Author Topic: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion  (Read 84589 times)

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #150 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...

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #151 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.

Offline bls926

  • Posts: 655
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #152 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.

Offline LittleOldMan

  • Posts: 138
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #153 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"
Blind unfocused anger is unproductive and can get you hurt.  Controlled and focused anger directed tactically wins wars. Remember the sheath is not the sword.

Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #154 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.



« Last Edit: January 25, 2010, 01:37:55 pm by critter »
press the little black on silver arrow Music, 1) Bob Pietkivitch Buddha Feet http://www.4shared.com/file/114179563/3697e436/BuddhaFeet.html

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #155 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.

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #156 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

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #157 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.

 

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #158 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. 

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #159 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.

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #160 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.

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #161 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.

Offline Moma_porcupine

  • Posts: 681
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #162 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.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2010, 05:26:36 pm by Moma_porcupine »

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #163 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. 



Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4792
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #164 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.