Scorched-Earth Policy Again
-
-
Chad Smith - Head of the Cherokee Nation
In 1770, 5,000 American militiamen rode through the Cherokee Nation burning villages and crops to the ground driving thousands of Cherokees, young, old and infirm, into the mountains. Today, Congresswoman Diane Watson attempts to repeat history with another scorched-earth policy aimed at hurting the most vulnerable Cherokee Indians: the young, old and infirm.
Congresswoman Watson's blog entry ("Jim Crow in Indian Country," October 25, 2007) misled readers about the Cherokee Nation's March vote to limit citizenship in the tribe to those with Indian ancestry on the federal base rolls of our people.
The Congresswoman is entitled to her opinion, but she is not entitled to her opinion based on invented facts. It is an injustice to the fundamental principles at stake on both sides when opinions mislead about or omit all together indisputable facts.
Her charge that the Cherokee Nation's March vote was about race is absolutely false. The "Jim Crow" reference in the headline was especially vicious and hurtful. If the Congresswoman was not responsible for the headline, then she has the responsibility to repudiate it.
The Cherokee Nation is one of the most diverse Indian tribes and continues to be so after the March vote. We have thousands of black, Latino, Asian, and white citizens because each has a Cherokee ancestor. Our people only want our Indian tribe to be what we were for well over 1,000 years: an Indian tribe comprised of descendants of Indians.
Consequently, the Nation's vote simply requires a person to identify a single Indian ancestor on the federally established rolls of our people taken in 1906 known as the Dawes Rolls. This means that approximately 1,500 descendants of former slaves who are known as Freedmen descendants are Cherokee citizens today because each has an Indian ancestor on the Dawes Rolls.
Why did the Nation hold this vote? The vote was actually a culmination of tribal action that has been taken over the last three decades to re-establish the Cherokee Nation and prosper after enduring a century of federal policies from the 1860s to the 1960s aimed at destroying Indian tribes. Having survived those policies, and after having survived all that came before them, the Nation simply felt a communal desire to return to our roots as a people.
In addition to omitting these important facts that make her thesis baseless, Congresswoman Watson failed to mention that the Nation will help any Freedman descendant learn whether they have Indian ancestry on our base rolls through the funding of genealogical research.
Congresswoman Watson also made false statements regarding slavery. As the Congresswoman has heard, the Cherokee Nation did not own slaves, and less than two percent of Cherokee citizens held slaves. Moreover, two-thirds of the Cherokee Nation fought for the Union during the Civil War, and the Nation voluntarily emancipated the slaves in 1863 -- two years before the Civil War ended.
Congresswoman Watson says the Treaty of 1866 gave citizenship in the Cherokee Nation to the Freedmen descendants. We disagree, and this is a primary question that is being decided in federal and tribal courts today -- a fact that is never mentioned in her piece.
We believe the Treaty of 1866 never granted citizenship to Freedmen and their descendants and that we have fully complied with our treaty obligations. We also believe that the Congress clarified that today's Freedmen descendants are not entitled to citizenship in the Nation by passing the Five Tribes Act in 1906. Regardless of what the Congress believes, this issue is before the courts.
Even despite our disagreement, the Cherokee Nation supported a court order giving disenrolled Freedmen descendants critical social and health services and the right to vote until all litigation is resolved. As a Nation of laws that recognizes the fact that our March vote raises an equity issue for those who were disenrolled, we felt that reinstating them to citizenship while the courts do their work was the right thing to do.
Congresswoman Watson's bill retaliates against our people's will to define ourselves as an Indian nation -- the same sovereign right that 500 other tribes have. The bill calls for de facto termination of the Cherokee Nation and eliminates $300 million in federal health, housing and other vital services for the neediest Cherokees, including many of the 2,800 Freedmen descendants who were affected by the March vote.
The history of U.S.-Cherokee relations is paved with tragedy. How tragic it would be if, in this day and age, Congresswoman Watson's bill -- which is based on such faulty factual and historical assumptions -- were to create a modern Trail of Tears for the Cherokee Nation. Even more tragic is that such an action could come at the hands of a representative of one of our historic allies in the struggle for civil rights.
The Cherokee Nation will abide by the outcome of the ongoing litigation in the federal and tribal courts. Before rushing to judgment, we hope Congress will also let the courts decide this issue without political interference.
johncornsilk
(See
profile | I'm
a fan of johncornsilk)
Smith Said:
In 1770, 5,000 American militiamen rode through the Cherokee Nation burning villages and crops to the ground driving thousands of Cherokees, young, old and infirm, into the mountains. Today, Congresswoman Diane Watson attempts to repeat history with another scorched-earth policy aimed at hurting the most vulnerable Cherokee Indians: the young, old and infirm.
The Elder Cornsilk a Cherokee Says!
What a pathetic crock of pure BS, and by a pathetic excuse of a man, never mind a Cherokee, a bold face liar and a purveyor of pure Racism...
In 1770 the Cherokee and white people were at war, and there were skirmishes by both sides, absolutely nothing that would be likened to a scorched earth policy ever, until mid 1830's, only scorched then with respect to the complete removal of the Cherokee from their homeland, at gun point, more liken to the more modern time forced Death March by the Japanese, in the 1940's which was comparable to the act by the Federal Government under Jackson and the Trail of Tears, aid and abetted by a contingent of traitorous Cherokee people, that took their blood money and ran, but, were later executed under the Cherokee law called the blood law, (ANCESTORS OF THE SMITH ADMINISTRATION).
Congresswoman's Bill in no way can be called a scorched earth policy, quite simply because very few poor and needy Cherokee Citizens will be affected, by the simple fact they are already scorched by the the Smith Racist Junta , the taxpayer monies $300 million the smith administration Smith receives as grants for assorted programs is placed in to the general fund of the CNO and consistently wasted on the high cost of administration of the programs, over paid officials of the upper echelons of the administration of the Smith Junta that keeps him in his dictatorial position, never mind the $300 million profit generated by the Cherokee Casinos of which 30% is mandated to come back to the Cherokee that goes into this same general fund and commingled with the federal funs and wasted along with the fed funds.
John Cornsilk
In 1770, 5,000 American militiamen rode through the Cherokee Nation burning villages and crops to the ground driving thousands of Cherokees, young, old and infirm, into the mountains. Today, Congresswoman Diane Watson attempts to repeat history with another scorched-earth policy aimed at hurting the most vulnerable Cherokee Indians: the young, old and infirm.
The Elder Cornsilk a Cherokee Says!
What a pathetic crock of pure BS, and by a pathetic excuse of a man, never mind a Cherokee, a bold face liar and a purveyor of pure Racism...
In 1770 the Cherokee and white people were at war, and there were skirmishes by both sides, absolutely nothing that would be likened to a scorched earth policy ever, until mid 1830's, only scorched then with respect to the complete removal of the Cherokee from their homeland, at gun point, more liken to the more modern time forced Death March by the Japanese, in the 1940's which was comparable to the act by the Federal Government under Jackson and the Trail of Tears, aid and abetted by a contingent of traitorous Cherokee people, that took their blood money and ran, but, were later executed under the Cherokee law called the blood law, (ANCESTORS OF THE SMITH ADMINISTRATION).
Congresswoman's Bill in no way can be called a scorched earth policy, quite simply because very few poor and needy Cherokee Citizens will be affected, by the simple fact they are already scorched by the the Smith Racist Junta , the taxpayer monies $300 million the smith administration Smith receives as grants for assorted programs is placed in to the general fund of the CNO and consistently wasted on the high cost of administration of the programs, over paid officials of the upper echelons of the administration of the Smith Junta that keeps him in his dictatorial position, never mind the $300 million profit generated by the Cherokee Casinos of which 30% is mandated to come back to the Cherokee that goes into this same general fund and commingled with the federal funs and wasted along with the fed funds.
John Cornsilk
crusso
(See
profile | I'm
a fan of crusso)
No one was suing our tribe for citizenship when we were all living in abject poverty. Aside from Diane Watson, I don't ever recall an elected member of the U.S. Congress submit a bill that would force a tribe to accept non-Indians as tribal citizens or be terminated? Most Native Americans recall a time when U.S. policy sought to remove Indian people from their tribes and culture so they could be acculturated into the mainstream. Is Watson's House Bill a Trojan horse that seeks to carry out that acculturation policy but this time from within the tribe, one that could lead to termination of all tribes? Forgive me for being somewhat suspicious. The Native American nations of this country have been unlawfully used and abused for more than 500 years anytime they have something of perceived value that others want. Our homelands in the east were taken, then those wanting the gold on our land in Georgia forced the Trail of Tears, then it was the Curtis Act of 1898 after oil was discovered on our lands in Oklahoma and today just as we have began to recover from the adversity of a hundred years of abject poverty to realize a little economic prosperity, and finally getting on our feet and sending our children to college, providing housing and thousands of needed jobs, we are yet again subjected to outsiders wanting what little prosperity we now have, coveting our tribal identity and our culture.
Non-Indians seeking Native American Indian tribal membership is becoming a national trend. The Cherokee Nation is not the only tribe being forced to expend $millions in legal fees to defend their sovereign right to determine their own tribal citizenship criteria. Apparently non-Indian Freedmen descendents that Watson's bill represents want more than citizenship. Demands by two groups of non-Indian Freedmen included the right to form their own tribe, purportedly establish their own gaming facility, and one group sued the U.S. Depart. of Interior for $50 million and land allotments in the Cherokee Nation.
Let our people live in peace!
tbone99 (See profile | I'm a fan of tbone99)
I, too, see Rep. Watson's bill benefitting the federal
government above all others. Of course they would love to
dissolve the tribes (again) in order to avoid the huge
lawsuits going on right now. Royalties from natural
resources on native lands, from more than one hundred
years, have not been paid and the accounts are missing.
Freedmen received land allotments from the tribe, way ahead of anything the feds gave them either during or after reconstruction, despite the promise of 40 acres and a mule and continued history of unpersecuted lynching up into this century.
Perhaps this could be tied to the issue of reparations due to African Americans in general. Would the freedmen settle for foregoing any reparations should they come about (and might possbly if they threw themselves into with the same fervor they seek to dissolve the tribe) to remain on Cherokee rolls?
Rep. Watson is playing right into the man's hands by seeking to dissolve tribes under the guise of helping a relatively small number of people, most of whom do not even live in her own district.Leaders in Washington must be rubbing their hands in glee, knowing that once again they benefit from pitting the weaker against each other for their profit
Freedmen received land allotments from the tribe, way ahead of anything the feds gave them either during or after reconstruction, despite the promise of 40 acres and a mule and continued history of unpersecuted lynching up into this century.
Perhaps this could be tied to the issue of reparations due to African Americans in general. Would the freedmen settle for foregoing any reparations should they come about (and might possbly if they threw themselves into with the same fervor they seek to dissolve the tribe) to remain on Cherokee rolls?
Rep. Watson is playing right into the man's hands by seeking to dissolve tribes under the guise of helping a relatively small number of people, most of whom do not even live in her own district.Leaders in Washington must be rubbing their hands in glee, knowing that once again they benefit from pitting the weaker against each other for their profit
ChahtaLusa (See profile | I'm a fan of ChahtaLusa)
Congresswoman Watson's bill retaliates against our people's
will to define ourselves as an Indian nation -- the same
sovereign right that 500 other tribes have. The bill calls
for de facto termination of the Cherokee Nation and
eliminates $300 million in federal health, housing and other
vital services for the neediest Cherokees, including many of
the 2,800 Freedmen descendants who were affected by the
March vote.
The Five Slaveholding Tribes history IS NOT like the other 500 tribes, YOU WERE ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN HUMAN BONDAGE!
The bill IS NOT a retaliation against the Cherokee people, IT IS a repudiation of the leaders who have brought the attention of Congress on your racist actions!
The history of U.S.-Cherokee relations is paved with tragedy. How tragic it would be if, in this day and age, Congresswoman Watson's bill -- which is based on such faulty factual and historical assumptions -- were to create a modern Trail of Tears for the Cherokee Nation. Even more tragic is that such an action could come at the hands of a representative of one of our historic allies in the struggle for civil rights.
The history of the Five Slave Holding Tribes and people of African and African-Native ancestry is paved with tragedy. The historical record is clear. The origins of racism is based on this institution of racial superiority, exploitation, miscegenation, lynching, Jim Crow, unpaid labor, segregated citizenship rolls, anti-miscegenation laws, and more add up to a false or at best misleading sense of victimization. It is quite difficult to be the victim when you are the victimizer.
The Five Slaveholding Tribes history IS NOT like the other 500 tribes, YOU WERE ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN HUMAN BONDAGE!
The bill IS NOT a retaliation against the Cherokee people, IT IS a repudiation of the leaders who have brought the attention of Congress on your racist actions!
The history of U.S.-Cherokee relations is paved with tragedy. How tragic it would be if, in this day and age, Congresswoman Watson's bill -- which is based on such faulty factual and historical assumptions -- were to create a modern Trail of Tears for the Cherokee Nation. Even more tragic is that such an action could come at the hands of a representative of one of our historic allies in the struggle for civil rights.
The history of the Five Slave Holding Tribes and people of African and African-Native ancestry is paved with tragedy. The historical record is clear. The origins of racism is based on this institution of racial superiority, exploitation, miscegenation, lynching, Jim Crow, unpaid labor, segregated citizenship rolls, anti-miscegenation laws, and more add up to a false or at best misleading sense of victimization. It is quite difficult to be the victim when you are the victimizer.
ChahtaLusa (See profile | I'm a fan of ChahtaLusa)
In addition to omitting these important facts that make her
thesis baseless, Congresswoman Watson failed to mention that
the Nation will help any Freedman descendant learn whether
they have Indian ancestry on our base rolls through the
funding of genealogical research.
What exactly does he mean by "our base rolls?" The Dawes Commission rolls? Read Kent Carter"s book which has a quote by Dr. Charles Gourd, Chairman of the Constitution Convention Committee, Cherokee Nation, Mr. Carter"s book also demonstrates serious doubts about the work and actions of the Dawes Commission, yet, this man recommends it.
This again is not the issue! The issue is citizenship whether on the blood roll or the Freedmen Roll. This bogus offer is only maintaining the status quo which is already rejected on the basis it does not conform to the Treaty of 1866, that is the only document necessary to establish citizenship, not some genealogist of "his" choosing like the election of a Chief Justice of the Cherokee Supreme Court who is totally incompetent as a member of that body.
What exactly does he mean by "our base rolls?" The Dawes Commission rolls? Read Kent Carter"s book which has a quote by Dr. Charles Gourd, Chairman of the Constitution Convention Committee, Cherokee Nation, Mr. Carter"s book also demonstrates serious doubts about the work and actions of the Dawes Commission, yet, this man recommends it.
This again is not the issue! The issue is citizenship whether on the blood roll or the Freedmen Roll. This bogus offer is only maintaining the status quo which is already rejected on the basis it does not conform to the Treaty of 1866, that is the only document necessary to establish citizenship, not some genealogist of "his" choosing like the election of a Chief Justice of the Cherokee Supreme Court who is totally incompetent as a member of that body.
ChahtaLusa (See profile | I'm a fan of ChahtaLusa)
Why did the Nation hold this vote? The vote was actually a
culmination of tribal action that has been taken over the
last three decades to re-establish the Cherokee Nation and
prosper after enduring a century of federal policies from
the 1860s to the 1960s aimed at destroying Indian tribes.
Having survived those policies, and after having survived
all that came before them, the Nation simply felt a communal
desire to return to our roots as a people.
Over the last three decades the previous administrations of principal chiefs from Swimmer, to Mankiller to Smith have been vigorously opposing the Treaty of 1866 and violating the Constitutional Rights of citizenship that was given the formerly enslaved people of the Cherokee Nation and for that matter similar actions have been the purpose of the other Five Slaveholding Tribes.
From the late 1700"s to the 1980"s blacks and black Indians have been facing an onslaught from the racist attitudes of a minority of members of these tribes based on one thing, they have African ancestry. Whether they are freedmen descendants or Freedmen with Native American ancestry, the history of the racist attitudes is demonstrated in all of their documentation. From the constitutions, to the Congressional Record, these tribes have practiced racism and been allowed to do so with impunity until now. Now the freedmen descendants have support and a voice our ancestors never realized.
Congress did not perform its fiduciary responsibility in 1866, 1873, 1896, 1898, 1907 and so on, but now, when finally their voices are joined by a Congresswoman with the conviction of her beliefs in human and legal rights speaks up for them, she is attacked rather than the tribal leaders recognizing the racism of their ancestors and attacking it! These leaders have no moral ground to stand on, and they avoid it either by sticking their heads in the sand or attack those who will hold them accountable for their abhorrent behavior.
Over the last three decades the previous administrations of principal chiefs from Swimmer, to Mankiller to Smith have been vigorously opposing the Treaty of 1866 and violating the Constitutional Rights of citizenship that was given the formerly enslaved people of the Cherokee Nation and for that matter similar actions have been the purpose of the other Five Slaveholding Tribes.
From the late 1700"s to the 1980"s blacks and black Indians have been facing an onslaught from the racist attitudes of a minority of members of these tribes based on one thing, they have African ancestry. Whether they are freedmen descendants or Freedmen with Native American ancestry, the history of the racist attitudes is demonstrated in all of their documentation. From the constitutions, to the Congressional Record, these tribes have practiced racism and been allowed to do so with impunity until now. Now the freedmen descendants have support and a voice our ancestors never realized.
Congress did not perform its fiduciary responsibility in 1866, 1873, 1896, 1898, 1907 and so on, but now, when finally their voices are joined by a Congresswoman with the conviction of her beliefs in human and legal rights speaks up for them, she is attacked rather than the tribal leaders recognizing the racism of their ancestors and attacking it! These leaders have no moral ground to stand on, and they avoid it either by sticking their heads in the sand or attack those who will hold them accountable for their abhorrent behavior.
ChahtaLusa (See profile | I'm a fan of ChahtaLusa)
Consequently, the Nation's vote simply requires a person to
identify a single Indian ancestor on the federally
established rolls of our people taken in 1906 known as the
Dawes Rolls. This means that approximately 1,500 descendants
of former slaves who are known as Freedmen descendants are
Cherokee citizens today because each has an Indian ancestor
on the Dawes Rolls.
If the history of the tribes and Dawes Commission was to identify and make "correct rolls" of anyone seeking citizenship "by blood" in the 1890"s then they would not have gone to great lengths to place anyone with a "single drop" of "African" descent on the "Freedmen" roll in the first place.
Now, "He Who Shall Not Be Named" and the other four members of the "Five Slaveholding Tribes" would not be attempting to use this flawed roll as the benchmark for "Cherokee" (or racial) identity. It was a farce and tool of greed in the exploitation of the tribes then and is now a tool of greed and exploitation of the tribes today!
What will be the evidence utilized to "prove" a persons descent? The Freedmen roll precludes any possibility of establishing that ancestry when one considers those enslaved were illiterate despised and exploited because they did not have readily available records of their lineage. Any competent genealogist will tell you research on someone who had an ancestor that was enslaved is problematic to begin with, so are we to believe a disingenuous gesture like this is to be taken seriously?
If the history of the tribes and Dawes Commission was to identify and make "correct rolls" of anyone seeking citizenship "by blood" in the 1890"s then they would not have gone to great lengths to place anyone with a "single drop" of "African" descent on the "Freedmen" roll in the first place.
Now, "He Who Shall Not Be Named" and the other four members of the "Five Slaveholding Tribes" would not be attempting to use this flawed roll as the benchmark for "Cherokee" (or racial) identity. It was a farce and tool of greed in the exploitation of the tribes then and is now a tool of greed and exploitation of the tribes today!
What will be the evidence utilized to "prove" a persons descent? The Freedmen roll precludes any possibility of establishing that ancestry when one considers those enslaved were illiterate despised and exploited because they did not have readily available records of their lineage. Any competent genealogist will tell you research on someone who had an ancestor that was enslaved is problematic to begin with, so are we to believe a disingenuous gesture like this is to be taken seriously?
ChahtaLusa (See profile | I'm a fan of ChahtaLusa)
The Congresswoman is entitled to her opinion, but she is not
entitled to her opinion based on invented facts. It is an
injustice to the fundamental principles at stake on both
sides when opinions mislead about or omit all together
indisputable facts.
To this point "He Who Shall Not Be Named" has not stated one fact, or refuted any of the statements that have been attributed to the Honorable Congresswoman Dianne Watson, to say something without substantiation is not presenting the facts, it is pure misdirection from the issues and actions that have put the Nation of his leadership in such a precarious situation. A classic case of "Don"t blame me, blame her!"
To this point "He Who Shall Not Be Named" has not stated one fact, or refuted any of the statements that have been attributed to the Honorable Congresswoman Dianne Watson, to say something without substantiation is not presenting the facts, it is pure misdirection from the issues and actions that have put the Nation of his leadership in such a precarious situation. A classic case of "Don"t blame me, blame her!"
ChahtaLusa (See profile | I'm a fan of ChahtaLusa)
Congresswoman Watson's blog entry ("Jim Crow in Indian
Country," October 25, 2007) misled readers about the
Cherokee Nation's March vote to limit citizenship in the
tribe to those with Indian ancestry on the federal base
rolls of our people.
Again He Who Shall Not Be Named is playing loose with the KNOWN facts. The March vote of less than 10% of the tribe and those eligible to vote was in total contradiction to the Treaty of 1866 which in fact DID grant citizenship on the formerly enslaved people of the Cherokee Nation AND THEIR DESCENDANTS which did not have a "blood quantum" clause for their citizenship. The vote had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with anyone with Cherokee blood making it a racist vote to exclude those who had been deemed black, negro, or of African-descent. Those multi-racial people in the Nation who had already established their Cherokee lineal descent DID NOT, WOULD NOT AND HAVE NOT been affected by this vote and for "He Who Shall Not Be Named" to have his high paid lobbyist to continue this canard is without substance.
Again He Who Shall Not Be Named is playing loose with the KNOWN facts. The March vote of less than 10% of the tribe and those eligible to vote was in total contradiction to the Treaty of 1866 which in fact DID grant citizenship on the formerly enslaved people of the Cherokee Nation AND THEIR DESCENDANTS which did not have a "blood quantum" clause for their citizenship. The vote had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with anyone with Cherokee blood making it a racist vote to exclude those who had been deemed black, negro, or of African-descent. Those multi-racial people in the Nation who had already established their Cherokee lineal descent DID NOT, WOULD NOT AND HAVE NOT been affected by this vote and for "He Who Shall Not Be Named" to have his high paid lobbyist to continue this canard is without substance.
ChahtaLusa (See profile | I'm a fan of ChahtaLusa)
In 1770, 5,000 American militiamen rode through the Cherokee
Nation burning villages and crops to the ground driving
thousands of Cherokees, young, old and infirm, into the
mountains. Today, Congresswoman Diane Watson attempts to
repeat history with another scorched-earth policy aimed at
hurting the most vulnerable Cherokee Indians: the young, old
and infirm.
This is a misleading statement for "The Chief Who Shall Not Be Named" to REPEAT AGAIN, and if they are his words and not those of a high paid lobbyist, he should repudiate them.
The legislation is NOT aimed at the "most vulnerable" it is aimed at a Nation of so called Native Americans who are practicing the age old game of racial politics and exclusion. It is aimed at providing oversight into a fiefdom led by a man who has brought this action upon those he characterizes as vulnerable by his persistent inability to conform to the decision of his own Supreme Court when it rendered a decision HE did not agree with. He then has the temerity to accuse the Honorable Congresswoman Diane Watson of having "racist" motivations in her legislation, nothing could be further from the truth.
This is a misleading statement for "The Chief Who Shall Not Be Named" to REPEAT AGAIN, and if they are his words and not those of a high paid lobbyist, he should repudiate them.
The legislation is NOT aimed at the "most vulnerable" it is aimed at a Nation of so called Native Americans who are practicing the age old game of racial politics and exclusion. It is aimed at providing oversight into a fiefdom led by a man who has brought this action upon those he characterizes as vulnerable by his persistent inability to conform to the decision of his own Supreme Court when it rendered a decision HE did not agree with. He then has the temerity to accuse the Honorable Congresswoman Diane Watson of having "racist" motivations in her legislation, nothing could be further from the truth.
redbow40 (See profile | I'm a fan of redbow40)
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, I must
tell you something about "you know her name". If
you're brown and have lived in South Los Angeles u know
better. I certainly wouldn't use words like like morals
and honorable with "you know who". The
unfortunate part of all this is a divide between black and
brown that will never be forgotten. When it's all over I
hope everyone thinks it was worth it. I don't believe
these wounds will heal anytime soon. It's just my opinion,
and it's every bit as valid as yours.
redbow40 (See profile | I'm a fan of redbow40)
You make some interesting points that need to be
considered. The Cherokee say it's a sovereignty issue, you
say it's a slavery issue. Maybe it's alittle of both. The
one thing that's for sure this bill will not make it any
better. You seem to hold "you know her name" in
high regard, ask yourself how a powerful congresswoman
could resort to such tactics and yet be an honorable
person. Would "you know her name" be willing to
write legislation to re-enroll verified people of all
tribes or is it just the Freedman the U.S. Congresswoman
is concerned with? Something to think about(you know
morals and all). The Morongos removed 15% of their
enrolled membership in her backyard, and not a word from
"you know her name".
grannyshell (See profile | I'm a fan of grannyshell)
Diane Watson seeks to recreate a reality that is unthinkable
to the Cherokee people - while making a name for herself
with the DNC she forgets that she is directing her political
power in the direction of other disenfranshised populations
- does she really want to take her anger out on those who
need services the most - let the courts decide before you
enact and promote legislation designed to do what the US
government does best - divide and conquer - we have many
citizens of all races - please use your mind to discover the
truth - think beyond the cheap one line details offered by
those ready to earn a quick headline for sensationalism
grannyshell (See profile | I'm a fan of grannyshell)
chief smith speaks the truth....i admit i have not always
been his fan as he his decisions have impacted my family
personally -- but he is a true patriot and i must put those
things aside and say he stands for the Cherokee People and
for the rights of me and my ancestors...this is not
race-based but an example of the attempts of main stream to
make race-based and media driven -- my granny elmira shell
and granddad jesse shell would be proud of his
representation and bravery --- his stance is not one for
sensational headlines but speaks of the truth and the right
to sovereignty- please allow this to be tried in tribal
courts in not in the media -- i am the first to stand for
civil rights and equality- my grandparents were both
original enrollees and i love the Cherokee Nation - do your
research regarding the issue before you pass judgement --
"rights" are and will be extended but
"citizenship" is our sovereign right -- please
seek the facts and educate your mind before you take a stand
cwywalker (See profile | I'm a fan of cwywalker)
I want to thank Principal Chief Chad Smith for a response
that brings people together in understanding and asks that
all allow due process for those on both sides of this very
important issue.
Some readers may or may not be aware of the fact that there are hundreds of Freedmen descendents who are citizens of the Cherokee Nation because they, like all other Cherokee citizens, meet the tribe's citizenship criteria. The Cherokee Nation constitution requires that an individual have at least (1) Cherokee ancestor listed on the final 1906 Cherokee Dawes Commission Roll, and are qualified to receive a Certificate Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) card from the U.S. Department of Interior, BIA. Citizenship of Cherokee Indians who are descendents of Freedmen is not an issue here nor is it at question since they are citizens of the tribe. What is at question today is non-Indians seeking citizenship in an Indian tribe.
The responsibility of determining who is and is not a citizen of a tribe falls squarely on Indian tribes. For more than a century the courts have consistently upheld this inherent duty of Indian tribes to determine their citizenship. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has held "[a] tribe's right to define its own citizenship for tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence as an independent political community. The Cherokee people, not the Principal Chief, nor the Tribal Council, have determined over the past three decades that you must be an Indian to be a citizen of their Indian tribe.
It is refreshing to see the leader of one of the country's largest Native American Nations respond with facts and clarity to the outrageous misrepresentation of facts proliferated in blogs like Congresswoman Watson's blog entry ("Jim Crow in Indian Country."
Some readers may or may not be aware of the fact that there are hundreds of Freedmen descendents who are citizens of the Cherokee Nation because they, like all other Cherokee citizens, meet the tribe's citizenship criteria. The Cherokee Nation constitution requires that an individual have at least (1) Cherokee ancestor listed on the final 1906 Cherokee Dawes Commission Roll, and are qualified to receive a Certificate Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) card from the U.S. Department of Interior, BIA. Citizenship of Cherokee Indians who are descendents of Freedmen is not an issue here nor is it at question since they are citizens of the tribe. What is at question today is non-Indians seeking citizenship in an Indian tribe.
The responsibility of determining who is and is not a citizen of a tribe falls squarely on Indian tribes. For more than a century the courts have consistently upheld this inherent duty of Indian tribes to determine their citizenship. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has held "[a] tribe's right to define its own citizenship for tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence as an independent political community. The Cherokee people, not the Principal Chief, nor the Tribal Council, have determined over the past three decades that you must be an Indian to be a citizen of their Indian tribe.
It is refreshing to see the leader of one of the country's largest Native American Nations respond with facts and clarity to the outrageous misrepresentation of facts proliferated in blogs like Congresswoman Watson's blog entry ("Jim Crow in Indian Country."
redbow40 (See profile | I'm a fan of redbow40)
Mr. Smith, a great many thanks to you for writing the truth.
Now people can see for themselves the outright evil (racism)
this congresswoman is about to do to the great Cherokee
people. You've endured so much as a people, and I am again
greatful to you for taking the time to shed light in the
midst of tremendous darkness. As a Northern Cheyenne who are
right now being raped and pillaged by energy companies with
the full support of congress I will do everything humanly
possible to support this great civil and human rights cause.
Kansas Evans (See profile | I'm a fan of Kansas Evans)
Smith,
I have some confusion I hope you won't mind clearing up.
What do you mean by "held" slaves? And, wouldn't it only be right to give decedents of Cherokee Indians' slaves citizenship in the tribe?
Also, a comment. Let's not make too big a deal out of fighting for the Union. Several slaveholding states fought for the Union.
I have some confusion I hope you won't mind clearing up.
What do you mean by "held" slaves? And, wouldn't it only be right to give decedents of Cherokee Indians' slaves citizenship in the tribe?
Also, a comment. Let's not make too big a deal out of fighting for the Union. Several slaveholding states fought for the Union.
redbow40
(See
profile | I'm
a fan of redbow40)
Yes, lets not make too big a deal out of sacrificing your
life to free someone. right ? Makes no sense at all.
Kansas
Evans (See
profile | I'm
a fan of Kansas Evans)
Yeah redbow40, you missed my point.
I'll try to be clearer. Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland fought for the Union. All four were slaveholding states. I don't see the redemption in fighting for the Union if you owned slaves. To me, it's a little disingenuous to say, "We fought for the Union," as some sort of justification for not including some descendents of slaves in the tribe.
I'll try to be clearer. Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland fought for the Union. All four were slaveholding states. I don't see the redemption in fighting for the Union if you owned slaves. To me, it's a little disingenuous to say, "We fought for the Union," as some sort of justification for not including some descendents of slaves in the tribe.
GayleRoss
(See
profile | I'm
a fan of GayleRoss)
Did those four states lose half their territory and
suffer a brutal intrusion on their right to
self-determination? Were they
"re-constructed"? Citizenship in a state is
a product of nothing more than geography; for the
United States it's geography or naturalization
according to US law. Citizenship in an Indian tribe is
a matter for TRIBAL law and it is a product of an
indigenous identity that goes back thousand of years,
before others set foot on this continent.
Despite the fact that 70% of the Cherokees fought for the Union, at the end of the war, the Cherokees were forced into a harsh reconstruction treaty, ceding land and other essential rights. Both Cherokees and freed slaves objected to the article calling for the "rights of native Cherokees" for freed slaves. Freedmen wanted land they could OWN and American citizenship. Cherokees offered the land but the US refused. Although the article in the treaty did NOT call for it, the Cherokees themselves amended their own constitution granting citizenship. The next 40 years saw a painful struggle between two very different people trying to go in two very different directions. Cherokees fought for their right to exist as Indian people and to hold on to their country. Freedmen did not see themselves as Indian and they welcomed allotment and the near destruction of the Cherokee Nation at the turn of the century in order to own land and have American citizenship.
For the next seventy years, Cherokee people kept their Indian identity and preserved the remnants of their own government in Cherokee communities. Over the past 37 years we have rebuilt our government one branch at a time. And, as Chief Smith noted, we have limited our enrollment to those with Indian ancestry, our "roots as a people". Indian nations have an inherent right to define themselves.
The Cherokee majority fought to end slavery. No Southern state made the reparations we did. It is heartbreaking for the freedmen descendants to try to destroy the Cherokee Nation to reclaim the citizenship their own ancestors were so eager to relinquish.
Despite the fact that 70% of the Cherokees fought for the Union, at the end of the war, the Cherokees were forced into a harsh reconstruction treaty, ceding land and other essential rights. Both Cherokees and freed slaves objected to the article calling for the "rights of native Cherokees" for freed slaves. Freedmen wanted land they could OWN and American citizenship. Cherokees offered the land but the US refused. Although the article in the treaty did NOT call for it, the Cherokees themselves amended their own constitution granting citizenship. The next 40 years saw a painful struggle between two very different people trying to go in two very different directions. Cherokees fought for their right to exist as Indian people and to hold on to their country. Freedmen did not see themselves as Indian and they welcomed allotment and the near destruction of the Cherokee Nation at the turn of the century in order to own land and have American citizenship.
For the next seventy years, Cherokee people kept their Indian identity and preserved the remnants of their own government in Cherokee communities. Over the past 37 years we have rebuilt our government one branch at a time. And, as Chief Smith noted, we have limited our enrollment to those with Indian ancestry, our "roots as a people". Indian nations have an inherent right to define themselves.
The Cherokee majority fought to end slavery. No Southern state made the reparations we did. It is heartbreaking for the freedmen descendants to try to destroy the Cherokee Nation to reclaim the citizenship their own ancestors were so eager to relinquish.
Kansas
Evans (See
profile | I'm
a fan of Kansas Evans)
Oh. Okay. I get it. I couldn't quite follow Chief
Smith on the whole Treat 0f 1866 thing. So, thanks
for explaining things to me.
tbone99
(See
profile | I'm
a fan of tbone99)
I find it interesting to note that Chief Smith's blogpost ,
dated 3:30 pm , Nov. 1st appears not to have made it to the
front page, an opportunity Rep Watson enjoyed for at least
12- 15 hours despite her absolutely false recount of
Cherokee history.I urge the Huffpost to give the same
exposure to Chief's Smith rebuttal,as we come up on
Thanksgiving , the day traditionally celebrated to salute
Native American generosity.
redbow40
(See
profile | I'm
a fan of redbow40)
I cannot speak for Tim Giago, but I have seen the same
treatment of his posts on this blog site. I have Tim's
blog's flagged to my email. When I receive the email
advising me of his new blog, it has already disappeared. I
hope that someone is paying attention to this and takes
some steps to rectify this seemingly unfair practice.
tbone99
(See
profile | I'm
a fan of tbone99)
"The bill calls for de facto termination of the
Cherokee Nation and eliminates $300 million in federal
health, housing and other vital services for the neediest
Cherokees, including many of the 2,800 Freedmen descendants
who were affected by the March vote."
Rep Watson's bill is overkill- obviously she is willing to do anything to get her name in lights , regardless of the human suffering which will ensue.
The whole matter seems ripe for some kind of mediation that could occur over time.She's reached for the machine gun when a pulling up a chair to talk might be the best recourse.
Rep Watson's bill is overkill- obviously she is willing to do anything to get her name in lights , regardless of the human suffering which will ensue.
The whole matter seems ripe for some kind of mediation that could occur over time.She's reached for the machine gun when a pulling up a chair to talk might be the best recourse.
davidonk
(See
profile | I'm
a fan of davidonk)
It makes sense that the people who should enjoy the rights
of citizenship are the people who have Indian ancestry.
Rosagrace
(See
profile | I'm
a fan of Rosagrace)
Thank goodness for a calm voice of reason amidst an
emotionally charged issue. I agree with Chad Smith and what
he says here. I also believe it is wrong for Congresswoman
Watson to try to wipe out the entire Cherokee Nation just
because she disagrees with its Constitution. The
interpretation of the Treaty of 1866 seems to be at question
and whether or not it gives citizenship rights to Freedmen.
When I read the entire treaty, not just the excerpt
Congresswoman Watson likes to quote, it seems clear to me
that the Freedmen were given rights to land after the Civil
War, but it does not make them citizens. Since that
interpretation is being questioned in court, Watson should
stand down and let the court do its job. I truly believe if
Congresswoman Watson and the sponsors of H.R. 2824 would do
their homework and seek out the truth, they would stop this
tragic and destructive path that they are on.
Posted November 1, 2007 | 03:03 PM (EST)