A column on the
Cherokee Freedmen makes some interesting points:
Transmissions from a Lone Star: Cherokees versus African Americans in the 21st centuryBy Daniel KalderThe minority-on-minority aspect of this story is especially troubling for those who prefer it when the USA or Israel or maybe Russia is the baddie. For instance, The Guardian--which bills itself as “the world’s leading liberal voice” ran a piece on the story with a headline so psychedelic as to be inconceivable; until it was actually conceived:The Cherokee nation must be free to expel black freedmenApparently, because the Federal Government has done bad things to Indians in the past, they should now do nothing, because if they do something, it will only make things worse … or something. Cherokee sovereignty trumps all other considerations. Thus the bizarre moral calculus of “liberal” guilt. So does that mean the Feds should cut off all funding to the tribe, since surely that also interferes with their ‘sovereignty’; or do you keep handing out the free stuff, even as the recipients do things you abhor?
Furthermore, reneging on treaties is a two way street. If the Cherokee want to toss out terms agreed to in 1866, then the Feds can do likewise … and you really don’t really want to encourage Uncle Sam to go back on his agreements. The Cherokee should know that better than anyone.
Well, the threats issued from on high appear to have worked--for now. On Tuesday it was announced that the Freedmen would be permitted to vote in upcoming tribal elections.Comment: I was telling someone that letting the US government dictate the terms of a treaty sets a bad precedent. I'm glad Kalder agrees with me.
For more on the subject, see
Deal Restores Freedmen Citizenshp and
NY Times Debate on Freedmen.
No comments:
Post a Comment