as a limitation upon the number of persons who might avail themselves of the provisions of the treaty, and consequently that they referred to both the freedmen and the free colored persons previously named in the article; that is to say, freedmen and the descendants of freedmen who did not return within six months are excluded from the benefits of the treaty and of the decree, and that this period of six months extends from the date of the promulgation of the treaty, August 11, 1866, and consequently did not expire until February 11, 1867.

Whitmire v. United States, No. 17209, 46 Ct. Cl. 227, 1910 WL 930, *4 (1910), citing decree of Feb. 18, 1896.

The Court’s interpretation, in addition to Congress superseding and clarifying the 1866 Treaty, is part of the foundation for the Cherokee Nation’s position that descendants of Freedmen are not entitled to Cherokee Nation citizenship just because they have a Freedman ancestor. The Freedmen were defined as a class and described by the 1866 Treaty as including only those former slaves, "free colored persons" and their descendants who resided in the Cherokee Nation as of February 11, 1867.

III. The Cherokee Nation Constitution of 1866

The 1866 Treaty never gave citizenship to the Freedmen; however, the Cherokee Nation amended its Constitution in 1866 to grant citizenship to several classes of people that had a legitimate connection and presence in the Cherokee Nation.

All native born Cherokees, all Indians and whites legally members of the Nation by adoption and all freedmen who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former owners or by law, as well as freed colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months from the 19th day of July, 1866, and their descendants, who reside within the limits of the Cherokee Nation, shall be taken and deemed to be citizens of the Cherokee Nation.
Cherokee Nation Const., art. III, Sec. 5 (1839 as amended 1866) (emphasis added).
Through their Constitution, the Cherokee people decided to confer citizenship upon non-Indian Freedmen descendants and others. Only two entities could change that
decision: Congress pursuant to its plenary power and the Cherokee people by amending their Constitution. It is a well-settled legal and historical doctrine that Indian tribes can decide for themselves who can and cannot be members of their own tribes.

By the early 1900s, Congress took the matter into its own hands, forever changing the citizenship status of the Freedmen and their descendants within the Cherokee Nation -- by superseding the wording of Article IX of the Treaty and limiting the class defined as Freedmen. This is an historical fact that has been willfully ignored by the opponents of the Cherokee Nation.

IV. Congressional Act of July 1, 1902

To prepare for the liquidation of the Cherokee Nation assets and allotment of its tribal lands, the Act of 1902, among other things, provided that “entitlement to tribal enrollment no longer existed for any person born after September 1, 1902.” According to Section 26 of the Act, “The names of all persons living on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and two, entitled to be enrolled as provided in section twenty-five hereof, shall be placed upon the roll made by said Commission, and no child born thereafter to a citizen . . . shall be entitled to enrollment or to participate in the distribution of the tribal property of the Cherokee Nation.”1 This meant that, for all intents and purposes, as of that date, the rolls for those who had citizenship or property claims in the Nation were closed for all, including Indians, Freedmen descendants, and Intermarried Whites.

V. Congressional Act of April 26, 1906, also known as The Five Tribes Act, Changed the Meaning of Article IX of the 1866 Treaty

The Five Tribes Act of 1906 further superseded the language of Article IX of the 1866 Treaty and removed any lingering doubt about who was included in the class defined as Freedmen. Certain Members of Congress and non-Indian Freedmen descendants wrongly rely on this Article of the 1866 Treaty for Freedmen descendant citizenship claims in the Cherokee Nation.

Specifically, Congress moved the term "and their descendants" from the end of the paragraph closer to the description of those who qualified under the Freedmen Roll, further clarifying whether Article IX referred to only Freedmen descendants then living or to those in perpetuity. The Five Tribes Act provides:
The roll of Cherokee freedmen shall include only such persons of African descent, either free colored or the slaves of Cherokee citizens and their descendants, who were actual personal bona fide residents of the Cherokee Nation August [11, 1866], or who actually returned and established such residence in the
 Act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat. 716, chap. 1375). (Emphasis added).

Cherokee Nation on or before February [11, 1867]; but this provision shall not prevent the enrollment of any person who has heretofore made application to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes or its successor and has been adjudged entitled to enrollment by the Secretary of Interior.
The Five Tribes Act, §3.

VI. Controlling Federal Case Law Supports the Fact that Congress Unilaterally Superseded Article IX of the 1866 Treaty by Passing the Five Tribes Act
The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the changed meaning of Article IX in the wake of the Five Tribes Act. The court said:
[T]he benefits of citizenship were conferred only upon free colored persons, or the slaves of Cherokee citizens and their descendants, who were actual bona fide residents of the Cherokee Nation August 11th, 1866, or who actually returned and established such residence in the Cherokee Nation within six months from that time.
United States ex rel. Garfield v. Lowe, 34 App. D.C. 70, No. 1913 1909 WL 21538 at *4 (D.C. Court of Appeals 1909), aff'd. sub nom, United States ex rel. Lowe v. Fisher 223 U.S. 95 (1912).
The appeals court held that the Five Tribes Act revised the meaning of Article IX and that the claimants in that case were not entitled to any treaty benefits (including enrollment as citizens) because neither they nor their ancestors had been bona fide residents of the Nation within the required time frame. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this decision.
In 1912, the U.S. Supreme Court further held in another case that, “The right of each individual to participate in the enjoyment of such property depended upon tribal membership, and when that was terminated by death or otherwise the right was at an end. It was not alienable or descendible.” Gritts v. Fisher, 224 U.S. 640 at 642 (1912) (emphasis added).
Freedmen were a defined and limited class. The class was limited to “former slaves or freed Negroes” associated with the Cherokee Nation who resided in the Cherokee Nation prior to 1867. Federal law has clearly stated and courts have unequivocally held that no right of Cherokee citizenship or property inured to the descendants of that class. In essence and, as the 1902 federal statue clearly provided, after 1902, no child born of Freedmen, Intermarried Whites, or foreign Indian tribes was entitled to citizenship in or property of the Cherokee Nation. Therefore, today’s Freedman descendants, by virtue of their Freedmen ancestry, have no right to Cherokee citizenship.

VII. Restoring the Cherokee Nation as an Indian Tribe Consisting of Indians

For more than 30 years, the Cherokee Nation has worked hard to rejuvenate its heritage and to restore its cultural identity. It set out to heal the damage done by more than two centuries of federal policy designed to forcibly assimilate Native Americans, to terminate tribal governments, and to strip the identities of tribes as communal nations. In the midst of this effort, the Cherokee people considered what it meant to be Indian, a Cherokee, and what requirements were necessary for Cherokee Nation citizenship. The Cherokee people determined that the Cherokee Nation should return to what it had been since time immemorial – an Indian tribe made of Indians, a family of families and a community of communities held together by common ancestry.
Pursuant to their inherent authority, the Cherokee people voted in favor of this principle three different times in recent history. Most recently, in March 2007, a Constitutional amendment expressly codified the principle that, to be a Cherokee citizen, one must be able to trace to an Indian ancestor listed on the base rolls. This Constitutional amendment passed with 77% of the vote; non-Indian Freedmen descendants and Intermarried Whites also participated in this vote. The amendment has no effect on Freedmen descendants and Intermarried Whites who have an Indian ancestor on the base rolls. For example, there are more than 1,500 Freedmen descendants who are Cherokee citizens. Regardless of appearance, color or race, if a person has an Indian ancestor on the 1906 base rolls, he or she is granted Cherokee Nation citizenship; regardless of appearance, color, or race, if a person does not have an Indian ancestor on the 1906 base rolls, he or she is denied Cherokee Nation citizenship.

VIII. Conclusion
One hundred years ago, Congress -- and not the Cherokee Nation -- extinguished by statute any entitlement to enrollment or property in the Nation by descendants of Freedmen. The federal courts have held the same. Today, the Cherokee Nation's opponents in current federal litigation and certain Members of Congress are attempting to coerce the Cherokee people to grant to non-Indians something to which they are not entitled: citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. Although these issues were resolved in favor of the Cherokee Nation 20 years ago in the case of Nero v. Cherokee Nation, 892 F.2d 1457 (10th Cir. 1989), non-Indian descendants of Freedmen are re-litigating the same issues in federal and tribal court. Let the courts decide. The Cherokee Nation has always adhered to the rulings of the courts. Will Congress do the same?
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: E.P. Grondine on January 21, 2010, 10:41:22 pm
My thinking is that it may be possible you are dealing with large numbers of people of Kushita (Creek), Chicasa, Choctaw, or descent from other eastern peoples who have assumed Cherokee descent because the Cherokee are the only people they know of.

Most of these people lack the ability to trace their own geneology, and lack the money to hire a geneologist.

Quote
The problem with the others is that there is no way to know for sure how many there were that weren't found/didn't go.


This is true.  You can really only talk in general terms.  

Quote
I did a very rough quickie on those that can't be accounted for from the TOT. I think that about the absolute best one could hope for today from them would be around 20,000.

Your 20,000 number is high but I'm not going to argue about that.  I think the general idea is established. We can say a best case scenaro is this number, a most likely scenario is that number and this number is pure fiction ( meaning the 500,000+ number).  Now of course there are also other factors such as how many offspring did a Cherokee man or woman produce, and how many offspring did those offspring have etc, etc.  What we can say without a doubt is that most of the hordes of people in Georgia and a few other states who claim Cherokee heritage are bogus claims.  One would just have to look at history to understand that.  Some states that probably do have people with some legit claims of being Cherokees are Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Texas.  A few settled there and thus lost their Cherokee citizenship, so there are probably at least some people there who are Cherokee by blood.  The problem now is that even there its hard to sort out the fakes from the legit claims.


Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Moma_porcupine on January 21, 2010, 10:51:38 pm
Don
Quote
So make no mistake about this I am not anti Indian, anti white, anti black, I am seeking justice and justice has no colour or tribe.

If that is true why is your own focus so passionately on only the freedman descendents who are no longer Cherokee citizens. There is lots and lots of people who wannabe Cherokee citizens who get told they don't have the required documentation, and the large majority of those people are mainly of White ancestry.

It may not be fair in every situation, but the general principle seems simple to me.

People are required to prove they are Cherokee by blood as recorded on the Dawes roll in order to be a citizen of the CNO.

I understand that any requirement people must meet to be eligible for tribal membership, isn't always fair to everyone, but the reality is, as soon as you create a definition of who is eligible for tribal membership in any tribe, using any definition, there is going to be people who find themselves excluded because they find themselves just slightly on the wrong side of that line. 

The CNO draws the line at requiring people to be descended directly from someone on the Dawes roll who was recorded as having Cherokee blood. I don't understand why you seem to think black people should get special privlidges and not have to prove this via the Dawes rolls same as White people?   

There is lots of White people of who say their ancestors had Cherokee blood but were not recorded on the Dawes rolls for various reasons they also feel are unfair. Lots of people claim their Cherokee ancestor wasn't recorded as Cherokee because of them hiding out of fear of what would happen to them if they revealed they were Indian , or because they didn't want to cooperate with the non native government.

Whatever the story may be, and whether or not some of these stories may be true , the fact remains if an ancestors Native blood wasn't documented, it isn't documented, and there is no way of knowing who may have had native blood and who didn't. In the big picture, I can't see how it can be workable to open up tribal enrollment to anyone- white, black ,red or yellow , who might have some Native ancestry that would make them eligible for enrollment but can't prove it.

One thing I notice is that although the CNO has a less exclusive enrollment policey than any other tribe , rather than gratitude for being so generous,  the CNO gets constantly attacked by tons of angry people who feel unfairly excluded from enrollment, seemingly much more so than tribes that require a 1/2 or 1/4 BQ.... So it seems a more generous and inclusive membership criteria doesn't actually result in more happy people , but instead in more angry people who feel that with such an inclusive membership policy , they also should be included . This makes me think that no matter how inclusive a tribe is, there is still going to be people who feel unfairly excluded. So there probably isn't any point in feeling guilty for not accomadating these demands.

And Don, thinking Freedman descendents with no documented Cherokee blood on the Dawes rolls should have membership privlidges in the CNO that is denied to White people with no documented Cherokee blood on the Dawes rolls , does seem like nothing more than trying to get your way by accusing people of a racial bias which doesn't really exist , and unfairly trying to make people feel guilty.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 21, 2010, 11:01:54 pm
Quote
My thinking is that it may be possible you are dealing with large numbers of people of Kushita (Creek), Chicasa, Choctaw, or descent from other eastern peoples who have assumed Cherokee descent because the Cherokee are the only people they know of.
Your right.  The term Cherokee was a generic term for "Indian" in the 1800's.

Quote
Most of these people lack the ability to trace their own geneology, and lack the money to hire a geneologist.

Well, if being Cherokee is so important to them then thats up to them to either come up with the money or do the research themselves.  Many people who claim Cherokee descent and can't prove it already have done research.  Sometimes with no luck.  If the ancestor is not there, your not going to find one.  There probably are legit claims where somebody can't find an ancestor because they just didn't look good enough, but most attempts to find an ancestor will be futile because the ancestor is not there.

I know of some cases of people in Oklahoma that have found that their ancestors were on the list of white intruders while all the while they thought that they were Cherokee.  And they remain steadfast in defending their "Cherokee heritage".

If your idenity has been Cherokee for your whole life and has  been passed on to you by parents and grandparents, nothing is going to change that because you can't prove it.  We're talking about people who for their entire life have had this idenity of being Cherokee.  They were told this by their family.  If people on this site can imagine what it must be like for people who have had their life long idenity questioned and thus proven to be a lie, then you can only imagine what it could be like and how difficult it could be for these people to accept it.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: E.P. Grondine on January 21, 2010, 11:06:23 pm
MP,

However any nation sets its enrollment is up to them.

But as I have mentioned before, every nation is also going to have to look at "ancestry associations" or some such mechanism, for those who do not meet enrollment requirements but have do have heritage, if we ever hope to bring an end to the frauds exploiting these people.

What the Cherokee Nation intends to do I do not know, nor would I even try to suggest an answer; as I also mentioned before, while I can state the questions, the answers are not mine to give.

The only thing I can suggest is at least listening to their concerns with an open heart.


Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Moma_porcupine on January 21, 2010, 11:09:41 pm
 Looking at the number of people reporting a family story of an Indian great grandma on their maternal line, and then looking at the number of mtDNA results * in North America * which show a indigenous mtDNA type, generally shows there is about 10 stories of a distant Native ancestor on the maternal line for every mtDNA result that actually confirms this. On the other hand, there is almost no one getting an mtDNA result showing a maternal line that is indigenous, when they always thought great granny was completely non native....


http://www.kerchner.com/cgi-kerchner/mtdna.cgi

http://www.mitosearch.org/haplosearch_start.asp?uid=

You have to read through a lot to get the picture, as a lot of people are just reporting European results and family history, but if you do, the pattern that emerges is very clear.

The numbers show a lot more stories a gr gr grandma was an Indian than there was gr gr grandma's who actually were Indian - of any tribe.
  
My own theory is that a lot of people have gr gr gr gr gr aunts or uncles who married someone who was Native and after a few generations that got turned into "someone back there" which people assumed was their own ancestor, when it wasn't.

(edited to add *in North America* as Hispanic people have a much larger percentage of indigenous maternal lines )
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 21, 2010, 11:13:16 pm
Quote
I understand that any requirement people must meet to be eligible for tribal membership, isn't always fair to everyone, but the reality is, as soon as you create a definition of who is eligible for tribal membership in any tribe, using any definition, there is going to be people who find themselves excluded because they find themselves just slightly on the wrong side of that line.

Good point Moma porcupine.  No tribal Rolls are flawless and it’s a shame that some people were left off of them whether they be some freedmen with valid claims of being Cherokee or others with valid claims.  I have even heard of some cases of people who have the siblings of their grandparents on Tribal Rolls, but "their" grandparent wasn't on the Rolls because they left the boundaries of their Nation. There are even people who can without a doubt claim descent from other Cherokee Rolls, but aren't able to enroll with one of the 3 Federally Recognized Tribes.  However these are “our” Rolls, and other Tribes have "their" Rolls.  If exceptions are made, then one can only imagine the Can of Worms that would be opened up, not only for the Cherokee Nation, but for all Tribal Nations.  Tribal Nations are not Heritage Clubs, but are sovereign entities that have a government to government relationship with the United States.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 21, 2010, 11:25:06 pm
Quote
You have to read through a lot to get the picture, as a lot of people are just reporting European results and family history, but if you do, the pattern that emerges is very clear.

The numbers show a lot more stories a gr gr grandma was an Indian than there was gr gr grandma's who actually were Indian - of any tribe.
 
My own theory is that a lot of people have gr gr gr gr gr aunts or uncles who married someone who was Native and after a few generations that got turned into "someone back there" which people assumed was their own ancestor, when it wasn't.

I"ll admit that I haven't really explored the DNA issue as most of my research and information is from Historians, anthropologist and genealogist.  I"ve also done my own research and looked a lot at the Rolls/censues, and also looked at some of the migrations of Cherokees that have left or stayed beind. American Folklore also plays a big part in this whole puzzle.  So what you have found out does not suprise me in the least. 

What your saying is exactly right.  The fact that most of these claims are bogus seems to be a secret.  I can tell you now that its not a secret amongst a lot of Cherokees in Oklahoma.  In a way the CN  made a mistake in not addressing this issue before.  As we see, we're paying the price now. The CN has to be politically correct as their official stance has always been not to question people's claims of being Cherokee.  But we are in a "dire situation" now where the truth needs to start to emerge about this. 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 22, 2010, 05:10:57 am
Stereotypes are generalisations and all prejudice is based on sterotypes. What does black on black crime statistics have to do with the freedmen.Are all black people genetically predisposed to be violent? Is that what you're implying? Are people who are Indian not violent? And again what the hell does a national crime statistis being used to prove about the freedmen? If you believe that after 140+ years as members of the tribe that because they are black they are violent, they are now a threat to the tribe? Because, everyone knows black people are violent. When I policeman does that and stops a black person, its called racial profiling and its illegal. Again what does that have to do with the freedmen, I'd expect to see that on Fox News from Russ Limbaugh, but here, its a surprise. What does the black crime rate have to do with the freedmen?
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 22, 2010, 05:18:33 am
Stereotypes are generalisations and all prejudice is based on sterotypes. What does black on black crime statistics have to do with the freedmen.Are all black people genetically predisposed to be violent? Is that what you're implying? Are people who are Indian not violent? And again what the hell does a national crime statistis being used to prove about the freedmen? If you believe that after 140+ years as members of the tribe that because they are black they are violent, they are now a threat to the tribe? Because, everyone knows black people are violent. When I policeman does that and stops a black person, its called racial profiling and its illegal. Again what does that have to do with the freedmen, I'd expect to see that on Fox News from Russ Limbaugh, but here, its a surprise. What does the black crime rate have to do with the freedmen?

If this is what you are resorting to in order to prove your point about the Freedmen, then your argument here is a extremely weak one, because the things you are saying now were never said in this thread or even in private.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: earthw7 on January 22, 2010, 02:43:59 pm
I was wonder where that came from too,
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 22, 2010, 03:00:31 pm
Please tell me what black on black crime statistics have to do with the Freedman? Its about as relevant as the number black basketball players in the NBA, proving that black people are better players than white people. Is that prejudical statement relevant to the Cherokee Freedmen.  No its more like since black people are more violent the CNO should deny their citizenship, which wasn't a problem since 1866. Why do think I responded with an article about Indians and doimestic violence, to prove my point. If a group practiced racial slavery, fought a war to preserve racial slavery and lost, then segregated former slaves by law an practice and then a tiny minority who bothered to vote, expell people who have been tribal members for 144 years. Maybe those people might be motivated by their history of racism. Particularly  when someone who supports that decision, supports their claim by contending that black people are genetically predisposed to violence, which sounds like it came from Russ Limbaugh. Its these views that are so transparent, thats why the CBC took up this issue, because racism does effect all black people, voters and taxpayers. Black voters/taxpayers have a right to urge the congressmen and senators not to allow their taxes to go to a group who discriminate based on race. As long the type of logic that ties the freedmen to black on black crime, clearly an example of racial prejudice, the CBC will demand that CNO abide by the 1866 Treaty.
If I'm so pro black,why don't you look at what I've had to say about so called black Indian phonies, I've started threads to expose Jerry Monroe, the Binay,Tecumseh brown Eagle, the Moorish science temple, Washitaw/Nuwabians. Memories that are convenient are usually wrong, especially when they are motivated by biases.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: critter - a white non-ndn person on January 22, 2010, 03:41:31 pm
Just because I'm confused.. I'm clarifying to myself here that this black on black crime report/statistic was only in response to a private message where Don was citing Indian violence, and Rattlebone replied showing statistics of Black violence in order to show the differences in statistics..

And now, Don is bringing it over and over into the thread as though the crime statistics have something to do with the conversation here, when in fact, they only had to do with his mouthing of Indian crime statistics..  

To be honest, I enjoy the clear and clarifying posts that everyone has posted but I get very confused trying to read Don's because he keeps bringing in things that have nothing to do with anything that other people are posting, or is a twisting around of what someone else said.  It's very confusing to read his words.  Very little of what he says seems to have anything at all to do with the information being provided. 

Just wanted to say.  :)
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 22, 2010, 04:51:19 pm
Don Naconna said

Quote
As long the type of logic that ties the freedmen to black on black crime, clearly an example of racial prejudice, the CBC will demand that CNO abide by the 1866 Treaty.

I think I've already made the case as to why the Cherokee Nation is in complicane with the Treaty of 1866, since "Congress exercised its plenary power by superseding the 1866 Treaty in 1902 and 1906".  But if you want to play that game Don, then let me ask you this.  Would you be in favor of the Federal Government abiding by the more then I can count Treaties that the Federal Government and states have broken with the Cherokee Nation for over 200 years?  I've listed some of them below.



Treaty with South Carolina, 1721 
Ceded land between the Santee, Saluda, and Edisto Rivers to the Province of South Carolina.

Articles of Trade and Friendship, 1730 
Established rules for trade between the Cherokee and the English colonies. Signed between seven Cherokee chiefs (including Attakullakulla) and George I of England.

Treaty with South Carolina, 1755 
Ceded land between the Wateree and Santee Rivers to the Province of South Carolina.

Treaty of Lochaber, 1770 
Ceded land in the later states of Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky to the Colony of Virginia.

Treaty of Augusta, 1773 
Ceded Cherokee claim to 2,000,000 acres (8,100 km2) to the Colony of Georgia.

Treaty with Virginia, 1772 
Ceded land in Virginia and eastern Kentucky to the Colony of Virginia.

Treaty of Sycamore Shoals, 1775 
Ceded claims to the hunting grounds beween the Ohio and Cumberland Rivers to the Transylvania Land Company.

Treaty of DeWitts’ Corner, 1777 
Ceded the lands of the Cherokee Lower Towns to the States of South Carolina and Georgia.

Treaty of Fort Henry, 1777 
Confirmed the cession of the lands to the Watauga Association with the States of Virginia and North Carolina.

Treaty of Hopewell, 1785 
Changed the boundaries between the U.S. and Cherokee lands.

Treaty of Dumplin Creek, 1785 
Ceded remaining land within the claimed boundaries of Sevier County to the State of Franklin.



Treaty of Coyatee, 1785 
Made with the State of Franklin at gunpoint, this treaty ceded the remaining land north of the Little Tennessee River.

Treaty of Holston, 1791 
Established boundaries between the United States and the Cherokee Nation. Guaranteed by the United States that the lands of the Cherokee Nation have not been ceded to the United States.


Treaty of Philadelphia, 1794 
Reaffirmed the provisions of the 1785 Treaty of Hopewell and the 1791 Treaty of Holston, particularly those regarding land cession.
Treaty of Tellico Blockhouse, 1794 : Peace treaty with of the United States with the Lower Cherokee ending the Chickamauga wars.

Treaty of Tellico, 1798 
The boundaries promised in the previous treaty had not been marked and white settlers had come in. Because of this, the Cherokee were told they would need to cede new lands as an "acknowledgement" of the protection of the United States. The U.S. would guarantee the Cherokee could keep the remainder of their land "forever".

Treaty of Tellico, 1804 
Ceded land.

Treaty of Tellico, 1805 
Ceded land, including that for the Federal Road through the Cherokee Nation.

Treaty of Tellico, 1805 
Ceded land for the state assembly of Tennessee, whose capital was then in East Tennessee, to meet upon.

Treaty of Washington, 1806 
Ceded land.

Treaty of Fort Jackson, 1814 
Ended the Creek War, demanded land from both the Muscogee (Creek) and the Cherokee.

Treaty of Washington, 1816 
Ceded last remaining lands within the territory limits claimed by South Carolina to the state.


Treaty of the Cherokee Agency, 1817 
Acknowledged the division between the Upper Towns, which opposed emigration, and the Lower Towns, which favored emigration, and provided benefits for those who chose to emigrate west and 640-acre (2.6 km2) reservations for those who did not, with the possibility of citizenship of the state they are in.

Treaty of Washington, 1819 
Reaffirmed the Treaty of the Cherokee Agency of 1817, with a few added provisions specifying land reserves for certain Cherokee.

Treaty of Washington, 1828 
Cherokee Nation West ceded its lands in Arkansas Territory for lands in what becomes Indian Territory.

Treaty of New Echota, 1835 
Surrendered to the United States the lands of the Cherokee Nation East in return for five 000000 dollars to be disbursed on a per capita basis, an additional half-000000 dollars is for educational funds, title in perpetuity to an equal amount of land in Indian Territory to that given up, and full compensation for all property left in the East. The treaty is rejected by the Cherokee National Council but approved by the U.S. Senate.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 22, 2010, 04:53:00 pm
Almost every one of these Treaties was broken by the Federal Goverment, and before 1776 by the states.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: bls926 on January 22, 2010, 05:04:48 pm
Rattle has said he cited black on black crime statistics in response to Don Naconna saying that Indians were some of the most violent people he'd ever known, or something to that effect. Rattle was a little vague on what was actually said. Now Don Naconna is saying Rattle wrote about black on black crime first and he only responded by citing statistics about Indian domestic violence. These conversations obviously all took place in private so there's no way to know who said what first.

I have to agree with Don Naconna that black crime statistics have no place in this discussion. It's racist and has nothing to do with the Freedmen or why they've been disenrolled.

The comment about Indians being violent is a racist stereotype, too. But then, we don't know what was actually said in this regard.

When it comes to crime, it's more about socio-economic factors and less about race. One race isn't more violent, more criminal, than another. The conditions you're raised in and live in have more to do with how you respond to situations than what race you are.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 22, 2010, 05:33:08 pm
Just because I'm confused.. I'm clarifying to myself here that this black on black crime report/statistic was only in response to a private message where Don was citing Indian violence, and Rattlebone replied showing statistics of Black violence in order to show the differences in statistics..

And now, Don is bringing it over and over into the thread as though the crime statistics have something to do with the conversation here, when in fact, they only had to do with his mouthing of Indian crime statistics..  

My question is what questionable statistics about black on black crime have to do with anything vaugely related to the freedmen's case? You hear white racists citing black crime as their reason for segregating themselves in all white suburban ghettoes, now its being used to justify excluding the freedmen after 144 years from the nation. Why not say the freedmen were excluded because they would play basketball better than Cherokee kids and they wouldn't make teams. That is just bigotry, regardless of what colour the bigot is.

To be honest, I enjoy the clear and clarifying posts that everyone has posted but I get very confused trying to read Don's because he keeps bringing in things that have nothing to do with anything that other people are posting, or is a twisting around of what someone else said.  It's very confusing to read his words.  Very little of what he says seems to have anything at all to do with the information being provided. 

Just wanted to say.  :)
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Moma_porcupine on January 22, 2010, 05:58:23 pm
Gosh Don, you sound like you are absolutely desperat to make the Freedman issue about prejudiced.

First off , even if Rattlebone presenting those Black crime statisics might have been in some way unfair to Black people, one comment which can be interpreted various ways is not any real evidence that the person who mentioned this is prejudiced against Blacks. As Rattlebones general stance on issues has never come across as being prejudiced against Black people, the fact that you seem determined to interpret this one comment in as ugly a light as possible, says a lot more about you and how attached you are to using guilt instead of logic to get your way , than it does about Rattlebone.

It seems simple to me...

Some White people claim Cherokee blood, may or may not have this but for one reason or another which may or may not be fair, can't document it on the Dawes rolls . These people are not eligible to be citizens of the CNO.

Some Black people claim Cherokee blood, may or may not have it,but for one reason or another which may or may not be fair, can't document it on the Dawes rolls . These people are not eligible to be citizens of the CNO.

Whether you argee or disagree with this policy, it sounds like it is being applied equally whether people are mainly Black or White, and what you seem to be  expecting is special privlidges for Blacks.

I don't see where prejudiced is the fundamental issue here. As Blackwolf pointed out, membership in the CNO is very rigidly based on having a direct ancestor listed as Cherokee by blood on the Dawes rolls.  This definition isn't always fair to some people who do have Cherokee blood but who don't have an ancestor on the Dawes. But no rigid criteria is fair to everyone, and if membership criteria isn't rigid that also wouldn't be fair to everyone, because then there would be huge problems with murky flexible criteria which could be way too easily bent or alleged to be bent, by peoples personal agendas and prejudices.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 22, 2010, 06:16:44 pm
Again what is the relevance of people who have only one thing in common race, to tie the issue of black on black crime to the Cherokee freedmen? Is is no different than arguing that because some black are violent criminals all black people are and therefore justifies expelling people because of that from the CNO. Its no different than saying that because black people are intellectually inferior they should go to segregated schools. The Supreme Court ended that libe of racist thinking in 1954. To argue that all members of a race are violent, drunks, stupid is simply preejudice based on a generalisation. Racists believe that what applies to some applies to all and obviously Rattlebone believes that black on black crime applies to the freedmen because they're black.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Moma_porcupine on January 22, 2010, 06:44:55 pm
Don, as people have repeatedly pointed out, this is only one part of a private conversation, and it's hard to know what the context of Rattlebones comment was.

I am guessing that in response to you repeatedly saying Black people are the victims of White people, and your insisting that the Freedman issue is just an extension of this, that Rattlebone made a mistake and thoughtlessly pointed out that Black people are often victims of other Black people, overlooking the bigger picture , which is that the cause of this lateral violence is often directly linked to the disrespect and abuse Black people have lived through for generations at the hands of Whites.

While Rattlebone looks like he didn't think out the point he was trying to make as well as he could have , I really don't think all the other stuff you are reading into his comment is based in anything except your own strong feelings about this and your inability to make your point without accusing the CNO and anyone who doesn't agree with you of being prejudiced.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: LittleOldMan on January 22, 2010, 07:54:10 pm
There are several issues that I wish to address.  Removal occurred in 1838 and 1839.  Twenty or more years earlier than the Civil War.  There were Blacks within the Cherokee realm of control free as well as slave.  In 1902 and 1906 the United States Congress passed legislation defining the criteria for CNO citizenship.  Simply put You must be a direct blood descent of a Cherokee by Blood and listed as such on the Dawes Roll in order to be a CNO citizen.  The CNO is not saying that someone that is Cherokee descent is not Cherokee just that in order to be a CNO citizen the person's ancestor MUST be listed on the Dawes roll.  I do not find that hard to understand nor do I find it anti Black.  Remember the members of  Congress were the people who dictated this criteria not the CNO.  There are many more mixed Black/Cherokee  than there are aggrieved Freedman are there not?  So how can anyone logically argue that this is a racist move on the part of the CNO when the US Congress is the Daddy of it all? This next is opinion based on my personal observations over the last twenty years.  I cannot speak to the problems of crime found on the Rez but I find some similarities between what happens there and the problem of Black on Black crime.  I am a retired Home Service Insurance Man with over twenty years serving Black clients in the intercity projects  of Birmingham Al.  Every day every week of the year I was on call 24/7.  Crime is rampant every where.  It become more observable due to the fact that if you are poor you do not have access to good legal advice.  My observations are threefold.  Rampant poverty, Breakup of the family as a cultural unit, and the fact that when you stack so many poor so close together with the desperation that goes with poverty and the frustration that comes from no way out you have a smoldering fuse waiting for a stick of TNT.  I can not qualify to be a member of the CNO_not because I have a higher white BQ than than Cherokee but that I do not have a direct ancestor on the Dawes Roll.  I do not feel aggrieved  thank you.  Thank you for allowing the ramble.  With respect "LittleOldMan"       
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 22, 2010, 08:53:06 pm
I would agree with most of what you posted, however, I can't see any purpose using black on black crime statistics to justify anything about the Cherokee freedmen. Using totally unrelated biased information is often the most useful tactic of the extreme right. Can anyone say that crime statistics in 2010 have anything to do with denial people rights they have had since 1866. That's why I countered with biased data on Indian crimes, also totally unrelated to the issue.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 22, 2010, 09:01:47 pm
This is on reply 85 of this thread.

Quote
The fact is that Indians on reservations are more violent than any other ethnic group in the US.
"and some tribes have murder rates against women 10 times greater than the national average."

Don, why did you say this?  Are you racist againts Indians?  What did you mean by this statement exactly.  Explain yourself.  Rattlebone had to defend himself and explain himself, so I think its only fair now that you do the same.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 22, 2010, 09:19:52 pm
And what did you mean here in these statements?  These statements are all from Don.  Are you racist againts Indians Don?  And what do these post have to do with the Freedmen? 

Quote
I do not believe that there are any truly sovereign nations within the borders of the US. Also the federal government does have the power to simply remove recognition just as it has denied recognition to many legitimate tribes in the past.

Quote
Indians gave up their sovereignty in 1924.

Quote
If anyone believes that tribes should truly be sovereign send back your passports, refuse to accept any aid or welfare from any American government agency and have an members of the US military resign. Or stop even using the word sovereign! History is not convenient but it is true. My question is how do you perceive the future through the past as it appears, which is where it appears or in a world and nation where race and ancestry is only a foot note.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 22, 2010, 09:40:24 pm
I would agree with most of what you posted, however, I can't see any purpose using black on black crime statistics to justify anything about the Cherokee freedmen. Using totally unrelated biased information is often the most useful tactic of the extreme right. Can anyone say that crime statistics in 2010 have anything to do with denial people rights they have had since 1866. That's why I countered with biased data on Indian crimes, also totally unrelated to the issue.


Don,

 At no time did I ever say any of the things you are saying I did here. What I was doing was along the lines of what Moma Porcupine has explained to you she felt I did, and for reasons similar to what she has pointed out.

 However at no time did I use those statistics in any such way as to say they were any  kind of justification for the Freedmen being disenrolled. I honestly don't know how many different ways I, or anyone else has to explain that to you and make that point stick.

 Honestly, I don't know why I should have to explain it to you when you have all the messages in your inbox, the same as I do. As a matter of fact I have even posted up one of those messages in this thread that had both sides of our conversation within it. At no place in that message or any other message did I say anything remotely resembling those things in which you now constantly accuse me of.

I do also find it funny how you fail to put my actual words here, but rather post your interpretation of them which is so twisted and off base that it is insane.

 What I said to you in regards to crime statistics wasn't even really anything to do with the Freedmen other then a response to how you constantly say how bad they have it just for being Freedmen, and have unilaterally denied that Fullblood Cherokee in places such as Adiar Country Oklahoma are probably some the poorest and worst off people in Oklahoma.

 I presented to you crime statistics and statements that outlined that in cases of violence against Native women, the perpetrators were almost always NON Native men. I do believe violence in general against Native people most often comes from the hands of NON Indian people. I then presented the crime statistics about black on black crime to show how cases of murder and violent crimes in the black community were actually more internal as opposed to violence on Indian people usually coming from the hands of NON Indians.

 This aspect of the conversation really wasn't exactly about the Freedmen, and I really didn't intend it to be. It was in a private conversation between you and in which I was tired of you playing the victim card to such a degree as to refusing to not recognize racism and murder against Native people from NON Indians, and especially against Native women.

 In a lot of ways this aspect of the conversation had little to do with the Freedmen, but more so in the things I have already explained above in this post.

  I do not see why you continue to bring this up in this thread, as all you are doing is derailing it based on words you have twisted way out of proportion from a private conversation that has no reason to even be in this thread.

 Very much to the contrary of anything you have said in this thread, I have been in full support of people of Black/Cherokee ancestry enrolled in the CNO, even if that ancestry means they are mostly of African descent, and very little Cherokee by blood.

 What I have been saying in this thread is my support of the CNO's right to chose it's own members as it has the right to do based on it's tribal sovereignty.

 What I have stated both in this thread and in numerous others now, always directed at you; is why are you and the CBC making such a big deal about this issue and not about the disenrollments going on in other tribes.??????????????????????????????????

 If you are not about race as you say, but are about justice; then why do you wish to ignore the tribal sovereignty of the Cherokee, but not of a tribe such as the Chukchansi in California whom have now disenrolled 600 out of it's 1,200 members

 You see unlike you I do acknowledge my Native ancestry as something that is a very big, and important part of my life. I am a member of the NDN community in the part of California I live in, and am recognized by the community as such.

 The issue of disenrollments is a big issue with me, because it affects people I know personally, and I view as family.

 I was present when an elder in her 70's received notice that she had been disernolled by her tribe. I was there as this elderly women broke down in tears and wept. This woman is not some person of mostly white blood, but is visibly an Indian person.

What offends me about people like you, and the CBC, is that you are sooo gung ho about overriding the tribal sovereignty of the CNO, but will not lift a finger or say a words for others facing similar fates.

 You can say how the CNO had the treaty of 1866, but I will say that NDN people in every tribe come from ancestors who faced great obstacles and great sadness to survive back in the same period of time as that treaty, did so before it, and did so after it.

 In my mind every treaty signed with every tribe, and laws passed in the IRA should be protecting NDN's today, and should be seen as just as big of an issue as this 1866 treaty you and others harp on. Sadly I see this is not true, and to date you and the CBC both have never once spoken a word about it.

 So if you are truly a man of justice and one not about race, please address the issue of disenrollments going on all over the country, or admit the words you speak telling us all you area about justice are false, hollow, and from the side of your mouth.

 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 23, 2010, 01:16:35 am
Moma Porcupine said

Quote
http://www.kerchner.com/cgi-kerchner/mtdna.cgi (http://www.kerchner.com/cgi-kerchner/mtdna.cgi)

http://www.mitosearch.org/haplosearch_start.asp?uid= (http://www.mitosearch.org/haplosearch_start.asp?uid=)

You have to read through a lot to get the picture, as a lot of people are just reporting European results and family history, but if you do, the pattern that emerges is very clear.

The numbers show a lot more stories a gr gr grandma was an Indian than there was gr gr grandma's who actually were Indian - of any tribe.

My own theory is that a lot of people have gr gr gr gr gr aunts or uncles who married someone who was Native and after a few generations that got turned into "someone back there" which people assumed was their own ancestor, when it wasn't.

(edited to add *in North America* as Hispanic people have a much larger percentage of indigenous maternal lines )


Moma porcupine, I went back to the link you gave and really looked at it a little better.  It’s hard to follow at first because of the terminology, but the picture that is painted is crystal clear to me.  I encourage everyone to read it.  I think that one of the reasons that many Wannabees are so arrogant  is because many people don’t challenge them on their heritage.  But the truth is the truth. If people were more honest not only with others but with themselves then their lives would be a whole lot easier.    Everyone should take a look at the DNA links that Moma Porcupine posted. 

Your right on track when you say people assume that someone was their ancestor when in fact it was not. I’ll expand on that.

Also, to expand on what you have found with you DNA research, this is one of the reasons as to why we Cherokees are so skeptical of those who cannot prove their heritage. Most of these people aren’t our long lost brothers and sisters at all, on the contrary, many of these people’s ancestors stole our people’s homeland.  While I have admitted in the past that there are some legit claims and even some legit claims by some of the Freedmen that are not enrolled, the evidence is overwhelming that most Cherokee claims are bogus.

After looking into this issue for some time I am not surprised at the lengths that some people will go to into deceiving people about their “made up heritage”.  Another trend that I have noticed is “Ancestor Stealing”.  Which ties into your post.

I’ve come across numerous cases of people claiming ancestors on various Cherokee rolls, when in fact it came out later that these people’s ancestors are not in fact their ancestors. Indian communities aren’t very big in the whole scheme of things.  Even the Cherokee Nation with its 280,000 citizens and having people with low BQ’s, if your not enrolled its going to come out sooner or later.  Every Cherokee knows who their family is.  Many enrolled people in the Cherokee Nation can sit down and tell you who their family was for many many generations back.  And I’m sure in some of the smaller Tribes this is even more pronounced.   

There was a woman I met a  while back who claimed she was descended from the Baker Rolls which is the base roll for the Eastern Band.  She was not shy in telling people about it.  When I asked her who her ancestor was she told me the name. While it was true that there was someone on the Baker Roll with that exact name, later I found out after looking at her genealogy more closely.  ( She showed it to me herself ), that the person that was her supposed ancestors on the Baker Roll died 30 years before the Baker Rolls were established. 

One thing to also keep in mind is that the Dawes Roll is full of many common Anglo surnames such as  Smith, Robbins, Stephens, Taylor, Walker, Fields etc, etc.

Given names are also common, such as Joe, John, Elizabeth, Mary,etc. I have become aware over the years of many instances of this. 

There are people who may have a g grandparent named John Smith who was from Oklahoma or NC, and without researching it more fully ( and sometimes they do but deny it ), they take this Indian ancestor as their own when their ancestor was just someone with the same name.  There is more to just having a common surname or even complete name on one of the Rolls.  Siblings of the ancestor, exact dates, locations, parents, grandparents, and other evidence should all be looked at when looking at and researching the Rolls.  There was a guy on the powwow trail who had family from Oklahoma.  He was from Oklahoma, and his last name was a common surname on the Dawes Roll.  However it came out that this man wasn’t an enrolled Cherokee citizen, but he would tell everyone that he was a Cherokee from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.  The family he claimed he was related to turned out to be just good friends of his while all the while he claimed they were his family. Since they both had the surname, everyone assumed they was his family.

I’ve met other people who think that because they have a surname from the Dawes Roll and their family was in Oklahoma or NC, and sometimes even Georgia, haha, that that proves their heritage.  This is why our rolls are so important to us.  Not only for the Cherokees but for all Tribal Nations in the US and Canada.  In a perfect world, you can take someone at their word that they are Cherokee, but with all the misrepresentation taking place, our Rolls are important to us.  These Rolls whether it be Dawes or other Rolls even with some of their flaws are the story or our families. Now of course I agree with the fact that there are legit claims of people with ancestors on Rolls but aren’t necessarily enrolled, I’m just pointing out that many people are not what and who they claim to be.  I stumbled across this blog a while ago that ties into the idea of Ancestors Stealing.  The link is listed below.



Friday, January 8, 2010
Ancestor Stealers
 
Recently, I have noticed a new trend among those claiming Cherokee ancestry--"ancestor stealers". Instead of providing a well researched, documented family tree to verify their ancestry, quite a few people are now basing their "Cherokee ancestry" on fabricated family trees. These trees quite often have the names of real Cherokees in them, but there is no connection between the Cherokee and the person who put the tree together.

For example, I saw a tree this week from a person who claimed to be the descendant of the well known Cherokee Nancy Ward. At first glance, the line of direct descendants seemed fine, until you noticed that Nancy Bean, a real descendant of Nancy Ward, was listed as the mother of William E. Bean., the tree creator's great great grandfather. The problem with that information is that all of Nancy Bean's children had the surname Johnson, her married surname. The family is extremely well documented and Nancy Bean Johnson had no son named William, let alone one named William E. Bean.

Normally, I might think the mistake was an honest one, but in this case, I don't believe it was. The woman the tree belonged to is touting herself as a person who is revitalizing and teaching the Eastern Cherokee language dialect. She gets involved in anything she sees online that says it is Cherokee. Her daughter has won an essay award meant for Native American children and has started crafting Indian style items. This woman has several fabricated family trees online where she makes it look as if she does descend from a Cherokee from very distant history. It seems no matter what it takes, she is going to try to convince people she is a Cherokee.

Often I am asked why we Cherokee people get so mad about wannabes. Well, the example above is one of those reasons. Unless you are truly a Native American, I don't think most people can begin to understand the length some frauds will go to in order to try to claim to be one of us. We understand that there are some people who truly just want to learn their ancestry, but we are also aware of many people who don't care what their actual ancestry is--they are going to claim to be Cherokee, no matter what they have to do--even if that means stealing someone else's ancestors and claiming them. This makes the true descendants of that person angry.

If you are researching your ancestry looking for verification of a Cherokee family story, please only use information that you can support with documentation. Be extremely wary of ANY family tree you find online. You don't know where that information came from and you don't know the goal of the person who posted that tree. Even if they are not an "ancestor stealer", they could be very bad at genealogical research.

No matter who your ancestors were, whether they were Cherokee or other, they deserve to be remembered and honored by you. By claiming someone other than those you actually descend from, not only will you be an "ancestor stealer" but also denying your true ancestors the place in your family history they deserve.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thank you for reading.

CC
The Granddaughter

copyright 2010, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB


Read more: http://pollysgranddaughter.blogspot.com/2010/01/ancestor-stealers.html#ixzz0dOSvqojB

http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/pollys-granddaughter (http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/pollys-granddaughter)
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 23, 2010, 02:17:55 am
Looking at the number of people reporting a family story of an Indian great grandma on their maternal line, and then looking at the number of mtDNA results * in North America * which show a indigenous mtDNA type, generally shows there is about 10 stories of a distant Native ancestor on the maternal line for every mtDNA result that actually confirms this. On the other hand, there is almost no one getting an mtDNA result showing a maternal line that is indigenous, when they always thought great granny was completely non native....


http://www.kerchner.com/cgi-kerchner/mtdna.cgi

http://www.mitosearch.org/haplosearch_start.asp?uid=

You have to read through a lot to get the picture, as a lot of people are just reporting European results and family history, but if you do, the pattern that emerges is very clear.

The numbers show a lot more stories a gr gr grandma was an Indian than there was gr gr grandma's who actually were Indian - of any tribe.
  
My own theory is that a lot of people have gr gr gr gr gr aunts or uncles who married someone who was Native and after a few generations that got turned into "someone back there" which people assumed was their own ancestor, when it wasn't.

(edited to add *in North America* as Hispanic people have a much larger percentage of indigenous maternal lines )

 A friend of mine and I were talking about this topic once, and apparently she had learned about it in college to some degree. This is what she told me on the topic, which lead me to believe this is not an exact science yet and can not really be trusted as absolute.

*******************************************************************************


*****note: she did this on a myspace mail box that was using HTML. So
there is mention of bold letter and a chart that do not work on the
format done by Yahoo here*******


The problem with Mitochondrial DNA testing is it doesn't show all of
the markers and possibilities in your own bloodline. These places can
only show matches with people whose DNA they have in their system, so
if you have, say, an unknown or small ethnic group in your background,
one for which they don't have current date to make a match with, it's
not studied further.
For instance, a lot of black people who've used this very tool for
genealogy have gotten results pertaining ONLY to Europe, with no
mention whatsoever of Africa. One man I know of had traced his
genealogy back generations to specific parts of Africa, yet when he
tested his mitochondrial dna, his search ended in Europe and showed no
African origin, which he knew wasn't correct. But that is because of
the mitochondrial DNA.
So, let's say there is a woman, Jane. Jane is daughter of Mark and
Mary. Jane will inherit all of Mary's mitochondrial DNA, but none of
Mark's mother. Mitochondrial DNA is only a part of the mother's
background.
Mark's mother would have passed it on to Mark and his siblings, but if
it's passed on to a male, he doesn't pass it on to his children since
it is carried only in women. You would have your mother's
mitochondrial DNA, but you would not pass it on to your children. A
sister of yours would.
So, if you trace Jane's ancestry through mitochondrial DNA, you are
only tracing one aspect of the many ancestor's she's had.
<a
href="http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczI5OS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL2\
1tMzE1L3BvZXRzNGhpcmUvP2FjdGlvbj12aWV3JmN1cnJlbnQ9bXRkbmEuanBn"
target="_blank"><img
src="http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm315/poets4hire/mtdna.jpg"
border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a>
The people in bold italic are the only ones MtDNA is going to trace.
So now you have genetic information from Mary, Linda, and Sharon who
are Jane's ancestors, but you are missing information from Mark, John,
Ellen, Harry, Larry, Sue, Bill, Amy, Joe, Ally and Martin. And Sharon
is only Jane's great-grandmother. So, in only three generations,
you've not taken in to account eleven people who genetically
contributed to Jane's DNA makeup.
Now, let's say that Larry is Scottish, Sue is Scottish, Bill is Irish,
and Amy is Dutch. Let's say Joe is Black Dutch, Ally is Melungeon, and
Martin is German/Souix. Let's say Sharon is British.
All you are going to know about Jane is the British ancestry. You
won't know about the german, the souix, the melungeon, the black
dutch, the dutch, the irish, or the scottish. Mitochondrial DNA does
not trace that side.
There is patrilineal DNA, but it is even more limited than mtdna,
because it's not passed on to daughters, at all, unlike mtdna which is
passed on to sons, but not their children.
The really is no 'best' to use, but there are DNA tests that are better.
Patrilineal and Matrilineal DNA, if taking into account the chart
above, will still leave out people. I've seen people test both sides
and get different results on both. One in particular showed african
ancestry of a small group that migrated to britain long ago and were
never slaves in the Y-line (patrilineal) , and in the mtdna it showed
both native american and north african ancestry. If the testing was
taken only on one type of test, they would have very different results
and views of where they originated. There are DNA tests that give a
more detailed determination like autosomal testing, but you must
remember that some genes are dominant and some are recessive, and
ancestors often donate unequal portions of their genes to their
offspring. This is why some siblings sharing the same two parents can
look completely different. Not long ago there were twins born to an
interracial couple for the second time, and one was black while the
other was white. This is because they each inherited different
portions of their parents genetics. One grandparent or parent might
donate less than another or more.
So, basically, DNA can prove ancestry beyond a shadow of a doubt (like
if you are related to somebody famous), but it cannot disprove
ancestry beyond a shadow of a doubt (because you will not be able to
measure all contributors to your DNA accurately, and therefore can be
misled about your origins).
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 23, 2010, 02:28:12 am
I would agree with most of what you posted, however, I can't see any purpose using black on black crime statistics to justify anything about the Cherokee freedmen. Using totally unrelated biased information is often the most useful tactic of the extreme right. Can anyone say that crime statistics in 2010 have anything to do with denial people rights they have had since 1866. That's why I countered with biased data on Indian crimes, also totally unrelated to the issue.
The CBC represents 40 million voters. What does black on black crime statistics have to do with the Cherokee freedmen? Its sounds like Rush Limbaugh logic. Please explain...
I'm sorry but you sound like a white southern heritage racist, who wants to wave the confederate flag and expect black people across the country to send you tax money. What is the difference between this logic and the people who deny that your president is an American citizen, and claim they're not racists. You still haven't told what black on black crime has to do with the freedmen expulsion other than racism.
Think about it when white racists demand white power, what does that mean. When "Indians" use the same tactics to deny people their historical rights, what is it?


Don,

 At no time did I ever say any of the things you are saying I did here. What I was doing was along the lines of what Moma Porcupine has explained to you she felt I did, and for reasons similar to what she has pointed out.

 However at no time did I use those statistics in any such way as to say they were any  kind of justification for the Freedmen being disenrolled. I honestly don't know how many different ways I, or anyone else has to explain that to you and make that point stick.

 Honestly, I don't know why I should have to explain it to you when you have all the messages in your inbox, the same as I do. As a matter of fact I have even posted up one of those messages in this thread that had both sides of our conversation within it. At no place in that message or any other message did I say anything remotely resembling those things in which you now constantly accuse me of.

I do also find it funny how you fail to put my actual words here, but rather post your interpretation of them which is so twisted and off base that it is insane.

 What I said to you in regards to crime statistics wasn't even really anything to do with the Freedmen other then a response to how you constantly say how bad they have it just for being Freedmen, and have unilaterally denied that Fullblood Cherokee in places such as Adiar Country Oklahoma are probably some the poorest and worst off people in Oklahoma.

 I presented to you crime statistics and statements that outlined that in cases of violence against Native women, the perpetrators were almost always NON Native men. I do believe violence in general against Native people most often comes from the hands of NON Indian people. I then presented the crime statistics about black on black crime to show how cases of murder and violent crimes in the black community were actually more internal as opposed to violence on Indian people usually coming from the hands of NON Indians.

 This aspect of the conversation really wasn't exactly about the Freedmen, and I really didn't intend it to be. It was in a private conversation between you and in which I was tired of you playing the victim card to such a degree as to refusing to not recognize racism and murder against Native people from NON Indians, and especially against Native women.

 In a lot of ways this aspect of the conversation had little to do with the Freedmen, but more so in the things I have already explained above in this post.

  I do not see why you continue to bring this up in this thread, as all you are doing is derailing it based on words you have twisted way out of proportion from a private conversation that has no reason to even be in this thread.

 Very much to the contrary of anything you have said in this thread, I have been in full support of people of Black/Cherokee ancestry enrolled in the CNO, even if that ancestry means they are mostly of African descent, and very little Cherokee by blood.

 What I have been saying in this thread is my support of the CNO's right to chose it's own members as it has the right to do based on it's tribal sovereignty.

 What I have stated both in this thread and in numerous others now, always directed at you; is why are you and the CBC making such a big deal about this issue and not about the disenrollments going on in other tribes.??????????????????????????????????

 If you are not about race as you say, but are about justice; then why do you wish to ignore the tribal sovereignty of the Cherokee, but not of a tribe such as the Chukchansi in California whom have now disenrolled 600 out of it's 1,200 members

 You see unlike you I do acknowledge my Native ancestry as something that is a very big, and important part of my life. I am a member of the NDN community in the part of California I live in, and am recognized by the community as such.

 The issue of disenrollments is a big issue with me, because it affects people I know personally, and I view as family.

 I was present when an elder in her 70's received notice that she had been disernolled by her tribe. I was there as this elderly women broke down in tears and wept. This woman is not some person of mostly white blood, but is visibly an Indian person.

What offends me about people like you, and the CBC, is that you are sooo gung ho about overriding the tribal sovereignty of the CNO, but will not lift a finger or say a words for others facing similar fates.

 You can say how the CNO had the treaty of 1866, but I will say that NDN people in every tribe come from ancestors who faced great obstacles and great sadness to survive back in the same period of time as that treaty, did so before it, and did so after it.

 In my mind every treaty signed with every tribe, and laws passed in the IRA should be protecting NDN's today, and should be seen as just as big of an issue as this 1866 treaty you and others harp on. Sadly I see this is not true, and to date you and the CBC both have never once spoken a word about it.

 So if you are truly a man of justice and one not about race, please address the issue of disenrollments going on all over the country, or admit the words you speak telling us all you area about justice are false, hollow, and from the side of your mouth.

 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 23, 2010, 02:35:59 am

I would agree with most of what you posted, however, I can't see any purpose using black on black crime statistics to justify anything about the Cherokee freedmen. Using totally unrelated biased information is often the most useful tactic of the extreme right. Can anyone say that crime statistics in 2010 have anything to do with denial people rights they have had since 1866. That's why I countered with biased data on Indian crimes, also totally unrelated to the issue.

The CBC represents 40 million voters. What does black on black crime statistics have to do with the Cherokee freedmen? Its sounds like Rush Limbaugh logic. Please explain...
I'm sorry but you sound like a white southern heritage racist, who wants to wave the confederate flag and expect black people across the country to send you tax money. What is the difference between this logic and the people who deny that your president is an American citizen, and claim they're not racists. You still haven't told what black on black crime has to do with the freedmen expulsion other than racism.
Think about it when white racists demand white power, what does that mean. When "Indians" use the same tactics to deny people their historical rights, what is it?




  The problem with all this you have now said, is that nobody including myself has ever said or even insinuated any of the gibberish you are posting here.

 You obviously must have a problem with comprehending what others say, or you are out right refusing to listen to anything anyone but yourself has to say. In that case, you have that right; however that right ends at trying to put words into the mouths of people accusing, and them of saying things they have never said.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Moma_porcupine on January 23, 2010, 03:01:53 am
Hi Blackwolf

Another thing that struck me reading through those mtDNA results, is how rare it is for someone of North American descent to get a result showing an indigenous maternal line, and to report that this result proved a previously undocumented story of Native ancestry . Except for people who were seperated from their birth family, almost all the people with the indigenous haplotypes A, B, C D and some sub types of X knew exactly who this came from and had previously documented it.

Those reports of results are probably a bit skewed as many people who have a story a maternal gr gr great grandma was Indian and who got an mtDNA result showing a European maternal line , probably either don't report their test results or don't report the family story which was not confirmed by the test result.

Rattlebone i'm sorry but that DNA article you posted has so much partly correct and partly wrong information it belongs in a trash can .
Quote
One in particular showed african
ancestry of a small group that migrated to britain long ago and were
never slaves in the Y-line (patrilineal) , and in the mtdna it showed
both native american and north african ancestry

mtdna can't possibly be of both American Indian and North african orgins. Whoever wrote this article is really confused. There is some highly questionable admixture tests which show stuff like this , but mtdna doesn't mix which is why it is so reliable at showing one line .  

I started a thread on DNA and what it can and cannot tell a while back, in the link below

DNA tests 4 Ndn ancestry & some statistics
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1375.0

Some of the DNA admixture tests are completely bogus , but Y DNA and mt Dna are pretty reliable as long as you understand what they show and what they don't show.

Both these tests only show the origins of the maternal or paternal line . It doesn't show anything about the many many many people this one line of people married .

But taken as a whole, Y and mtDNA shows the general North American population contains very few undocumented Native people who were absorbed and assimilated into the non native population. In most areas it wasn't a gentle mixing as many people like to claim. The DNA evidence is that , sadly , it really was widespread genocide.    

Some of the posts in this thread I've been tempted to copy and paste in the thread Blackwolf began below. because I think this is an important topic- though the basic issues tend to overlap for people who think they may be descended from other tribes .

Cherokee Ancestry: Fact or Fiction?

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2298.0

I understand what Blackwolf means about not wanting to confront people about their personal genealogy and beliefs about their ancestors, but the problem is these incorrect stories can impact a lot  of people . Someone born in 1850 has now got a lot of descendents. There is a lot of loaded issues associated with peoples strong feelings about being of Native descent, from political to emotional to Spiritual. No one deserves to believe they are of Native descent, because of a false story or a distorted historical or genealogical composition, which is being promoted by some wannabe or special interest group. No one deserves to be  encouraged to get invloved in this part of their heritage , only to find out years later they have been living a lie. I do know people that has happened to and they are sometimes  deeply messed up by this.

I really believe that even if the truth seems empty or makes us uncomfortable or sometimes the truth is we just don't know , we still have to stay commited to reality if we want to do real good in our lives and the world.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 23, 2010, 03:57:59 am


Rattlebone i'm sorry but that DNA article you posted has so much partly correct and partly wrong information it belongs in a trash can .
Quote
One in particular showed african
ancestry of a small group that migrated to britain long ago and were
never slaves in the Y-line (patrilineal) , and in the mtdna it showed
both native american and north african ancestry

mtdna can't possibly be of both American Indian and North african orgins. Whoever wrote this article is really confused. There is some highly questionable admixture tests which show stuff like this , but mtdna doesn't mix which is why it is so reliable at showing one line .  



 I do not believe she was saying the mtDNA was of both American Indian and North African origins, but rather the person tested had both markers or whatever it is called.

 I know of white people that have had those tests and it shows of course they have markers that are usually found in European populations, but at the same time the tests also show that they markers usually found in Asia.

 Usually these tests were the ones that not only gave where ancestors were supposedly from, but did the whole % of that ancestry they supposedly had.

 Of course having just read the thread you posted a link to, it still seems to show that even though recognized tribes have high levels of a certain marker; there is still issues with those tests that would seem to say they can not yet be trusted as absolute fact yet.

 However if one must do a DNA test to prove they are Indian, then why even bother because having a certain DNA marker is not going to make you an Indian even if you do have some degree of American Indian ancestry in the past.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 23, 2010, 04:13:21 am

 Seems we all got off topic here to some degree.

 Anyhow since the topic of wannabe's etc has came up, I will add some points to the topic.

 A number of years ago I read a native educator speaking about how there was what he called "a frontier society" in the American Southeast. He explained this by saying how Indian people (mostly mixed bloods) and whites were going back and forth from Indian communities and white communities.

 He would later say how if it had not been for the Removal Act, the American Southeast racially would possibly look more like Mexico then it does the United States today due to intermarriage.

 I do not doubt that given that if anyone has ever looked at the Dawes rolls, the amount of people way back then being put down as very low BQ's even then was pretty high. Plus given how the so called Five Civilized Tribes had adopted so much of white ways and concepts; this concept to me seems plausible.

 Now to add another equation to this issue, and that is the annoying gggg grandmother they can't prove story. There may be truth to that fiction as well. Often times a white man would marry an Indian woman, and for whatever reason, that woman would be listed as white. Trying to track down the families of these women through records will often get you results such as "mother or father unknown." So when the people descended today from those marriages do try and hunt family down, it is likely they will find nobody on top of the race of a grandparent being put down falsely.

 This issue will be exacerbated by the fact that some people in those days would put down on official papers different names as they went through life. Some times they would use traditional names, and sometimes they would use European names, and variations of those European names as well.

 So there very well be a lot of truth to their stories, and the truth may be in fact hidden on those papers and documents we all assume would be accurate, and often times are not. Good proof of that is people who by laws on the East Coast reclassifying Indian people as "other," "colored" etc, who today have descendants who can not undue the damage that has stripped them of their identity to some degree.

However, the most important thing to keep in mind, which I am sure most will agree on; having one of those unprovable ancestors does not make one an Indian even if that ancestor really does exist just as they were told.



Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 23, 2010, 02:38:09 pm
Look, you sent me those black on black crime statistics, what does that have to do with the Cherokee Freedmen. Are all black people the same, which is what you and any racist believes. Are black people violent and is that why the Cherokee freedmen were expelled? You just don't understand what racism is !
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 23, 2010, 05:00:52 pm
While there are some cases of people who do really have Cherokee heritage and can't prove it, I'd say that the vast majority of these cases are baseless.  Its also true that for many mixed bloods, a birth certificate can't really prove anything one way or the other.  For example you might have some one with a BQ of 1/4 listed as white.  However censuses taken of the Cherokees can be more accurate.  Granted that there were most likely at least some cases of people not being reported on the Cherokee census, however the number don't add up.  Even when you take into account the Cherokees that migrated to various places in bands such as to Arkansas, Texas, etc, and consider the ones that dissapeared on the Trail of Tears, and/or stayed behind.  In another thread I listed a census of the Cherokees that stayed behind in a few states after the Trail of Tears.  Many of these people later joined up with the Eastern Band.  We're talking about handfuls of Cherokees that may have stayed behind in places like NE Alabama.

I'd say there are at least half a million people in this country who claim Cherokee heritage who are probably not of Cherokee heritage. 

Me and Paul had this conversation before and I said that people with Cherokee heritage and can't prove it would probably only number in the single digit thousands.  So then we have to ask ourselves why so many people claim Cherokee heritage if this is not the case?  This would also merit a logical answer.  This can all be explained by American Folklore and some other specific historical circumstances that happened throughout the history of this country.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 23, 2010, 05:19:45 pm
Moma Porcupine said
Quote
I understand what Blackwolf means about not wanting to confront people about their personal genealogy and beliefs about their ancestors, but the problem is these incorrect stories can impact a lot  of people . Someone born in 1850 has now got a lot of descendents. There is a lot of loaded issues associated with peoples strong feelings about being of Native descent, from political to emotional to Spiritual. No one deserves to believe they are of Native descent, because of a false story or a distorted historical or genealogical composition, which is being promoted by some wannabe or special interest group. No one deserves to be  encouraged to get invloved in this part of their heritage , only to find out years later they have been living a lie. I do know people that has happened to and they are sometimes  deeply messed up by this.

I really believe that even if the truth seems empty or makes us uncomfortable or sometimes the truth is we just don't know , we still have to stay commited to reality if we want to do real good in our lives and the world.

Your right about these stories impacting people and their lives.  Some people take their Cherokee or Indian heritage very very seriously and there is a lot of emotion behind it.  For some, this identity defines who they are and in some cases their whole live is built around it.  So it would probably be very very difficult to say the least to find out that their heritage was just a “good story”.  And like you mentioned, it could have been one of their gg Uncles who married a Cherokee or an Indian.  It would probably be a good thing for people to find out the truth sooner rather then later ...whatever that may be. 

My agenda is not to discredit people.  My only agenda is the truth.

There is also a lot at stake here for the 3 Federally Recognized Cherokee Tribes and all Indian Nations in general.  We literally have people across this country teaching our history, language and traditions.  And from what we know a lot of these people aren’t of Cherokee heritage.

But this isn’t just about the Cherokees.  While most of the fakes are claiming Cherokee heritage, many other Nations are being misrepresented.   These people are in essence representing all Indian people with their distorted history, and mockery of our ancestors.

The genealogy information ties into all off this.  Of course the information DOES have to be looked at from all angles.  The SAME goes for the information on the numbers and censuses with the Cherokees.  HOWEVER, after looking at the whole picture you sort of start to get a general idea of things, which is that THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE out there with a False Identity.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 23, 2010, 06:17:14 pm
Taken from other thread
Moma porcupine said

Quote
On the mitochondrial DNA, there are a total of five different “haplotypes???(DEFINE), called A, B, C, D, and X, which are increasingly called “Native American markers,??? and are believed to be a genetic signature of the founding ancestors. As for the Y-chromosome, there are two primary lineages or “haplogroups??? (DEFINE) that are seen in modern Native American groups, called M3 and M45. Some scientists maintain that up to 95% of all Native American Y-chromosomes are from these two groups (the rest being from either Asian lineages or non-native haplogroups). It must be emphasized that none of these markers is exclusive to Native American populations; all can be found in other populations around the world. They simply occur with higher frequency in Native American populations. If you look carefully and use the zomm to blow up the colored pie shaped images showing the percentages of mtDNA in different areas of Spain , Italy , Russia , Northern Norway , Turkey , ect , it can be seen that all these areas had a percentage of the population which has the mtDNA types which are frequently referred to as "Native American" .


Quote
This map suggests a test showing an mtDNA line that is A B C D or X would not prove that this line had American Indian origins , only that this is a likely possibility if the family has a history of living in areas where intermarriage may have occurred .

The other thread is really informative Moma porcupine. Thanks for the link.   I never knew that Asian DNA and Native American DNA can have the same results or the fact that some Native American DNA markers can be found in Europe.   I always assumed that if someone tested positive for theses makers then that would at least prove their Native American DNA to a certain degree.  I know of people who have tested positive for these markers who aren’t enrolled, and they use this as their basis of proof of American Indian identity.  I can see now that this really does not prove anything.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 23, 2010, 10:31:07 pm
Look, you sent me those black on black crime statistics, what does that have to do with the Cherokee Freedmen. Are all black people the same, which is what you and any racist believes. Are black people violent and is that why the Cherokee freedmen were expelled? You just don't understand what racism is !

 Look, you were given those statistics because you kept harping on how bad the Freedmen had it, and I countered with how bad many many Indians have it, and especially women.

 It's that plain,and that simple.

  The rest of what you are saying is just putting words in my mouth, and baseless accusations that are based on my words you keep twisting.

 Why not just drop it and get to the real discussion at hand?
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: dabosijigwokush on January 24, 2010, 05:14:30 am
to some one who thinks they know racialism

my one and only day in catholic school 1960
a nun cut my braids as well quote we don't allow that here
my mother said nothing, my father went to school the next day
he asked who, i pointed, he asked for the braids back
the nun placed them in my fathers hands saying we don't allow that here
with that my father decked the nun, ...we don't allow that ether
my mother would never let use get long hair after that,
i still remember that day and why my father disappeared for some time, jail
even was made to wash in class to prove that my brown did not wash off
and when i did the teacher transferred me to another teacher
told to stand in the hall when the morning prayer and pledge to flag was said
removed from powwows in towns by police because they were still afraid of use
told in restaurants that we don't have to serve your kind
called a heathen in every church i have ever been in
yet i have done no wrong, broke no ones laws, only wish to follow the teachings of my ancestors
and it still goes on in Canada and USA

Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Paul123 on January 24, 2010, 11:42:11 am
As it seems, you are qualified then to answer this question:
Who is a Racist?
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 24, 2010, 01:33:57 pm
That's total nonsense. What do thsoe statistics have to do with the freedmen? Nothing except that the freedmen are black. Your intent was to identify the freedmen as violent and therefore after 144 years should be expelled from the CNO. What other intent could you have had. Do the statistics say anything about the freedmen, NO!

Look, you sent me those black on black crime statistics, what does that have to do with the Cherokee Freedmen. Are all black people the same, which is what you and any racist believes. Are black people violent and is that why the Cherokee freedmen were expelled? You just don't understand what racism is !

 Look, you were given those statistics because you kept harping on how bad the Freedmen had it, and I countered with how bad many many Indians have it, and especially women.

 It's that plain,and that simple.

  The rest of what you are saying is just putting words in my mouth, and baseless accusations that are based on my words you keep twisting.

 Why not just drop it and get to the real discussion at hand?
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 24, 2010, 02:37:43 pm
As it seems, you are qualified then to answer this question:
Who is a Racist?

To use totally unrelated and biased data to make a racial generalisation IS racist. It sounds like Russ Limbaugh. Why not claim that Obama is a Kenyan Arab? I have seen the same type of bullshit since I was in the civil rights movement.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 24, 2010, 02:46:34 pm
I understand that you were the victim of racism, but does that justify racism against another group? My ancestors were victims of racism as were all non white people in America. That doesn't allow the victim to become a victimiser. King taught us that as victims we had to rise above the victimisers, and we did.
To say that black people are more violent than anyone else in the US and to use that as justification to deny them their civil and human rights is nothing more than racism. It is so sad that people who have been victims of white racism now emulate the people who they claim oppressed them. Is the CNO afraid that the freedmen will turn the CNO into an urban ghetto?

to some one who thinks they know racialism

my one and only day in catholic school 1960
a nun cut my braids as well quote we don't allow that here
my mother said nothing, my father went to school the next day
he asked who, i pointed, he asked for the braids back
the nun placed them in my fathers hands saying we don't allow that here
with that my father decked the nun, ...we don't allow that ether
my mother would never let use get long hair after that,
i still remember that day and why my father disappeared for some time, jail
even was made to wash in class to prove that my brown did not wash off
and when i did the teacher transferred me to another teacher
told to stand in the hall when the morning prayer and pledge to flag was said
removed from powwows in towns by police because they were still afraid of use
told in restaurants that we don't have to serve your kind
called a heathen in every church i have ever been in
yet i have done no wrong, broke no ones laws, only wish to follow the teachings of my ancestors
and it still goes on in Canada and USA



Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: bls926 on January 24, 2010, 03:08:19 pm
Don Naconna, you are sounding like a broken record. It was never Rattle's intent to say those black on black crime statistics had anything to do with the Freedmen. He has explained that to you and everyone else over and over again. Let it go.

What was your reason for saying American Indians are some of the most violent people you've ever known? What was your reason for talking about crime rates on the reservations? That's damn racist of you. Doesn't have a thing to do with the Freedmen.

Why do you keep harping on how racist the Cherokee are? Yes, at one time they did own slaves; however, it was the minority. Is everyone in the United States racist because at one time slavery was legal here? Are the people in the Caribbean and South America more racist than the people in North America? You know there were more African slaves sent to the plantations down there than up here.

Why do you keep saying the Cherokee Nation fought for the Confederacy? Just like several states, they were split in their allegiance. Some wore gray and some wore blue.

You're a history professor, you should know these things. It seems your time in the civil rights movement has colored your perceptions.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 24, 2010, 04:30:36 pm
Don Naccona said
Quote
Why not claim that Obama is a Kenyan Arab?

Quote
Is the CNO afraid that the freedmen will turn the CNO into an urban ghetto?

Don do you have a problem with Arabs?  And why are you making the comparison of Freedmen to Urban ghettos?  If Rattlebone or anyone else on these  boards SAID WHAT YOU JUST DID. you BIG HYPOCRITE you, you know for a fact that you wouldn't let them live it down.  Which is the game your trying to play with Rattlebone. 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 24, 2010, 04:32:15 pm
And also Don, I’m starting to get the sense that you’re a mentally unstable man.  I’ve already agreed with you numerous times that there were elements of racism in the CN in the 1800's, especially during the Civil War.  You need to take a vacation or something.  The argument is not whether there was racism ( THERE WAS ), the argument is whether the Cherokee Nation has the right as a sovereign people to determine who is and is not entitled to Cherokee citizenship. The bottom line is we want our Tribe a Tribe of Indians.  People who can PROVE this on the Dawes Roll are entitled to enrollment. As Moma_porcupine pointed out, the Cherokee Nation is one of the most open Tribes in the country in regards to enrollment.  While a lot of Tribes cap their BQ’s at 1/4 or an 1/8,etc, the Cherokee Nation only ask for PROVEN LINEAL descent of someone Indian “by blood” on the Dawes Rolls.  As I pointed out before, there are over 1,500 Cherokee Citizens who are also the descendants of Freedmen and many of these people are of predominantly African American ancestry.

A fact that always gets overlooked is that the Freedmen DID get citizenship after the Civil War and were freed in 1963.  But to think that because they were former slaves of a small minority of Cherokees, that that gives their DESCENDANTS the RIGHT forever into the future, Citizenship in the Cherokee Nation is absurd.  I’ve looked at the stories of Marilyn Vann and others with similar claims.  It’s a shame that their ancestors didn’t get on the Dawes Rolls, but its also a shame that there are a lot of other people who can prove that they are Cherokee and also didn’t have ancestors on the Rolls either.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 24, 2010, 04:34:54 pm
Quote
A fact that always gets overlooked is that the Freedmen DID get citizenship after the Civil War and were freed in 1963.

1863 not 1963
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Defend the Sacred on January 24, 2010, 06:23:39 pm

Don Naconna, you are sounding like a broken record. It was never Rattle's intent to say those black on black crime statistics had anything to do with the Freedmen. He has explained that to you and everyone else over and over again. Let it go.

What was your reason for saying American Indians are some of the most violent people you've ever known? What was your reason for talking about crime rates on the reservations? That's damn racist of you. Doesn't have a thing to do with the Freedmen.

Don, I'm seconding this. You're just repeating yourself to the point of surrealism, and grossly misrepresenting what Rattle said. You are also saying some damn racist things about NDNs, and you seem to think you have some sort of free pass to treat others with disrespect.

People point out your racist statements about NDNs, and instead of engaging respectfully, you engage in psychological projection and insults, accusing them of racism and acting like it's beneath you to even discuss your behaviour and how it affects the community. You have been warned multiple times now about this, and you're not doing yourself any favors by continuing this behaviour. 

You claim to be an anti-racist activist. But the first step in being anti-racist is to acknowledge that, having been raised in a racist culture, we have all internalized some of those bad messages about ourselves, and about others. We are all capable of making mistakes out of ignorance, or out of deep-rooted prejudices or privileges we didn't even know we had until they're triggered. So we must make an ongoing commitment to rooting these things out when we find them - not just in others but also in ourselves. We need to not only be open to feedback from others, but if we are truly dedicated to fighting racism, we need to be able to discuss it calmly and humbly, without attacking people for trying to help us.

You are instead doing the kneejerk thing of just getting pissed off instead of listening to NDNs with respect. You have POC here telling you you've said some racist stuff. I suggest you back up and listen to them for a change.

Perhaps the thing that bothers me the most about these broken-record posts of yours is that you keep framing things almost solely in terms of Black vs White. NDNs and NDN cultures are virtually invisible in your words, except when you make generalized, racist statements about them. This invisibility is racist and insulting, even before you start in with the crude insults. What on earth would make you think that is appropriate behaviour if you want to participate here?

Racism against Black people is a serious, endemic problem in both the US and Canada. We all know that. No one has disagreed with you on that. But Black people are not the only POC who are subjected to racist oppression. Being the member of one oppressed group does not give you the right to insult other oppressed people. We're not here to play Oppression Olympics.

The bottom line is respect. Are you capable of that, Don?
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: bls926 on January 24, 2010, 09:58:20 pm
^5 Kathryn!! Thank you.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 24, 2010, 10:23:43 pm
I have no problem with any ethnic group. I am NOT a bigot, why would anyone assume that I am, because I refuse to accept that black on black crime statitsics have a damned thing to do with the Cherokee Freedmen. Its sounds like what white racist claim when they say why they want to keep black people out of their neighbourhoods.
What is so difficult to understand, people whose ancestors owned slaves are more likely to be racists towards the people who their ancestors. Therefore racial intolerance is higher where slavery existed, i.e. Vermont didn't have segregated schools did they, but every state that had slavery did. Why because the people who lived there were more likely to be white supremacists. Racism is taught an if you are taught that everything your ancestors id was right including slavery and racism, then you defend your ancestors, correct.
Racism is learned, and what really makes you all so angry with me is that I was never taught racism and always taught the opposite.
If the Cherokee freedmen issue why use a stereotype to reinforce a weak very weak legal argument. Would any lawyer go into a federal court and argue that because black people are violent they should be excluded from the CNO, I would love to run that by Cherokee whoi sit on the bench. Its a decision based entirely on race, just like slavery and segregation and the gov't of the US is not going to allow taxpayers dollars to support a racially motivated decision by a small minority.
If folks were in denial about history and racism, and could accept the past has a price and now the descendants of slaveholders have to pay it and pay in full. Please tell me and the freedmens descendants what black on black crime statistics have to do with the expulsion from the CNO. Black folks all across the US and particularly members of the black caucas want to know. Believe me I am in regular communications with my former congressman Chaka Fattah, a member of the CBC and family friend. So please tell me are the freedmen violent like the rest of black Americans. Do they fill the prisons because they're black. We all want to know...
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 24, 2010, 10:51:16 pm
Okay Don I went through my inbox here and found what you said to me, and what I said in return that included my usage of the crime statistics. From here, it will be plain to see that what you are acussing me of  are things I never said.

  After you read this AGAIN, please explain to me and everyone else how you are coming up with all this other stuff, because I never said or even implied any of it.




Don Naconna said:
Quote
Were those poor Cherokee enslaved, raped, beaten even lynched, after slavery forced to live separate towns and live in Jim Crow?


 Rattlebone said:
Quote
You act as if Jim Crow laws only effected black people. My grandfather was not allowed to go into certain stores as a child, and was routinely beaten and attacked for having dark skin as a child.

 Today is 2010, and the majority of those Freedmen Descendants you speak of most likely have never gone through any of this, and I would assume if they did, the vast majority of them were just children.

 Ironically today even being 2010, states with high native populations have this bizarre issue of racists and hate groups ignoring blacks and other minorities and focusing on Natives.

 Native women are raped, beaten, and killed at a higher rate then any other women in the United States.  Most often times this is coming from the hands of NON Indian perpetrators.

 Crimes committed against blacks however, are most often results of black on black crime.


Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 24, 2010, 10:56:54 pm
Who was doing all this violence? Its pretty clear from this that Indian people of the 5 "Civilized" Nations were just as violent against freedmen and black citizens as their white neighbours.
Isn't time to end the denial? The fact is that the so called civilised tribes were just as racist as their neighbours. Its like the myth of the "kind Cherokee master" its a myth.

LYNCHING
Lynching is the killing (by hanging, burning, or torturing) of an individual or individuals, by a group of three or more persons operating outside the legal system in the belief that they have the right to serve justice or to reinforce a tradition or social custom. Motivated by anger, hatred, or outrage, mob members act spontaneously on the basis of presumed guilt, without the due process of law. Lynching could exist because law enforcement officials tacitly approved or could not prevent it.

Lynching or mob violence is usually, but not exclusively, associated with racism. However, much regional variation existed across the United States. In the South the system of slavery maintained a strong tradition of summary justice, with white owners exercising total control over black "property" and dispensing any kind of "justice" any time, for any "offense." After the Civil War, when slaves became free men and women, whites perpetuated a caste system by creating an atmosphere of fear. In the South, the lynch mob institutionalized social control with enforcement by hanging and burning. In the same period, in the western states, where there was a shortage of courts and law enforcement officials, lynching was acceptable punishment for livestock rustlers, stagecoach robbers, gamblers, and other miscreants.

Nationally, lynching grew each year from 1866 through the 1880s, peaked in 1892, and gradually declined, except for an upsurge during the Red Scare of 1919-20. By 1900 the punishment was reserved almost exclusively for blacks. From 1889 through 1918 mobs lynched 129 persons in the Midwest, 9 in New England, and 2,915 in the South and Border South. The nation reached a total of 3,587 by 1930.

In Oklahoma lynching generally followed the national trend. Surveys by the Tuskegee Institute, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and various scholars identify approximately 147 recorded lynching deaths from 1885 to1930 (dozens more probably went unrecorded). These numbered 77 white, 50 black, 14 American Indian, 1 Chinese, and 5 of unknown race. In Oklahoma, hanging was the most common form; with a few exceptions, burning was not used.

In the first phase of lynching in Oklahoma, 1885 through 1907, most victims were whites, punished primarily as rustlers, "highwaymen," or robbers. In those years, 106 individuals were lynched for suspected criminal activities. While 1892 was the peak year nationally, 1893-95 were the peak in the Twin Territories, with cattle/horse theft and robbery the main offenses. The 106 victims included 71 whites, 17 blacks, 14 Indians, 1 Chinese, and 3 of unknown race.

After 1907 statehood, however, lynching entered a more racist phase. While the numbers actually declined, the victims were almost exclusively black. In this period lynching reinforced an existing social order that deprived blacks of political and economic rights and segregated them. The state constitution enshrined Jim Crow, and forty-one persons were lynched by 1930. Most of these incidents occurred from 1908 to 1916. Murder, complicity in murder, rape, and attempted rape became the main offenses, attributed primarily to black males accused of assaulting whites. During World War I two blacks were lynched for rape and attempted rape. A resurgence came during the Red Scare of 1919-1923, when seven victims (one white) expired. In 1930 Oklahoma's last recorded lynching occurred in Chickasha. At the end of the lynching era, Oklahoma ranked number thirteen in total number of dead, surpassed only by Deep South and Border South states and Texas.

Mapping lynching's geographical distribution in Oklahoma from 1889 through 1930 draws out general patterns. Through the 1890s most episodes punished rustlers and robbers, predominantly whites, and occurred northwest of a line drawn from present Miami to present Altus. In this part of Oklahoma, ranch and farm land of the Panhandle (No Man's Land) had been settled in the 1880s, and land runs had opened the Cherokee Strip and the Cheyenne-Arapaho reservation in 1892 and 1893. Here livestock raising was an important economic pattern, and rustling brought death by rope. Kingfisher County, partly in the Unassigned Lands and partly in the Cheyenne-Arapaho lands, was the "lynching capital of Oklahoma," with fifteen (two Indians and thirteen whites) cattle/horse thieves summarily dispatched between 1893 and 1895. Beaver, Woodward, Woods, Ellis, Grant, and Washita also recorded incidents. As the region became more populated and law enforcement more sophisticated, rustling decreased, and so did lynching.

The 1900 census revealed that about 46 percent of settlers north and west of the Miami-Altus line hailed from midwestern states or had European parentage. They brought with them no firm tradition of racially motivated lynching. Thus, despite the fact that in the 1890s a large migration of African Americans established dozens of All-Black towns in Blaine, Kingfisher, and Logan counties, racial violence remained minimal there in the 1885-1930 period. Southwestern Oklahoma, a sparsely populated ranching region with relatively few black residents, saw the fewest lynchings. Between 1885 and 1930 two blacks (one each in Comanche and Caddo) paid with their lives for alleged crimes.

In central Oklahoma, including the counties created from the Unassigned Lands opened in 1889, lynching was also less common. In this region thousands of people--black, native-born white, European immigrants, and even a few Asians--hustled for economic, political, and social opportunities. There, people of midwestern, southern, and foreign backgrounds came into contact, each bringing his or her beliefs, prejudices, and experiences to bear on everyday life. Oklahoma County recorded six lynchings (five blacks) in the 1892-1907 period and two (both black) in the 1919-1930 period. Logan, Lincoln, Pottawatomie, and Cleveland counties each recorded incidents. Oklahoma's most notorious lynching, the burning of two Seminole Indian men by a mob of white tenant farmers, occurred in 1898 in present Seminole County.

If, as many scholars suggest, lynchings more often occurred where slave culture had prevailed, then portions of the state settled by southerners should exhibit a higher proportion. Plotted on a map, almost all of the lynchings from 1908 through 1916 occurred south and east of the Miami-Altus line, an area where southerners predominated. There, the southern Indians' traditional attitudes toward black slaves was reinforced by white migration from southern states into the Indian Nations before and after the Civil War. By 1900 whites, more than two-thirds southern in origin, outnumbered Indians. Complicating the situation, after allotment freedmen and African American immigrants from other states congregated in the region, creating numerous All-Black towns. The high visibility and relative prosperity of the freedmen's towns in Indian Territory, blacks' demands for political rights, a mass migration of blacks to Oklahoma Territory, and the suggestion that Oklahoma might become an All-Black state apparently posed a social, economic,and political threat, stimulating a time-honored method of social control mob violence.

The Creek Nation and counties created from it exhibited the highest number of lynchings. There, many All-Black towns existed, especially along the mutual borders of the Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations. Not surprisingly, the 1885-1930 period recorded twenty-four episodes, despite a low black-to-white ratio and a declining black population. From 1892 to 1907 eleven (six whites, one black, two Indians, and two of unknown race) were hanged. After 1907 statehood and before World War I came a frightening spate of overtly racist lynchings. Of nine victims reportedly dispatched by mobs in 1908-16, only one was white. During and after the war, two whites and two blacks met their death at the hands of mobs.

The southeastern counties of Little Dixie, formerly the Choctaw Nation and settled by southern whites after allotment, also endured mob violence. In the allotment of lands, the Choctaw had attempted to exclude freedmen, and many fled the region. Overall, fifteen lynchings (two whites, seven blacks, five Indians, and one of unknown race) occurred there between 1885 and 1930. Of the fifteen, nine (two blacks, two whites, and five Indians) died in the 1892-1907 period, and five (four blacks and one of unknown race) in 1908-1916. These incidents occurred despite the low ratio of black to white and despite a decline in black population.

A similar situation existed in the Chickasaw Nation area, where eighteen lynchings were recorded from 1885 through 1930. Of these, three (one black, one Indian, one Chinese) occurred in the 1892-1907 era and fifteen (eight black, four white, three Indian) in the 1908-1930 period. Here, too, the black-white ratio and the black population declined after statehood.

The social dynamics that led to lynching in Oklahoma no doubt sprang from the stresses of rapidly changing social composition and growing population. Between 1885 and 1930 Oklahoma changed from a land where Indian peoples prevailed, to a land dominated by whites from midwestern and southern states and also inhabited by freed blacks, black immigrants from other states, and immigrants of various other ethnicities. In the interracial, intercultural competition for social status and economic resources, it is not surprising that violence occurred.

Lynching cannot be understood outside of the general climate of racial violence that existed in early twentieth-century Oklahoma. In addition to lynching, racial violence had other manifestations. One was the "whipping party," in which a large group of whites whipped or beat a black who was suspected of an offense of some kind. In 1922 alone, according to Oklahoma Gov. Jack Walton, 2,500 whippings took place. Another manifestation was the "race riot." Occurring in nearly a dozen Oklahoma communities around the turn of the century, a riot's usual purpose was to run the blacks out of town. Interracial violence occurred in Berwyn in 1895, Lawton in 1902, and Boynton in 1904. In Henryetta in 1907 whites burned the black residential district and established a "sundowner" law, and in Dewey in 1917 a similar incident occurred. This activity reached its lowest point in the Tulsa Race Riot, when in July 1921 a foiled lynch mob, enraged when confronted by angry, armed black Tulsans, marched to the Greenwood District and destroyed most of it and many of its residents.

Why did the violence end after 1930, or at least go underground, so far as no longer to be recorded? Historians have offered a number of explanations. First, black newspaper editors of the 1900-30 era continually encouraged their readers to confront and stop lynch mobs. Some, like Tulsa's A. J. Smitherman, even suggested armed resistance. Returning black veterans of World War I were inclined to follow his advice. Second, the NAACP began to publish lynching statistics in order to embarrass state officials. Third, a national movement created a Commission on Interracial Cooperation, in Oklahoma called the Oklahoma Interracial Committee, with prominent black and white citizens as members. Fourth, the Oklahoma branch of the Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching worked diligently to publicize the accomplishments of blacks and to discourage men from participating in violence. In combination, black and white men and women worked successfully together to stop the madness.

SEE ALSO: AFRICAN AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, AFRICAN AMERICANS, ANTI-HORSE THIEF ASSOCIATION, ROSCOE DUNJEE, IMMIGRATION AND ETHNICITY, KU KLUX KLAN, LAW ENFORCEMENT, NAACP, OUTLAWS, SEGREGATION, ANDREW J. SMITHERMAN, TULSA RACE RIOT, WILLIAM H. TWINE

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lowell L. Blaisdell, "Anatomy of an Oklahoma Lynching: Bryan County, August 12-13, 1911," The Chronicles of Oklahoma 79 (Fall 2001). Charles N. Clark, Lynchings in Oklahoma: A Story of Vigilantism, 1830-1930 (Oklahoma City: N. p., 2000). Mary Elizabeth Estes, "An Historical Survey of Lynchings in Oklahoma and Texas" (M.A. thesis, University of Oklahoma, 1942). Ralph Ginzburg, 100 Years of Lynchings (Baltimore, Md.: Black Classic Press, 1988). Daniel Littlefield, Seminole Burning: A Story of Racial Vengeance (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1996). Stewart E. Tolnay and E. M. Beck, A Festival of Violence: An Analysis of Southern Lynchings, 1882-1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992). Murray R. Wickett, Contested Territory: Native Americans and African Americans in Oklahoma, 1865-1907 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2000). Robert L. Zangrando, The NAACP Crusade Against Lynching, 1909-1950 (Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press, 1980).

Dianna Everett

© Oklahoma Historical Society
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: critter - a white non-ndn person on January 24, 2010, 11:13:26 pm
Don.  The crime statistics has nothing to do with anything, EXCEPT by you. 

Rattlebone.  I think we all pretty much understand that the statistics were merely in response to Don,  but I don't think Don will ever understand this.

I give up on trying to explain.  Either you are simply doing this on purpose to keep up this rant, or you truly have some sort of reading comprehension problem. 
Title: Re: Jerry Monroe & the Binay "Tribe"
Post by: Don Naconna on January 24, 2010, 11:14:55 pm
Certainly most black people who ar familiar with my work would disagree with you. It has nothing to do with race it has to do with justice.
I'll send you a copy of Trickle to Torrent, my book on the African slave trade which which blames the African rulers and white traders equally. You simply cannot understand that anyone has no biases, can you. That only shows how shallow and isolated you must be. Do you believe that only people who look like you think like you and that a black president is only supporting black people? That's what many white people, like you believe. Yes I called you white because you ideas are more like a southern white racist than anything else.
Racism has declined all over the US because education, ending isolation and exposure to different ethnicities has increased. Apparently that is not true in your community, but it is in many. That's how Obama was elected because people, white, black and Latino moved past race and voted for change. You and Mike Graham obviously are not ready to join the rest of the nation. At least Mike Graham is honest, he calls black people "Niggers" and posts racist photoshopped pictures of Obama.
I have no animosity against any group except racists in denial. Because you assume everyone thinks like you you assume I must be pro black whatever the hell that means. Wrong, I'm pro justice, and I know what that means.

Why can a white person with 1/264 Cherokee blood be enrolled and a black person with 1/16 blood cannot, as is the case with many freedmen.

 Do you have one shred of proof this is true?

I have to agree with Blackwolf about you. I do believe you are an advocate of blacks with no Indian blood staying on the rolls, and though claiming to be non racist; you are racist against mixed bloods with white blood and not against mixed bloods with mostly African blood since you say nothing about them.

 In several threads in which this topic has came up, I have questioned you about disenrollments going on in other tribes, and much much more.

 On each and every occasion, you ignore my questions and give no answers.

 Maybe this is because in all due fairness, you know if you answer them it will hurt your arguments in favor of the Freedmen.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 24, 2010, 11:16:29 pm
Why do you use the past tense? Its obvious that there still is and always has been!

And also Don, I’m starting to get the sense that you’re a mentally unstable man.  I’ve already agreed with you numerous times that there were elements of racism in the CN in the 1800's, especially during the Civil War.  You need to take a vacation or something.  The argument is not whether there was racism ( THERE WAS ), the argument is whether the Cherokee Nation has the right as a sovereign people to determine who is and is not entitled to Cherokee citizenship. The bottom line is we want our Tribe a Tribe of Indians.  People who can PROVE this on the Dawes Roll are entitled to enrollment. As Moma_porcupine pointed out, the Cherokee Nation is one of the most open Tribes in the country in regards to enrollment.  While a lot of Tribes cap their BQ’s at 1/4 or an 1/8,etc, the Cherokee Nation only ask for PROVEN LINEAL descent of someone Indian “by blood” on the Dawes Rolls.  As I pointed out before, there are over 1,500 Cherokee Citizens who are also the descendants of Freedmen and many of these people are of predominantly African American ancestry.

A fact that always gets overlooked is that the Freedmen DID get citizenship after the Civil War and were freed in 1963.  But to think that because they were former slaves of a small minority of Cherokees, that that gives their DESCENDANTS the RIGHT forever into the future, Citizenship in the Cherokee Nation is absurd.  I’ve looked at the stories of Marilyn Vann and others with similar claims.  It’s a shame that their ancestors didn’t get on the Dawes Rolls, but its also a shame that there are a lot of other people who can prove that they are Cherokee and also didn’t have ancestors on the Rolls either.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 24, 2010, 11:54:43 pm
The fact is that many Indian nations have condemned the Cherokee including the Keetowuh. I work with Amnesty International, the New Democratic Party of Canada, Human Rights Watch and several NGO on human rights issues globally. You seem to think that anyone who disagrees is a racist. Hey my wife is French Canadian and I know all about the racism that her family an nation faced here in Canada for 4 centuries.
Everyone judges based in their prejudices, and they can't understand people who don't have any. When I see what I have recently simply confirms that southern tribes have more in common with white people than with anyone else. Look at history, I posted an article on lynchings in IT and Oklahoma. Sorry the history of racism is pretty evident after slavery.
To expect black voters not to be pissed at what is clearly racially motivated is crazy. If every white suburb could vote to expell black people because they were afraid of them, how many would?
Folks need to accept why the white slave holders called the Cherokee civilised, because they were more like white people than Indians and in many ways they still are more like white southerners defending the indefensible, slavery and racism.
BTH I sent that statistic to show just how racist propaganda is spread. It is no different than the crap that rattlebone sent me. It was to show him that "lies and damn lies and statistics". I countered his racist propaganda with some more.
I didn't do it to make some racist point, I did it to show how stupid his point was. What is surrealistic is fact that after racial slavery, Jim Crow and expelling the freedmen, these people refuse to accept that like many other white Americans they are racists. An that their vote was motivated by race not justice.


Don Naconna, you are sounding like a broken record. It was never Rattle's intent to say those black on black crime statistics had anything to do with the Freedmen. He has explained that to you and everyone else over and over again. Let it go.

What was your reason for saying American Indians are some of the most violent people you've ever known? What was your reason for talking about crime rates on the reservations? That's damn racist of you. Doesn't have a thing to do with the Freedmen.

Don, I'm seconding this. You're just repeating yourself to the point of surrealism, and grossly misrepresenting what Rattle said. You are also saying some damn racist things about NDNs, and you seem to think you have some sort of free pass to treat others with disrespect.

People point out your racist statements about NDNs, and instead of engaging respectfully, you engage in psychological projection and insults, accusing them of racism and acting like it's beneath you to even discuss your behaviour and how it affects the community. You have been warned multiple times now about this, and you're not doing yourself any favors by continuing this behaviour. 

You claim to be an anti-racist activist. But the first step in being anti-racist is to acknowledge that, having been raised in a racist culture, we have all internalized some of those bad messages about ourselves, and about others. We are all capable of making mistakes out of ignorance, or out of deep-rooted prejudices or privileges we didn't even know we had until they're triggered. So we must make an ongoing commitment to rooting these things out when we find them - not just in others but also in ourselves. We need to not only be open to feedback from others, but if we are truly dedicated to fighting racism, we need to be able to discuss it calmly and humbly, without attacking people for trying to help us.

You are instead doing the kneejerk thing of just getting pissed off instead of listening to NDNs with respect. You have POC here telling you you've said some racist stuff. I suggest you back up and listen to them for a change.

Perhaps the thing that bothers me the most about these broken-record posts of yours is that you keep framing things almost solely in terms of Black vs White. NDNs and NDN cultures are virtually invisible in your words, except when you make generalized, racist statements about them. This invisibility is racist and insulting, even before you start in with the crude insults. What on earth would make you think that is appropriate behaviour if you want to participate here?

Racism against Black people is a serious, endemic problem in both the US and Canada. We all know that. No one has disagreed with you on that. But Black people are not the only POC who are subjected to racist oppression. Being the member of one oppressed group does not give you the right to insult other oppressed people. We're not here to play Oppression Olympics.

The bottom line is respect. Are you capable of that, Don?
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 25, 2010, 01:04:16 am
Quote
The fact is that many Indian nations have condemned the Cherokee including the Keetowuh.

What Nations might that be?  If your going to keep running your mouth Don, then you need to start citing some evidence.  What Nations are you talkling about, and what are your sources?



https://www.ncai.org/News-View.19.0.html?&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5BpS%5D=1263178769&tx_ttnews%5Bpointer%5D=12&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=311&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=18&cHash=f4e26106d0 (https://www.ncai.org/News-View.19.0.html?&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5BpS%5D=1263178769&tx_ttnews%5Bpointer%5D=12&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=311&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=18&cHash=f4e26106d0)
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 25, 2010, 04:24:24 am

I'm sorry but I believe that anyone who is a racist is mentally ill.
I'm not a racist and perfectly sane. Check your sources I'm a pro I always check mine. If Cherokee, real Cherokee and folks like John Cornsilk a non racist Cherokee support the freedmen's cause and everyone accepts that the vote was racist, what the hell is your problem! BTW I know John Lewis from SNCC and I can tell you that he will support the CBC.

"The Only Independent Cherokee Newspaper"

"The Original On-line Independent Cherokee Newspaper"

Copyright(c)1992-2009 All Worldwide Rights Reserved

The Cherokee Observer, Inc.

http://www.cherokeeobserver.org

January 24, 2010
For your continued support -

Webboard
On-Line Issues - New!

CNO Historical Society concerns on Troy Poteete- New!



 

HEADLINE

Congressman John Lewis Betrays Black Cherokee Freedmen

(For publication the week of September 21, 2009)
I visited You Tube the other day and was absolutely stunned to see the venerable Congressman John Lewis addressing the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma as the Keynote Speaker for their National Holiday gathering in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. There stood Congressman John Lewis, the man who was beaten unmercifully as he fought for the right to vote to be restored to African Americans, heaping praise on Chief Chad Smith, the man who engineered the disenfranchisement and defacto expulsion of thousands of Black Cherokee Freedmen from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (CNO). The Congressman pledged to the Chief that the "Trail of Tears," where Cherokees and other Native Nations were removed from their ancestral homeland in the Southeast and forced to relocate to Oklahoma, would never happen again. He talked of being moved by scenes in the Museum in Tahlequah depicting the suffering and horrors of the forced march to Oklahoma. The problem is apparently the good Congressman did not see faces of people of African descent who also traversed the Trail of Tears as slaves of the Cherokee. Perhaps, in his understandable quest to identify with the historical plight of Native people, he was totally ignorant of the enslavement and oppression of Africans by the "Five Civilized Tribes," the Creek, Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw and Cherokee, prior to the Civil War.

Historically there has been a strong affinity between Red and Black, Native people and Africans. In virtually every class I teach in the social sciences at York College/CUNY, I remind my students that every person who lives in what has become the Untied States of America is the beneficiary of the dispossession of the indigenous people, Native Americans. I remind them that the two most damaging stains on the American character are the dispossession of Native people and the exploitation of enslaved Africans. A bond of blood and solidarity was forged among Africans and Native Americans when various Native Nations harbored runaway slaves and often accepted them as full members of their communities. Indeed, the Seminoles are comprised of runaway slaves and contingents of disaffected Natives who came together to create a nation. Historically, there was a tremendous amount of intermingling between Africans and Native Americans, so much so that the majority of African Americans have some Indian blood in their lineage. The African influence on Indian country is also clearly evident when you see the faces in Tribes like the Lumbee of North Carolina and Massapequa of Connecticut.

There have been exceptions to the amicable relationship between Africans and Native Americans. Some Blacks served as Buffalo Soldiers in the U.S. military waging war on Native Americans in the west after the Civil War. And, there is the case of the enslavement of Africans by the governing bodies of the Five Civilized Tribes who fought on the side of the Confederacy during the Civil War [some members of the Five Civilized Tribes broke with their official leaders and fought on the Union side also]. By doing so, these Indian Nations severed their official relationship with the U.S. government. Consequently, after the Confederacy was defeated, the Five Civilized Tribes had to renegotiate their relationship with the U.S. government. Eventually, the government recognized and granted citizenship to the Five Civilized Tribes, including formerly enslaved Africans who are called Freedmen. The Freedmen were granted full citizenship as members of these Tribes irrespective of whether they had Indian blood in their veins or not. In other words, by virtue of having been a captive of these Tribes, Africans with or without Native blood were granted citizenship rights.

This background is important because the Five Civilized Tribes are subject to a different set of rules in their relationship with the Federal Government than other Native Nations. Whereas blood quantum is used to determine who is a member of other Native Nations, it is not applicable for the Five Civilized Tribes. By treaty, the Black Freedmen are defined as full citizens to be afforded all rights and privileges on the same basis as members of the Tribe who have blood quantum.

Unfortunately, with rare exception, the Black Freedmen have never really been treated as first class citizens of the Five Civilized Tribes. Perhaps it is inevitable that in a nation infused with racism, it would also poison relations inside these Indian Nations. In addition, as these Nations have gained the right to operate casinos and have secured greater resources from the government, there has been a tendency to invoke measures to deny the Freedmen access to these benefits. One of the tactics has been to pass measures to define membership/citizenship strictly in terms of blood quantum. It is precisely this kind of "Indian purification act" that Chief Chad Smith proposed and was adopted by the governing body of CNO. As a result, thousands of Black Cherokee Freedmen were stripped of the right to vote. This was tantamount to expelling them from the CNO.

Outraged by this racist act, with the support of a number of members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congresswoman Diane Watson introduced legislation to cut off all federal funds to CNO until the rights of the Black Freedmen were restored. Flush with an abundance of cash from casino operations, however, Chief Chad Smith and his cohorts have spent millions of dollars with lobbyists and public relations specialists in a shameful campaign to defeat the efforts of Congresswoman Diane Watson and the Freedmen. How Congressman Lewis missed these efforts is mystifying to say the least. Perhaps he is just ignorant of the storm that has been swirling around this issue. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and not believe that he has been co-opted by the avalanche of cash being heaped on politicians by CNO.

Whatever his motives, Congressman Lewis needs to redeem himself. The image of him pouring his soul out at the Cherokee Holiday with Chief Chad grinning in gleeful gratification was disgraceful. Chief Smith could grin because he was able to dupe one of the most respected members of Congress and a Civil Rights legend to legitimize his racist regime. Congressman Lewis needs to issue an apology to the Black Cherokee Freedmen for betraying their struggle and aspirations. He needs to wipe the grin off Chief Smith's face by condemning the disenfranchisement and expulsion of the Freedmen from CNO, and enthusiastically join Congresswoman Diane Watson and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus in vigorously demanding that all federal funds be cut off from CNO until the Freedmen are restored with full rights. Then and only then will my faith be restored in John Lewis as a Civil Rights icon!

Dr. Ron Daniels is President of the Institute of the Black World 21st Century and Distinguished Lecturer at York College City University of New York. He is the host of Night Talk, Wednesday evenings on WBAI 99.5 FM, Pacifica New York. His articles and essays also appear on the IBW website www.ibw21.org and www.northstarnews.com. He can be reached via email at info@ibw21.org.
 
 
t the Keetowah had to say about the freedmen and John Lewis...



And also Don, I’m starting to get the sense that you’re a mentally unstable man.  I’ve already agreed with you numerous times that there were elements of racism in the CN in the 1800's, especially during the Civil War.  You need to take a vacation or something.  The argument is not whether there was racism ( THERE WAS ), the argument is whether the Cherokee Nation has the right as a sovereign people to determine who is and is not entitled to Cherokee citizenship. The bottom line is we want our Tribe a Tribe of Indians.  People who can PROVE this on the Dawes Roll are entitled to enrollment. As Moma_porcupine pointed out, the Cherokee Nation is one of the most open Tribes in the country in regards to enrollment.  While a lot of Tribes cap their BQ’s at 1/4 or an 1/8,etc, the Cherokee Nation only ask for PROVEN LINEAL descent of someone Indian “by blood” on the Dawes Rolls.  As I pointed out before, there are over 1,500 Cherokee Citizens who are also the descendants of Freedmen and many of these people are of predominantly African American ancestry.

A fact that always gets overlooked is that the Freedmen DID get citizenship after the Civil War and were freed in 1963.  But to think that because they were former slaves of a small minority of Cherokees, that that gives their DESCENDANTS the RIGHT forever into the future, Citizenship in the Cherokee Nation is absurd.  I’ve looked at the stories of Marilyn Vann and others with similar claims.  It’s a shame that their ancestors didn’t get on the Dawes Rolls, but its also a shame that there are a lot of other people who can prove that they are Cherokee and also didn’t have ancestors on the Rolls either.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 25, 2010, 04:45:06 am

Hey I responded to rattllebone, not vice versa he sent me that shit about black on black crime.  I responded, so you are wrong. If anyone is a racist its certainly isn't me. I didn't respond to the issue with black on black crime statistics like some damned dittohead. What is nso hard to see thats racist and nhas nothing to do with the issue. If this man had any guts he'd admit that he doesn't want the freedmen to be in the CNO because they're black. Thats all because they're black,why else do black urban crime statistics matter. Its like some white Indian told me that all black people are crack heads and sex fiends, thats why the CNO kicked them out. Face it its about racism, not justice for the injustice of slavery and segregation.


Don.  The crime statistics has nothing to do with anything, EXCEPT by you. 

Rattlebone.  I think we all pretty much understand that the statistics were merely in response to Don,  but I don't think Don will ever understand this.

I give up on trying to explain.  Either you are simply doing this on purpose to keep up this rant, or you truly have some sort of reading comprehension problem. 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Rattlebone on January 25, 2010, 05:24:12 am
. If this man had any guts he'd admit that he doesn't want the freedmen to be in the CNO because they're black.


 What blows this assine theory of your out of the water is the fact that I am not a member of the Cherokee Nation now, never have been, and have no desire to be.

 By blood I am Choctaw/Cherokee, but I was raised up by my family to be and consider myself Choctaw.

 My argument in this thread has been defending tribal sovereignty, and at the same time asking why people such as yourself are making such a fuss about the Freedmen when you say nothing about disenrollments going in other tribes, while falsely claiming you are not about race, which we both know you are.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 25, 2010, 05:39:01 am
Did you read the article on lynching? Or do you read anything I post. Where did I see the apology from your nation for lynching blacl people. Why can't you admit your tribes crimes against black people? How many Indians did black people lynch? I don't have to be a Sudanese to say that its racism to kill black people or a European to say that Mugabe is a racist or a Palestinian to call Zionists racists. You need to get in touch with the rest of the world. The world isn't black and white, there are many many people put there. So tell us all about lynching, was that racist or what...
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 25, 2010, 05:41:29 am
I sent you a PM do you read? BTW my ancestors owned slaves too, but we don't defend them. You do, thats the difference.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: bls926 on January 25, 2010, 06:20:43 am
Dr. Ron Daniels needs to get some of his facts straight. His article is so full of half-truths and out-right lies that it should be termed propaganda. This type of hysterical rhetoric does nothing to help the Freedmen's cause. When someone who should obviously know the facts spouts off this much slanted information, it does nothing but make the sane, rational world shake their head and wonder. This type of garbage kicks the legs out from under whatever legitimate argument the Freedman might have.

Don Naconna, you are wrong when you say that many Indian Nations have condemned the CNO for disenrolling the Freedmen. The fact is that the majority support CNO's right to set their own enrollment requirements. The National Congress of American Indians has endorsed the CNO's decision. Like Dr Daniels, you really should check your facts before you make a complete ass of yourself.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: LittleOldMan on January 25, 2010, 10:21:04 am
Question please.  How have the other Nations  Choctaw,Chickasaw, Mvskoke handled the Freedmen issue.  It was my understanding that they were also included in the original freedmen equation from the 1800's.  Thanks "LittleOldMan"
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: critter - a white non-ndn person on January 25, 2010, 01:25:58 pm
PM I received from Don.  I don't play these games Don.   I have no trust of you, or your tactics to try to engage conversation in private in order to use/mis-use it in public.  If you have something to say to me, say it publicly.  Also, as per been stated many times.  I am not NDN.  Comprehend much?

PM:

When white racists use Russ Limbaugh tactics black folks laugh, black folks don't expect Indians to be white racists. You folks are, thats all there is too say.
Hey, I'm not black, white or Indian, I'm all and you guys are just white dudes calling yourselves Indians. There are tribes in the east that are very rich and almost all black Indians, what are you dude jealous.
White Indians are white first, and like many white Americans they are white racists. The difference is that white racists are honest, these folks are white but want the priviledges that come with affirmative action, part of what black folks fought for in the civil right movement.
So I say that you are all wrong and can't accept reality and maybe if the CBC was more vigilant they would be looking at more tribes.

I"m responding here:

First, as I have read and comprehended what is written, the CNO as a sovereign nation has decided that you need proof on Dawes roll of descendant in order to be given citizenship in their nation.  What that has to do with anything racist I have yet to see.  The law is equal to all people regardless of color.

What or who has money I have no idea what that has to do with anything.  If your family is not on the roll, you are not granted citizenship.  It's really plain and very simple Don.  

I also believe racists are the people who make statements such as 'you folks' or 'you people'.  Jealousy?  Ah.. maybe that's where all this is coming from.. Don is jealous.  ?

Reality?  I don't think your in it much.  And I really don't have time or interest for this Don.  You've proven without doubt that it's impossible to converse with you in a humane, intelligent or even sensible fashion.  I will not be responding any further.  Be well.



Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 25, 2010, 01:57:05 pm
I'm not an American so why would I be jealous, jealous of what? You folks need to get a hold of reality, stop living in the past and stop the ancestor worship.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 25, 2010, 02:41:06 pm
This video tells the truth as far as I, the freedmen and most black people are concerned its time to call it what it is racism.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIEGlqdq1Uc
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 25, 2010, 03:46:17 pm
This is what its about, Cherokee apartheid.

Cherokee Nation Hears Freedman Case

June 1998 – Tahlequah, Oklahoma

  The Case of B. R.

In an unprecedented case, a citizenship case regarding the admission of a Cherokee Freedmen descendant, and life long resident of Oklahoma was heard in the Court of the Judicial Appeals Tribunal (Supreme Court) of the Cherokee Nation.  The case is unique because it is one of the few Freedman cases ever to be heard in the Nation.

  The citizenship of B R., (whose full name is withheld here for reasons of privacy) was heard on June 12, 1998, in Tahlequah, Oklahoma.  Three justices of the Court heard the case, including Justices Vile, and Birdwell.  The attorney representing the plaintiff was Kathy Carter-White, who practices law in Tahlequah.  Expert witness brought in for the plaintiff was Angela  Walton Raji, author, genealogist and historian. In preparation for the case, Ms. Walton-Raji had researched the history of the family of B.R. documenting that the plaintiff’s grandparents and gr. grandparents had been slaves of the illustrious Vanns  and Rogers of the Cherokee Nation.  The history of R’s family was also distinguished by the fact that the plaintiff’s own grandfather had served honorably in the Indian Home Guards during the Civil War.  With the clear and distinct ties to the Cherokee Nation, the case is a perfect example of the alienation of the Freedmen, through blood quantum----a government supported system of racial segregation, exclusion and expulsion within certain domains.

After initial opening remarks from each side, the case of B.R. became blurred when the acutal admission process was highlighted.  It was noted that there is a committee of several individuals---however, it is sustained by ONE active member who serves as  both the party to review applications, and to hear all appeals.  The acting registrar----sent the Freedman applicant, to go and obtain a Certificate of Degree of Indian blood----which is restricted from Freedmen.  Upon rejection-----and upon appeal, the same registrar, will then review the appeal and deny the person again.

It is worthy to note that the card, which states a “degree” of Indian blood has no scientific merit.  No scientific method of measurement existed when the Dawes rolls were created, and was such consideration not an issue when the Freedmen portion of the Rolls were created.  Freedmen had already been adopted by the Nation in accordance with the Treaty of 1866. They were already members of the nation.  In addition, the plaintiff’s parents and grandparents also had their names placed on the 1880 Roll of Authenticated Cherokee Freedmen.

The requirement for admission is simply stated----one must proved descendancy from  persons listed on the Final Rolls of Citizens and Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes.  What is not said-----is that the applicant cannot be a Freedmen.  Such a statement would be an obvious representation of blatant segregationist practices practiced.  It was noted that the plaintiff was amusingly (to the amusement of the registrar) told to go and bring back something that can never be returned.

In total  disregard of the Treaty of 1866, (of which the Cherokee Nation was the first to adopt),  the Freedmen-----obviously of African ancestry-------and in many cases, also of Cherokee ancestry--- the adoption of the popular anti-African sentiment brought into the Indian Territory by white southerners after the Land Rush-----took foothold.  This anti-black sentiment has prevailed from the days of statehood, Jim Crow laws in Oklahoma and through the Civil Rights movement, and is alive today in the nations that were enthusiastic practitioners of black chattel slavery.  The Freedmen, like others, are simply petitioning for status in the nation, to which there is a documented tie.

This blatant violation of the Treaty of 1866 and the practice of blood measurement, began before DNA was ever a tool of measurement, before blood plasma was even discovered.  This “measurement” was taken by sons of slave owners who comprised the leadership element within the nation, and who embraced a sentiment  of “racial superiority” and domination of one class (race) over another.

In the case heard on  that  June day, it was noted that the registrar will tell the Freedman visitor seeking enrollment to return with a CDIB card, knowing hat such person will be sent in an unending circle of confusion, and will eventually give up and never pursue the case further.

The facts are simple, and clear----Africans were welcomed as slaves and discarded as free people. Like their segregationist counterparts in the deep south, the leaders have sanctioned an abominable form of exclusion of persons of African ancestry,  while embracing individuals of Euro ancestry openly.

In the hearing it was pointed out that a group of persons known as “Intermarried Whites” with 0% Cherokee blood are considered citizens.  Delaware Indians with 0% Cherokee blood are considered citizens. Delawares were “adopted” by the Cherokee Nation.  Freedmen  were “adopted” by the Cherokee Nation.  Yet---they are NOT given citizenship.  One of the attorneys for the plaintiff pointed out that a practice of apartheid is practiced in such cases.

Interestingly, may of those who are turned away, have as much ancestry and “blood” as many persons who are already  enrolled and still being enrolled.  The “white” applicant for citizenship enrolled with 1/700th degree of “Indian” blood is welcomed and accepted as a member of the nation.  The African applicant with 1/16th degree of Indian blood is not.  The effort  to expunge the presence of all persons African, is the most closely  continually practiced form of apartheid known to exist in modern times.  This is ironic, considering that many persons being prevented have the same blood as those admitted.  This has a sad historic ring, and has a flavor of  “racial purity” and “ethnic cleansing” that many would be surprised to learn exists on American soil.  As one sat in the courtroom with the American flag in the corner, the ironies were blatant.

In the case of B. R., upon meeting the plaintiff, one sees a face reflecting the plaintiff’s own Cherokee ancestors.  One of the enslaved ancestors researched for the case was fathered by one of the Cherokee slave owners.  This documented  connection to the nation is clear.  On another side, the plaintiff’s mother was a part of the Ross clan, and a grandparent was a direct descendant of  The Ridge. The family was connected to the Ross, Vann, and Rogers families. Yet this African Cherokee person, who has pride in both Indian and African ancestry two races of dignity, this individual is told by one faction of that they are not welcome.

The case, held in June of 1998 has never had a ruling.  This comes as no real surprise, to many observers.  The plaintiff is elderly and there is a sentiment among some observers that it is simply hoped that with time, the interest will subside, and simply go away. In other quarters it is assumed that as time passes, people also pass away, and should the plaintiff pass away, a ruling of any kind would be unnecessary.  Fortunately B.R. is blessed with good health, and a strong disposition.

B. R. lives quietly in Oklahoma, and has a strong voice within the local community. It is clear that with or without any card, the Cherokee ancestry is firm, documented and one in which can be spoken of with confidence and dignity.  The Freedmen will not go away for they were there and are a part of the history of the Cherokee Nation, whether their home nation agrees or not.

 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 25, 2010, 04:24:19 pm
Even in every single thing you posted, you still haven't told us why the Cherokee Nation as a soverign goverment DOES NOT have the right to determine who is and is not entitled to citizenship IN ITS SOVEREIGN GOVERMENT! 

  Don Naccona said
Quote
In the hearing it was pointed out that a group of persons known as “Intermarried Whites” with 0% Cherokee blood are considered citizens.  Delaware Indians with 0% Cherokee blood are considered citizens.

Twisting the facts again as usual Don.  Nice try.  In the 1800's, Yes, Intermarried Whites would have been citizens if they were married to a Cherokee citizen.  However they would have lost that citizenship once they divorced.  Freedmen with no Cheorkee blood would also have been considered Cherokee citizens atthe time ( in that time period).  The Delaware and Shaneee ARE INDIANS and because of historical circumstances were granted citizenship.  Big difference.  THEY ARE INDIANS.  About 9 decendents of Intermarried Whites ( who were NOT ALSO descended from a Cherokee by blood "' also lost citizenship.  Many Cherokee citizens are descended from Intermarried Whites, but they ARE ALSO descended from Cherokees by blood. 
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 25, 2010, 04:41:11 pm
Don Naccona said
Quote
The “white” applicant for citizenship enrolled with 1/700th degree of “Indian” blood is welcomed and accepted as a member of the nation.  The African applicant with 1/16th degree of Indian blood is not.


What?  Don, your ignorance is really starting to bother me.  To begin with, we don't care about minimum BQ's, just that someone ACTUALLY has a BQ. 

You have full bloods from traditional communities.  And then you have half bloods, who you can at least say had a full blood parent, and then maybe someone with a quarter BQ could say they had a full blood grandparent who at least influenced their life in the Old Ways.  But regardless, you also have people with low BQ's who participate in ceremony and some even on the Tribal Council. So the full bloods and half bloods you can pretty much say they are racially Indian.  But once BQ's start falling under 1/4, it starts to get ridiculous to say that someone that is a 1/16 BQ is somehow magically more Cherokee then someone with a BQ of 1/700.  Both are pretty much racially white or black or whatever else.  What THEY DO both have in common would be that they are both “Cherokee by blood”.  And this is the key.
And besides that IF YOU DO WANT TO make that case.  We can do that also.  The handful of Freedmen that may have Cherokee blood today would most likely be at BQ’s of 1/256 or something like that.  Most Cherokee Freedmen today in the year 2010 almost 150 years after the Treaty of 1866, wouldn’t have high BQ’s.  (If they do in fact have Cherokee blood to begin with.)  I’m not saying that this would make them less Cherokee if they had low BQ’s for the reasons I mentioned above.  But it seems to be some kind of a myth that Freedmen have these high BQ’s like ¼ or 1/8 or something.  Total Bull Crap Don, Try again and do some research. If you want to argue that they are Cherokee by blood then that’s fine and we can do that, but don’t go running your mouth if you can’t back up your bull crap.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 25, 2010, 04:48:36 pm
They can do anything they want to but without tax dollars, lots of so called heritage groups do they sell memberships to pay their bills. Its really very simple, the Southern Heritage movement doesn't get federal funds, do they. Diane Watson's bill will pass because there are lots of tax payers, black, white and Latino who are tired of giving special privileges to white people, with 1/264 Indian blood.
BTW I didn't write that previous post, so don't tell meabout facts. I never tried to tie black on black urban crime to the Freedmen. No one has commented on lynchings of black people. Lynching is a racist violent act, the people in lynch mobs were racists, weren't they.
You folks are all in denial, Indians are people, not superheroes or saints and never have been.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Don Naconna on January 25, 2010, 05:13:45 pm
This is an interview with Cong. Diane Watson. Ethnic cleansing is the appropriate term for the CNO's action. Like I said before as an organisation the CNO can do anything it wants, just without recognition. BTW how can you be a "sovereign"nation if you have to comply with the Principle Chiefs Act? This is totally absurd, does Canada have to get approval for our elections? NO because we are a sovereign nation. If the Cherokee were a truly sovereign nation, they would want or need federal money. I'm hardly the person who is confused or biased, but I sure see alot of real nonsense, contradictions and hypocrisy.
It too difficult to argue with bigots, so this will be my last post on this topic, because when I saw that post on black on black violence and the freedmen, I realised its was all about race, not about justice. No one will admit that the Indians lynched black people, they won't acknowledge racial segregation and are in total denial about their racist motivation.

text sizeAAAJune 22, 2007
Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA) has introduced a bill which would sever all federal ties to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, including their ability to operate gaming facilities. The bill comes after Cherokee leadership, she says, stripped 2,800 black Cherokees of their tribal citizenship.
Copyright © 2007 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

TONY COX, host:

And our last headline takes us just south of Kansas, to Oklahoma. Congresswoman Diane Watson of California introduced a bill in the House yesterday that would sever all federal ties to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. That includes their ability to operate gaming facilities. The bill comes, she says, after Cherokee recently stripped 2,800 black Cherokees of their tribal citizenship. Known as Freedman, these blacks are descended from slaves once owned by the Nation. I spoke both with Congresswoman Watson and a representative of the Cherokee Nation. First, here's Diane Watson.

Representative DIANE WATSON (Democrat, California): What they're doing is trying to purify the race when they agreed through the Department of Interior that they would include in their Nation all their former slaves. And since that time, slaves have married, Cherokees and their children and grandchildren and so on, were considered as Cherokees. So what I'm doing in the bill that I have just drafted(ph) is saying that we will sever. The United States is to sever all relationships, including financial and otherwise, until the Cherokee Nation is in full compliance with all the treaty obligations and other statutes.

COX: Now, what kind of money are we talking about? After all, if they are a sovereign nation, what kind of financial relationship does the Cherokee Nation have with the United States?

Rep. WATSON: The Department of Interior annually give somewhere around $300 million to the Cherokee Nation, taxpayer's money. And so what my bill is saying, you do what you want to do but you cannot get money through the Department of Interior as long as you're discriminating against the freedmen.

COX: Why did it take a bill from you, a member of Congress, as opposed to someone in the Department of the Interior, specifically from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to handle this within the framework of the government?

Rep. WATSON: That's a great question, Tony. As soon as we found out about it, we wrote a letter to the Department of Interior and they said, we'll look into it. Well, they have dragged their feet. And finally, we had a meeting right here in Congress with a small group that was appointed by the Congressional Black Caucus because there is an election coming up on June 23rd. And we want to be sure that those that were disenfranchised are able to vote for the new leadership of the Cherokee Nation.

COX: Well, they are, apparently, according to a ruling just the other day by a district court judge, which denied an injunction, I guess, preventing the election from taking place. And my reading of it is that the freedmen will be able to vote. Am I correct or incorrect about this?

Rep. WATSON: No. They will be allowed to vote for tribal leaders. However, the freedman's rights as members remain severely restricted and they cannot run for office and registration of freedman still remain suspended. In addition, the election is being held in violation of the Principle Chiefs Act, which requires a Cherokee leadership to submit its voting requirements to the Department of Interior. And so they still, they might be able to vote in that election but they are restricted in the ways I just mentioned.

COX: Two more things before we let you go. One is this: What about other Indian nations, is this a problem with other...

Rep. WATSON: Well, the Seminoles tried it before, and the Supreme Court threw it out. And so the Cherokees are trying it again. And so we just said, listen, we're not going to allow you to take taxpayer's money to discriminate against freedmen and their descendants. And so we're not only asking DOI to sever all relations, but we're asking the Department of Interior to submit a report to Congress on the status of freedmen in all five nations. You know, they're not only in the nation there in Oklahoma but other places where they exist. And it also - the legislation also suspends the Cherokee Nation's right to conduct gaming operations until it complies with all of its treaties and its statutory obligations.

COX: Here's my final question. Because you are a congressperson from Los Angeles, California, there are a lot of Indians here in California but I don't know that there are any Cherokee Nations here. How did you get to be the person carrying this legislation?

Rep. WATSON: Because I have Indian blood. We're descendants of Pocahontas. Not this Pocahontas as far as the Cherokees, but since we have Indian blood, it does happen among our nation as well.

COX: Congresswoman Diane Watson, thank you so much for coming on. I appreciate it.

Rep. WATSON: It's good to talk to you, Tony, and let's do it again.

COX: U.S. Congresswoman Diane Watson of California. Now, for the other side of the story, I'm joined by Mike Miller, a spokesman for the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. Mike, thanks for coming on.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: Moma_porcupine on January 25, 2010, 05:21:11 pm
I just wanted to make an observation

Perhaps Don's many racist comments against tribal soveriegnty and NDNs in general are just that he hates NDNS and First Nations, and it is certainly coming across that way , but I have noticed when people get discrimnated against , held back, put down and generally repeatedly smacked through their whole life, because of their race, which is nothing they have done or have the power to choose not to do , they can have a lot of difficulties realizing where they do infact have control and power over their own outcomes, and they can have trouble recognizing cause and affect relationships that have nothing to do with race or being dicriminated against.

To make an analogy, If someone grew up being constantly beaten just for being who they are, they might have a really hard time recognizing that when they walk into a wall, it hurts and it has nothing to do with the unprovoked beating they have always experienced, and that walking into a wall hurts everyone who walks into them, and we all do in fact have a choice to walk around the wall instead of beating our own head against it, blaming the wall and the unfairness of prejudiced.

Which is what Don appears to be doing here......

And I guess the first step in healing is to push back and say no to the oppression exclusion , and unfair treatment and maybe in his own mind, this is what Don is doing , and if this is an important part of his own identity, maybe he honestly can't see that without realizing it he is just blindly striking out at whatever he feels is getting in his way , when he is in fact attacking indigenous peoples and Nations and not any actual oppression targeting Blacks.
Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: BlackWolf on January 25, 2010, 06:00:26 pm
I'm convinced by now that Don doesn't like American Indians.  He has made that clear with his many attacks on Tribal Soverignty and other swipes here and there such as "why "American Indians are living in the past", etc.  I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt before, but now I'm convinced.  You would think that the hypocrite would think twice about taking swipes at Tribal Soverignty.  If he's againts Tribal Soverignty then why is he advocating for the Freedmen to enroll with the Cherokee Nation??? If he's againts what he likes to term "special rights" for Indian Nations, then this would not make sense to support the enrollment of Freedmen in a Tribal Goverment that he doesn't think should exist anyhow.  Then he's taking shots at Cherokees with low BQ's while ovelooking the fact that as far as we're concerned the Freedmen have BQ's of 0/0. 

Quote
This is an interview with Cong. Diane Watson. Ethnic cleansing is the appropriate term for the CNO's action. Like I said before as an organisation the CNO can do anything it wants, just without recognition. BTW how can you be a "sovereign"nation if you have to comply with the Principle Chiefs Act? This is totally absurd, does Canada have to get approval for our elections? NO because we are a sovereign nation. If the Cherokee were a truly sovereign nation, they would want or need federal money. I'm hardly the person who is confused or biased, but I sure see alot of real nonsense, contradictions and hypocrisy.

I've explained this before also.  The year is 2010, not 1491.  Tribal Nations in the United States and Canada have to work with Federal Goverments.  Services are provided to Indian Nations because of Treaties.  A Treaty is a legal document of agreement between two soverign goverments.  In a supreme court case, Indian Nations were defined as "domestic dependent nations".  So whether you like it or not Don, Indian Nations are soverign.  Your really begining to piss a lot of Indians off when you keep attacking Tribal Soverignty.  I'd ask you Don, where do you live?  Do you own a house or an apartment in Canada?  You say tax payers are sick and tired of funding Indain Nations?  So you think that the little bit of Federal Money that Indian Nations receive from the Federal goverment can even begin to make up for "ethnic genocide"?? Cultural Genocide??  Broken Treaties??  Stolen land?? Stolen Mineral Rights??  Stolen Idenities?? Stolen Ways of life??  You don't hear Indian people telling you your squating on Indian Land do you??  Indian people don't get special rights Don. 


Title: Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
Post by: educatedindian on January 25, 2010, 07:04:05 pm
No one will admit that the Indians lynched black people, they won't acknowledge racial segregation and are in total denial about their racist motivation.

text sizeAAAJune 22, 2007
Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA): Because I have Indian blood. We're descendants of Pocahontas. Not this Pocahontas as far as the Cherokees, but since we have Indian blood, it does happen among our nation as well.


Frank, I challenge you to show even a single NDN lynching of Blacks. That flat out didn't happen, and you as a history professor know it (or should) and are deliberately lying. You are lying about "acknowledging segregation"  when no one here has denied that (and some of us like myself experienced it firsthand in school growing up). You keep seeing racism where there is none, while denying your own.

(Plus Watson's claim of being a descendant of Pocahontas is a tactic every Southern white racist has long used, and is just as unbelievable. She's so ignorant she even thinks Pocahontas was Cherokee.)

For months your main contribution to NAFPS has been your dogged determination to go after cults that prey on Blacks who are (or believe they are) part NDN, ie Washitaws, Nuwaubians, Eries, etc. This has been valuable, but it often leads to ill informed rants, or simply constant sidetracking because of your own particular obsessions.

If anything, we've been more patient with you than we would've been with a white member who said similar things. There are some ugly things going on in your head that you won't acknowledge.

Previously at NAFPS (several years back) your problem had been with, of all things, saying quite a number of things that were derogatory towards Blacks, self hatred. And then there was a problem a while back where you said some very abusive and sexist things to women, and claimed to be doing this in the name of NAFPS. I cautioned you then, and had nothing to do with you for awhile, because of that. You came back to NAFPS seemingly changed for a long while. But now these same kinds of behavior pop up, only now your targets are not Blacks but NDNs.

If you can't keep your racism vs NDNs under control, you are welcome to leave. Honestly, few would miss you. If you stick around and try to keep that up, you will be banned.

I honestly hope you go through some more self examination and confront the ugliness inside you. Some of the information on the Eries, etc, we probably wouldn't have found without you. But we can't have this anymore.

Thread locked. IM me if you wish.