Government says Cherokees can’t boot Blacks out of tribe

Read Time:1 Minute, 15 Second

The leaders of the Cherokee Nation are scoffing at a notice from the Bureau of Indian Affairs telling it that it cannot kick 2,800 black people out of the tribe

cherokees blacks not allowed madmikesamerica

Dwight Mission Cherokee school circa 1917

As if the American Indian hadn’t been persecuted enough the Christians had to get into the act by sending missionaries to recruit the “savages” into the army of the Lord.  This act alone was bad enough, yet years later we are still trying to tell the Cherokees what to do.

Here’s the story:

“The Cherokee Nation will not be governed by the BIA,” Acting Chief Joe Crittenden said in a statement, according to Reuters. The dispute springs from a Cherokee Supreme Court decision requiring tribe members to prove they have Cherokee blood.

That would oust the so-called “Cherokee Freedmen,” the descendants of slaves owned by wealthy Cherokee, who have been part of the tribe for more than a century. The US government says the treaty the Cherokee signed after the Civil War guaranteed the slaves and their descendants tribal citizenship. In a letter Monday, the federal agency said it would not recognize the results of the tribe’s upcoming election if the freedmen weren’t allowed to vote in it.

I think the Cherokee need to be allowed to run their nation the way they see fit.  I suspect they’ve suffered enough government interference over these many years.  Do you think the Cherokees need to be forced to accept Blacks into their ranks?

About Post Author

Peter Lake

Peter Lake hails from the Midwest, but is now living in Germany. He is a professional writer who spent many years honing his craft at a well known newspaper. Peter originally sent an article to us through the citizen journalist program and decided to stay. We are glad he did.
Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

13 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ed
12 years ago

Wo0t, maybe then we can kick the blacks out of the United States as well.

lazersedge
12 years ago

Interesting issue presenting itself here and I cannot disagree with the premise that when a nation agrees to citizenship to a group of people then it should stand by that agreement. I do recall, at least I think I do, a point in time in the past when the U.S. Government used a percentage of “Indian Blood” to qualify for minority status for certain grants and awards. The reason I seem to remember this is because of my own Cherokee heritage which, unfortunately, lost its links due to assimilation by my great grandmother into a white family in Alabama. Apparently there were some validity to claims based upon blood heritage. I do not know that this anything to do with the claims of the Freedmen of the Oklahoma Cherokee Nations or not since their grievances are based upon tribal treaty commitments.

Peggy Roche
12 years ago

I am probably not sufficiently informed to hazard an opinion…but I am going to. Personally, I believe excluding freedmen after one hundred years by a vote is not an acceptable act. Furthermore I am close to certain money and power are at play…not any concept of tribal “purity”. JMO

Reply to  Peggy Roche
12 years ago

I can’t disagree Peggy! Thanks 🙂

newageluddite
12 years ago

As a 5th generation Oklahoman and part Chickasaw, I’ve been following this with considerable interest. I do not know what benefits, if any, the tribe received by counting their former slaves as Cherokee citizens following the Civil War, but the Cherokee Freedmen had been considered to be Cherokees for over a century until they were ousted from the roles by a tribal vote a few years ago. The Freedmen being treated as Cherokee citizens had little effect on the Native American “real Cherokees”, until the tribe started getting substantial monies from their casinos. The way I understand it, it’s largely a financial matter of how many slices of pie can be cut from these new revenues, in addition to the issue of self rule.
Wikipedia describes individual tribes requiring different percentages of “Indian Blood”: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, or 1/16. Some tribes, including Cherokees and Chickasaws, require merely that an individual prove lineal descent from original enrollees. This would apparently keep the Freedmen enfranchised as Cherokees. But the same article points out that the individual Native American nations now make their own rules for tribal membership.
According to Answers.com, among the 5 civilized tribes-so named because they had adopted a lot of the ways of the White Man-Cherokees owned 4600 slaves in 1860, Choctaws 2344, Creek 1532, Chickasaws 975, and Seminoles 500. Personally, I don’t know whose rights should be paramount; the right of tribes to be able to define themselves or the right of a group of humans to not be redefined and excluded, now that money is involved. I would welcome input from Native American Cherokees, as well as Freedmen.
Confused yet?

Reply to  newageluddite
12 years ago

Thanks, newageluddite. You make an excellent point about greed from casino earnings about one of the causes of this problem.

I’m trying to figure out how different percentages of “Indian Blood”: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, or 1/16 differs from pre-Civil War classifications of Black Americans: quadroons, mulattos, mustees, octoroon, etc.

It’s a legal violation and bigotry to prevent others from voting; it’s a moral outrage that people who have identified themselves as Cherokee for 155 years may be banished from their own nation.

I, too, am waiting for the input from someone of Cherokee descent.

Reply to  newageluddite
12 years ago

What newageluddite said. This is as much about politics and money as it is anything. The various indian nations in Oklahoma are political organizations first, tribes second. Most Oklahomans are put off by the idea that the freedmen are getting the short end of the stick. Something I have wondered about is whether the current elections for a tribal chief have anything to do with this. Are more Freedmen voting for the candidate (Baker) whose faction is not in power, and therefore it is in the best interest of some to be done with the freedmen in order to retain the power they have in the Cherokee Nation? I’d like to hear your thoughts on that, newageluddite. It would be a mistake to over-glamorize the Cherokee Nation in any way regarding this issue, for sure.

newageluddite
Reply to  The Lawyer
12 years ago

Good question, The Lawyer. I don’t know what candidate the Freedmen might prefer.The recent Tribal election was so close that, even with recounts, it was decided to just have another election. The Freedmen will be voting with challenge ballots which will be set aside. The votes will be counted if the Tribe decides to re-enfranchise them.
In addition to the casinos, the tribes will soon be dividing money from a court settlement which found the Bureau of Indian Affairs had horribly mismanaged Indian assets it had been responsible for in decades past. The greater the number of Cherokees, the less each person gets.

Reply to  newageluddite
12 years ago

You and newageluddite hit the nail on the head. The great divider is money and power… Thanks, again, for the history lesson newageluddite. I hope to see you around more often.

See what you started, Peter? Good job!

12 years ago

I strongly disagree with you. This is nothing more than a version of a Native American Tea Party. Since when has it been okay for one oppressed peoples to oppress another?

Reply to  Leslie Parsley
12 years ago

I don’t know that Peter expressed an opinion here Leslie, but personally speaking you make a good point about oppression. Perhaps it’s true that the Indians, of all people, should know enough about oppression to discourage, not encourage it.

Reply to  Professor Mike
12 years ago

“I think the Cherokee need to be allowed to run their nation the way they see fit. I suspect they’ve suffered enough government interference over these many years.”

Kind of, sort of, sounds like an opinion to me. But I’m glad for the post.

Reply to  Leslie Parsley
12 years ago

Peter, I’m glad you posted this. In this case, this is not government interference; it is a legal violation–segregation.

I heard about this from a friend of mine who is a descendant of the Cherokee nation. She is outraged, as am I. In 2007, 76% of Cherokee voters approved an amendment to removed freedmen and other non-Indians from the tribal roles.

The nation entered into an agreement in 1866 with the federal government that gave the freedmen and their descendants “all the rights of native Cherokees.” The exclusion of Black Cherokees from the nation violates the constitution based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the original 1866 treaty.

The federal government said that unless the descendants, known as freedmen, were allowed to vote, the upcoming election wouldn’t be valid. For 155 years, Blacks Cherokees have been part of their nation.

http://www.cherokeebyblood.com/blackindians.htm

According to the AP, the Cherokee Nation restored their citizens’ rights… at least for now… One of the candidates said the vote was about the fundamental right of every government to determine its citizens, not about racial exclusion. What rights are being afforded to the nation’s citizens?

I’ve heard this bullshit before from segregationists: it’s called bigotry and the oppressed becoming the oppressors.

emotion detector camera Previous post Emotion Detector Camera – Watch out liars
Next post God Hates Rick Perry And The Republicans
13
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x