"It's a sad time when people can do this based upon race, solely based upon race," Freedmen descendant Faith Russell said.
"So it's not a question of race, it never has been," said Cherokee Nation Chief Chad Smith.
March 05, 2007
Freedmen vote was racist (or not)
Cherokee Freedmen Ready For Court BattleA day after being kicked out of the Cherokee Nation, descendants of Cherokee slaves say racism may have played a part in the special election that revoked their membership. A tribal council ruled last year that a 140 year-old treaty guaranteed the Cherokee Freedmen's tribal rights, but Saturday’s election overturned that ruling. The News on 6’s Chris Wright reports the Freedmen believe it's racism, and the Cherokees say it's simply a matter of blood.
"It's a sad time when people can do this based upon race, solely based upon race," Freedmen descendant Faith Russell said.
"So it's not a question of race, it never has been," said Cherokee Nation Chief Chad Smith.
"It's a sad time when people can do this based upon race, solely based upon race," Freedmen descendant Faith Russell said.
"So it's not a question of race, it never has been," said Cherokee Nation Chief Chad Smith.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Definitely... If African Americans can prove Indian blood, they Should DEFINITELY be able to acquire the rights of the Indians.
I'm sticking with the court rulings that say tribal membership is a political decision, not a racial one. That means tribes can enroll people who are primarily or totally non-Indian, in theory.
Wait, there's a secret handshake? How come I didn't get the memo? It's because I'm too white, isn't it?
Seriously, though, I think ultimately this vote is going to prove disastrous for tribal sovereignty in general and the Cherokee in particular.
a-ni-tsa-la-gi ni-ga-l-s-ti-s-gv nu-l-s-da-ne-ha!
If a tribe's duly elected or appointed representatives want to make me a member, so be it. That's how sovereignty works, in case you didn't know. They decide who's a member, not you or me.
I noticed this website. I am not as informed on this issue as perhaps i should be. I am aware of the vote and i am a member of the cherokee nation by blood. I don't think this was about race at all because the vote does not say that citizenship excludes any race. it says that whatever race you are you also have to have cherokee blood. to me it makes sense that to be a cherokee citizen you have to have cherokee blood and i think the tribe should be able to make that decision. the cherokee people were the ones made to move from their home on the trail of tears. there may have been slaves with them but i really don't see why any treaties would have included them because the land the cherokees left was not theirs in the first place so i don't see why that under the treaty they should have been promised anything because they had not lost anything. what i mean by this is if they were a slave then they wouldn't have had the rights that cherokee by blood would have. i feel sorry for these people but i also think that if the cherokee nation did not provide assistance to their citizens and help to them and if they were a poor tribe then this wouldn't matter as much. i think that economically the freedman would definetley be better off to be a citizen of the tribe and though i can't blame them for the way they feel. i don't think they have entitlement to cherokee money because they are not cherokee. they are descendents of cherokee slaves and other non indians who want to receive benefits of being a cherokee by blood and to me that is not right.
i have read about and studied this for some time now. This is about race and what people feel that makes them part of a tribe or not. 40% of African Americans have Indian blood. Many of the freedmen have Cherokee blood, but their ancestors were put on the freedmen charts under the dews rolls even if they were 1/2. Cherokee slaves were a big part of Cherokee culture and many books may not say it but the Cherokee took their slaves with them on the trail of tears. They were not freed until 1866 after the civil war and made members of the tribe. Freedmen are entitled to the same rights as Cherokee by blood. If i remember right the Seminole Nation tried the same thing and the government revoked their status as a nation. Didn't take them long to change their mind. Does anyone know how much on the members of the Cherokee Nation are full/half blood?
Something is drastically wrong when DNA blood proof are not accepted, like in Hawaii or Somoa or Tonga, when you have documented proof of living in a country dating back 200 years plus. No doubt you are considered a native of that land. I could see if the Black Natives were here only 4 years then try to claim nativity. That would be wrong. But DNA blood tests never lie, that's why Blood DNA is refused as proof. We fight on the front lines but are not treated with respect, if they could wipe us out of the history of America this I say is a start.
A DNA test might reveal that someone has "Indian blood." But it wouldn't specify whether the source was a Cherokee or some other Indian.
From what I've read, I gather people who were Cherokee and black were put on the freedmen rolls and then excluded. If so, that doesn't seem fair to me.
Post a Comment