Author Topic: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion  (Read 97326 times)

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 503
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #75 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! 

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 256
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #76 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


Offline bls926

  • Posts: 655
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #77 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.


Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #78 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. 
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 04:44:09 am 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 bls926

  • Posts: 655
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #79 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.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 06:44:48 am by bls926 »

Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #80 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..   

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 #81 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!

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 256
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #82 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.

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 256
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #83 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.

Offline Unegv Waya

  • Posts: 86
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #84 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
nvwatohiyadv

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 256
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #85 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.

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 503
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #86 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. 


Offline Moma_porcupine

  • Posts: 681
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #87 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.

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #88 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.

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 256
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #89 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

 
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 09:13:35 pm by Rattlebone »