Best and worst presidents for Indians

This Presidents’ Day, We Highlight the Best Presidents for Indian Country

By Rob CapricciosoRichard M. Nixon: He’s the president who’s not usually on anyone’s best list, but for Indian country, he was a champion. Changing course on many of the policies that had driven so many Indians into bleak poverty, Nixon, with the guidance of his Mohawk Indian affairs leader Louis R. Bruce, endorsed a self-determination plan for tribes, ushering in a new era for Natives.

Barack Obama: It’s taken this “One Who Helps People Throughout the Land”–his adopted Crow name–just three years to show that he’s seriously committed to taking action on Indian issues, brokering passage of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act reauthorization, the Tribal Law and Order Act, and the $3.4 billion Cobell settlement.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: His New Deal will never be forgotten. For Natives, it included the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which ended the sale of tribal lands and restored ownership of unallocated lands to Native American groups. The policy helped reverse the Dawes Act’s infamous privatization of communal holdings of tribes, while returning to tribal self-governance.

Bill Clinton: He set a model for Obama, hiring Natives to work in his administration, and holding meetings with tribal leaders at the White House—both areas that the current president has taken the ball and run with. And he made some memorable commitments.

Ulysses S. Grant: This blast from the presidential past reminds us that good intentions were sometimes present in American history toward Indians—but that good federal intentions were and are not always the best for tribal interests.

Worth noting:

George H.W. Bush: When he signed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act into law in 1990, it was a pretty progressive move, especially when compared to his son who would later leave most things Indian alone.

John F. Kennedy: JFK and his brothers, Bobby and Teddy, are remembered fondly by many Natives due to their push for Indian education initiatives, as well as Bobby’s campaign visit to Pine Ridge Reservation in 1968 just before his assassination.

Jimmy Carter: He signed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act into law in 1979, saying, “It is a fundamental right of every American, as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution, to worship as he or she pleases.”Indian-Killer Andrew Jackson Deserves Top Spot on List of Worst U.S. Presidents

By Gale Courey Toensing and ICTMN StaffAndrew Jackson: A man nicknamed “Indian killer” and “Sharp Knife” surely deserves the top spot on a list of worst U.S. Presidents.

Andrew Jackson “was a forceful proponent of Indian removal,” according to PBS. Others have a less genteel way of describing the seventh president of the United States.

Dwight Eisenhower: President Dwight Eisenhower, the World War II hero who served as President from 1953 until 1961, was an early advocate of consultation. On August 15, 1953, he signed into law H.R. 1063, which came to be known as Public Act 280, because he believed it would help forward “complete political equality to all Indians in our nation.”

George W. Bush: While George W. Bush was one of three presidents since 1995 to issue proclamations designating November as National American Indian Heritage Month, his understanding of tribal sovereignty is limited.

Abraham Lincoln: The majority of the United States knows Lincoln as the president who “cannot tell a lie,” and as the leader of the Emancipation Proclamation. However, if you were to ask Native Americans their perception of the great president, the image would be much darker.

Ulysses S. Grant: Grant made it on our ‘Best’ Presidents list as well. Mostly because his intentions were in the right place and something that hadn’t been seen in that time. But those good intentions can’t save him from the fact of the matter.Andrew Jackson--The Worst President The Cherokee Ever Met

By Christina BerryThe title of worst US president is hotly debated and is most often awarded to Andrew Johnson or Warren Harding. Many polls and studies rank Andrew Jackson in or near the top 10 best presidents. However, to many Cherokees Andrew Jackson is without a doubt the worst US president.Comment:  For more on the presidents, see George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.

Churchill and Clinton are Cherokee?

To make a point I posted the following on Facebook:

Famous Cherokee



Sir Winston Churchill, President Bill Clinton, Kevin Costner, Anita Bryant, and Miley Cyrus...does everybody agree that these people belong on the same list as Major Ridge, Sequoyah, Will Rogers, Wilma Mankiller, and Wes Studi?

This led to the following discussion between James and Elizabeth (in italics):Actually, Winston Churchill had Iroquois ancestry through, though I've never seen the specific tribe named. Though Cherokees are Iroqouian people, people usually don't associate the two and given his mother's New York birth, she's probably from one of the main Iroquoian tribes up there. Also, Johnny Cash has never claimed to be Cherokee or American Indian in general.

Also, in response to your question, yes, some of these people are actually of Cherokee descent. Why is that a big deal? I mean if someone had, say, a bit of Welsh ancestry and claimed it, they wouldn't be questioned as to whether they belonged on the same list as Dylan Thomas and Tom Jones. I think it's silly then that Miley Cyrus and whomever else can't mention their ancestry without so-called "purists" crying foul. Sure there are many people who have a misguided sense of their ancestral "Cherokee Princesses," but it also doesn't mean that everyone who is perceived as "white" is lying when they have traceable Cherokee lineage. It is a FACT that there were high rates of intermarraige between Cherokees and Scots Irish, English and German settlers in the Appalachain region. Why is it alright for these folks then to celebrate the latter heritages and not the former? That to me is what's silly.

Problem is the vouge status it carries. Like the Paris Hilton and a pet dog--notice how many chihuahuas are in shelters because they are not as fun and easy as everyone thinks they are. I absolutely condone people celebrating their heritage--after all, where would we be without our ancestors, right? I am saddened though by it being more in style and a fad than celebrating a way of life.

Heritage loses its inherent meaning when it is seen as a fad.

Is it really just a fad though? If you look at Will Rogers, he didn't look terribly Indian, and yet he was proclaiming his Cherokee lineage in the 1920s. Same with John Rollin Ridge in the 1840s. It certainly isn't any more of a fad than being Irish has become with the Celtic music and dance revivals and people drinking green beer on St. Patrick's Day and talking about the sliver of them that is actually Scots Irish, but they don't know the difference. I don't see recent Irish immigrants calling them out on it.

This isn't about features, because one could argue I look more German despite having more of a quantity of UK blood. That said, I am more frustrated with Hollywood's weak interpretation. My comment had nothing to do with the person celebrating who they were, I am more disgusted with a person making it look cool to be Indian, because hipster fads always follow. It looks cool for a person to say they are Cherokee, rather than genuinely being proud of who they are, because every one of these aforementioned celebrities would rattle off their entire genetic makeup, rather than pointing out the cool bits. That is what I meant. For those who do have Indian heritage, they are growing increasingly frustrated at this. Anyone would. While I am happy to hear that many share my ethnic background, I will take a "pass" on those mentioning it because its the "in" thing to do.Rob weighs in

The list is titled "Famous Cherokee(s)," not "Famous People of Cherokee Descent." There's a big difference.

This list is using the one-drop rule to claim these people are full-fledged Cherokee Indians. The implication is that they represent the Cherokee people as much as Wilma Mankiller or Wes Studi.

Same with people like Miley Cyrus. If she wants to celebrate her Cherokee ancestry 1/16th or whatever of the time, great. If she tells people she's "Cherokee" or "Indian" and nothing else, not so great.

It's a misrepresentation of her heritage done for faddish, wannabe reasons, as Elizabeth said. Judging by her public behavior, Cyrus doesn't know jack about being Cherokee. She thinks it involves loving feathers and dreamcatchers and Pocahontas, which is stereotypical and wrong.

Why do people believe Indians = feathers and dreamcatchers and Pocahontas? Because people like Cyrus tell them so. If we give her credibilty by agreeing that everyone with a drop of Cherokee blood is Cherokee, we're letting her redefine what "Indian" means. It becomes all about the superficial trappings--the feathers and headdresses--not about the history and culture.

As for your Irish counterexample, claiming to be Irish won't get you treaty-backed government services, casino payments, ethnic-oriented jobs (e.g., academia or acting), or cultural cachet. Nor have the Irish had to deal with the same level of stereotyping over the last century. (With Irish presidents, lawyers, and scientists, no one thinks the Irish are only drunken brawlers these days.)

If the Irish did have to deal with the relentless, one-note stereotyping that Indians still face, they might do more to police their image. But they're part of the mainstream now. They don't have to worry about public perceptions. No one is opposing their businesses, reducing their services, or beating them up because they're "savages."

For more on Irish stereotypes, see Fighting Sioux vs. Fighting Irish. For more on the Cherokee and identity issues, see Cherokee Supreme Court Expels Freedmen and "Minimal Bloods" = Greedy White People?

Bill Clinton opposes Amazon dams

Ex-Pres Clinton Criticizes Hydroelectricity in AmazonFormer President Bill Clinton said this weekend that he was against building more hydroelectric dams in the Brazilian Amazon, according to Folha de São Paulo, the country’s largest daily. Clinton was speaking at the World Sustainability Forum in Manaus, the largest city in the Brazilian rainforest state of Amazonas.And:Clinton’s call for the consideration of alternatives to new hydroelectric dams puts him in elite celebrity company. Hollywood director James Cameron is vehemently opposed to the building of the new 11,200 megawatt power station, Belo Monte, set to be constructed along Amazon tributary, Xingu, later this year if all of the conditions to an environmental permit are met. Cameron compared the building of Belo Monte, which would be the third largest in the world if constructed, as a battle similar to the one portrayed in his film Avatar. Only in this one, the enemy is the Brazilian government and a consortium of mostly government owned power companies called Norte Energia.Comment:  This is a prime example of the ongoing South American genocide against Indians.

For more on the subject, see Amazon Indians Petition Brazilian Government and Cameron's and Weaver's Anti-Dam Films.

Below:  "Former President Clinton didn't call out GDF Suez or the Brazilian government for its largescale hydroelectric power projects in the rainforest, but did call for alternatives to damming for electricity at the World Sustainability Forum in Manaus, Brazil, on March 26, 2011."