Cherokee Nation risks everyone's treaties

In The Treaties in Our Dreams, columnist Steve Russell makes a point about the Cherokee Freedmen case that occurred to me too. Namely, that it's dangerous for an Indian tribe to abrogate one of its own treaties.

Russell notes a particular danger. Courts have ruled that tribes are political entities, not racial entities. But the Cherokees have argued that the Freedmen aren't Indians unless they have at least one Cherokee ancestor. The Freedmen counter that they're Indians by treaty and by 150 years of participating in Cherokee life.

Here's how Russell puts it:Remember the position of the modern Indian fighters: every program that benefits Indians, all of Title 25 of the US Code, is racial discrimination against white people. Our response to that is the distinction between “race” and citizenship that the Cherokee Supreme Court has trashed without analysis. This distinction is what has kept money flowing to Indian country over the objections of the Indian fighters.

The danger is obvious that the Congressional Indian fighters could use the Cherokee case as a wedge against all appropriations to tribes, even those required by treaty. Circumstances have changed, you see, and “race discrimination” cannot be tolerated.Comment:  Excellent point. If the Cherokees insist that only people with Indian "blood" can be tribal members, the "Indian fighters" may go along. They may use that assertion to claim that every treaty and law that favors Indians is discriminatory. Then they could overturn two centuries of Indian law and wipe out the tribes as sovereign entities.

For more on the subject, see Minority-on-Minority Freedmen Battle and Deal Restores Freedmen Citizenship.

Minority-on-minority Freedmen battle

A column on the Cherokee Freedmen makes some interesting points:

Transmissions from a Lone Star:  Cherokees versus African Americans in the 21st century

By 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.

Deal restores Freedmen citizenship

Developing:  Freedmen citizenship restored and voting extended to Oct. 8

By Will ChavezThe United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the Cherokee Nation and an attorney for the Cherokee Freedmen made a preliminary agreement Tuesday afternoon that will extend the tribe’s voting period for voters to Oct. 8.

The agreement also restored full citizenship to the approximately 2,800 removed from the CN last month. The voting extension will allow the Freedmen, as well as other CN citizens, more time to vote beyond the Sept. 24 principal chief election.

Freedmen attorneys filed an injunction on Sept. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to regain Freedmen rights, including voting rights. President of the Descendants of Freedmen Association Marilyn Vann, one of the plaintiffs in the injunction, said the Freedmen did not receive all of the remedies they had asked for, but she is pleased with the results.

“The settlement was not perfect. Everything we requested in the preliminary injunction was not addressed in the proposed agreement, but we are pleased that the dis-enrolled Freedmen will be restored to citizenship status with full citizenship rights including the right to vote for principal chief,” she said.Cherokee Nation negotiates deal with Freedmen

Comment:  For more on the Cherokee Freedmen, see NY Times Debate on Freedmen and US Threatens Cherokees Over Freedmen.

NY Times debate on Freedmen

The New York Times has posted eight op/ed pieces on the Cherokee Freedmen issue. Below are some of the best quotes as chosen by Indian Country Today:

New York Times Debates Tribal Rights v. Racial JusticeThe intersection of race and citizenship in Indian Country never fails to create a tragicomedy of tribal politics. Whenever tribes are under attack about membership policies, the reliable Hail Mary is “sovereignty,” even when it bears little relation to federal intrusion.Kevin Noble Maillard, law professor, Syracuse University and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma memberThe Cherokee Nation, like all sovereign nations, determines its citizenship by a Constitution approved by our people. No federal court has ever told the Cherokee Nation how to determine our citizenship. The U.S. and United Nations policies and courts have always told us the opposite. The most fundamental right we have as a nation is self-determination of our own citizenship. There is no treaty anywhere that says otherwise.Cara Cowan-Watts, speaker, Cherokee Nation Council and board member of the National Congress of American IndiansThe Cherokee Nation chose to remain a weak sovereign by excluding the Freedmen descendants, about 1,000 of whom were registered to vote in the coming election for Principal Chief. The disenfranchisement of the Freedmen—after they had voted in a prior election that resulted in a virtual tie, forcing this second election in which their votes will be provisional—all but guaranteed that the candidate who supported the expulsion of the Freedmen would win, and the candidate who cultivated their support would lose. This is the worst form of racial politics.Matthew L.M. Fletcher, professor of law at Michigan State University and editor of Turtle Talk law blogThe distinction between the racial and political use of blood quantum rules and its connection to sovereignty offer an important backdrop to the Cherokee Nation’s actions against the Freedmen. Without doubt, the Cherokee Nation engaged in blatant racial discrimination. Yet, as an expression of sovereignty, the Cherokee Nation’s decision to expel the Freedmen could arguably be viewed as a valid, albeit utterly troubling, exercise of the right of self-determination.Rose Cuison Villazor, Hofstra University Law SchoolI think Maillard had the quote of the day in a passage just after the passage ICT quoted:Natives safely ensconced as members are the first to step forward and defend obviously discriminatory actions, whether in a council meeting, a newspaper blog, or a T-shirt that says, “I’m a Real Indian.” So very typically, “It’s not about race; it’s about sovereignty” and “outsiders don’t understand” are the most common and ridiculous of arguments. Add in a healthy portion of Self-Determination and a generous serving of Tribal Autonomy, and there you have a typical recipe for Sovereignty Sauce.

At times, the Sauce is cooked in shady pots to defend even shadier behavior. When my own tribe went though this exact same issue 10 years ago, tribal council meetings took on state fair antics, with hooin’, mooin’ and hollerin’ at Freedmen in attendance. Cries of “Go back to Africa!” followed Black Indians around town. Local papers quoted citizens saying, “We’re trying to get the blacks out.”Comment:  Why would Cherokees be saying these kinds of things if they weren't prejudiced against blacks? Sounds to me like they are prejudiced.

For more on the Freedmen, see US Threatens Cherokees Over Freedmen and Limbaugh Cheers Freedmen Expulsion.

Below:  "A Freedmen family in the Oklahoma Territory, 1900."

US threatens Cherokees over Freedmen

As some of us predicted, the federal government isn't taking the Cherokee expulsion of the black Freedmen lying down.

Cherokee Nation runs into constitutional hot water over voting ban

By David UsborneThe Nation had sent letters to its so-called freedmen members, who are descended from slaves owned by Cherokees up until the end of the Civil War, informing them that they were being stripped of tribal status. The federal government quickly warned the action was illegal and would be met with sanctions.

The clash came to a head this week when the Nation was admonished in a letter from the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Larry EchoHawk.

"I urge you to consider carefully the Nation's next steps in proceeding with an election that does not comply with federal law," he wrote. "The department will not recognise any action taken by the Nation that is inconsistent with these principles and does not accord its freedmen members full rights of citizenship."

Mr EchoHawk said the elections, on 24 September, would go unrecognised by Washington unless the freedmen were reinstated and allowed to participate. Already $30 million (£19m) in federal housing funds bound for the Cherokee Nation have been frozen. The government says the Nation is in violation of an 1866 treaty it signed with the federal government that guaranteed full tribal status to the former slaves.Cherokee tribe retreats from effort to oust some members

By Steve OlafsonThe Cherokee Indian tribe on Wednesday retreated from a plan to banish 2,800 African Americans from its citizenship ranks after the federal government froze some funding to the tribe.

The Cherokee, the second-largest tribe in the country with 300,000 members, asked the tribal Supreme Court to withdraw a ruling that allowed the so-called Freedmen to be removed from membership.

The tribe's legal retreat "is in the best interest of The Nation," said A. Diane Hammons, the Cherokee attorney general, in a one-page court filing.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development withheld a $33 million disbursement and the Bureau of Indian Affairs said it would not recognize results of an upcoming election for tribal principal chief because of the membership issue.Comment:  An editorial in the Muskogee Phoenix had a great response to the US pressure tactics:The U.S. schooling tribes on terms of treaties is a lot like Michael Vick holding classes for PETA on how to care for puppies.This led me to write: If the US can withhold federal funds for a treaty violation, can a tribe withhold the right to travel on its roads or through its air space? This could be a fascinating new area of Indian law.

My colleagues said no, to which I responded: If one side can do it, so can the other!

But seriously...most Natives I know favor the Freedmen side of the issue. But they certainly don't like the feds' heavy-handed violation of Cherokee sovereignty. As the Vick comment indicates, how ironic is it for the US to be talking about upholding treaties?

The Freedmen issue is a tough one with two compelling arguments: racial equality vs. tribal sovereignty. I suspect people favor the equality argument because they believe racism is motivating the Freedmen expulsion. When tribes disenroll people for reasons other than racism, Natives usually support their right to do so.

For more on the Freedmen, see Limbaugh Cheers Freedmen Expulsion and Cherokee Supreme Court Expels Freedmen.

Below:  "Descendants of slaves once owned by the Cherokee demonstrate against the ban."

Limbaugh cheers Freedmen expulsion

Rush Limbaugh Celebrates Native Americans For Refusing To Obey US Government

By Jon BershadThe story that caught Limbaugh’s eye is the battle between the Cherokee Nation and the US government over whether or not they have to allow the “freedmen” to vote in tribal matters. The freedment are black descendants of slaves the Cherokees owned centuries ago. Since being freed, they have remained living with the tribe. However, the tribe has recently decided that they can’t vote in elections of tribal leaders since they don’t have direct Cherokee ancestry. The government has told the tribe that, if the freedmen can’t vote, they will not recognize the election results as valid.

Yes, Native Americans and slave descendants. It certainly seems like the sort of story just waiting for Limbaugh to say something off-color about. However, today he was just too distracted by the Cherokee specifics. “They have their own Supreme Court?!” he marveled.

“So we have a whole little country here operating in America with their own rules,” Limbaugh summed up. “They need the largesse of the federal government but they don’t want to live with federal rules. I kind of like that.”Comment:  It goes without saying that Limbaugh is ignorant about tribal sovereignty and Indian law. I'm guessing he's surprised Indians still exist.

I'm confident he knows nothing about the Freedmen issue. In fact, I bet he's cheering the Cherokees for expelling the Freedmen because he doesn't like blacks.

"I'm glad someone isn't afraid to deal with America's welfare moochers and cheaters," he might've said. "While the liberal elites in the US government bow and scrape to the darkies, the savage Indians are willing to teach them a lesson."

For more on Limbaugh, see Limbaugh Lies About Thanksgiving and Limbaugh:  Indians = "Redskins," "Clowns." For more on the Freedmen, see US Threatens Cherokees Over Freedmen and Cherokee Supreme Court Expels Freedmen.

Cherokee Supreme Court expels Freedmen

Cherokee Tribe Kicks Out Slave Descendants

Court stands by native American tribe's decisionThousands of black slave descendants who had the rights of Cherokee tribe members have now been stripped of these rights.

Their rights, received because the native American tribe had owned their ancestors, were revoked on Monday (August 22) when the Cherokee Indian Supreme Court in the US upheld the tribe's decision to formally remove their membership.

The court sustained the 2007 regulation made by the Cherokee nation to kick the so-called 'Freedmen' out of the tribe, overruling a previous vote made after the Civil War, which allowed the Cherokees to admit nearly 3000 African American slave descendants to the tribe.

In the 1830s, the Cherokee nation, which was driven out of much of the east coast by land grabbing white settlers, headed south in what is known historically as The Trail of Tears. Many of the tribe brought their slaves with them on the commute.

The news comes several months after a district court gave equal tribal citizenship rights to descendants, reportedly allowing the "Freemen" to be eligible for free health care and education in the US, amongst other benefits.

Reacting to the ruling, Freedman leader and plaintiff, Marilyn Vann, told the Daily Mail : "This is racism and apartheid in the 21st Century."

A spokesperson for the Cherokee's has not yet responded to the ruling.This issue probably isn't over yet. Besides a federal lawsuit and an act of Congress, there are other potential challenges.

‘Preparing for the worst’

The Cherokee Nation is unsure whether Freedmen will sue to counter a ruling that strips their voting rights.

By Teddye SnellCouncilor Tina Glory-Jordan said she’s concerned that in the past, when the court disenfranchised Freedmen, the federal government triggered an automatic stoppage of housing funds.And:Cowan-Watts asked Stewart about the covenants the tribe holds with a number of banks, specifically the Bank of America, and asked what sort of impact the act could have on those covenants.Comment:  For more on the Cherokee Freedmen, see Court Grants Freedmen Citizenship and IndiVisible Responds to Freedmen Issue.

Court grants Freedmen citizenship

Freedmen granted tribal citizenship

By Gavin OffA Cherokee Nation district court judge granted tribal citizenship to about 2,800 non-Indian freedmen Friday.

Freedmen, who are typically African-Americans and descendants of Cherokee slaves, had been denied citizenship in a 2007 amendment to the Constitution of the Cherokee Nation.And:Diane Hammons, attorney general for the Cherokee Nation, said that the tribe is considering its options, including an appeal to the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court.

"We have received the district court decision with which we respectfully disagree," said Hammons in a press release.

"We believe that the Cherokee people can change our constitution, and that the Cherokee citizenry clearly and lawfully enunciated their intentions to do so in the 2007 amendment."

But being Cherokee isn't about being a certain ethnicity, said Marilyn Vann, a Cherokee freedman who has helped lead the fight for recognition. She said being Cherokee is about being a part of a government and added that slaves of white Americans were considered Americans after they were freed.

In addition to the roughly 2,800 freedmen who already have Cherokee membership, an estimated 25,000 more could apply, Vann said.And:Payton, a disabled U.S. Army veteran, said the fight to prevent freedmen citizenship was always about benefits and money.

"It's not red or brown," Payton said. "It's green."Comment:  For more on the subject, see IndiVisible Responds to Freedmen Issue and Investigate Tribes for "Oppression"?

IndiVisible responds to Freedmen issue

Maybe Your Great-Grandmother Really Was Cherokee

A new exhibit at the National Museum of the American Indian traces black-Native American relations from the 1500s to the present.

By Kenneth J. CooperOverall, African-Native American relations are cast in positive terms, a perspective that feels right. It’s certainly the view of most black folks, based on all those family stories, true or not. The Cherokees of today are out of step with the tolerant, humanist traditions of Native Americans who historically “adopted” people of other races and treated them as equals.

The exhibit traces the contacts between African Americans and Native Americans from the 1500s to the present, leading to the interracial unions that produced “Black Indians.” Some big-name people with that mixed heritage pop up: Crispus Attucks, Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Hurston, Jimi Hendrix and John Hope Franklin.

On a broader scale, so much mixing of red and black occurred that the bloodlines of some tribes became racially “indivisible.” They include the Lumbee of North Carolina, the casino-owning Mashantucket Pequot of Connecticut, the Mashpee Wampanoag of Massachusetts, the Seminole of Florida and then Oklahoma. “Most Native peoples on the Atlantic seaboard,” the curators conclude, “have African-American and white ancestry.”

A visitor gets a clear sense that the leaders of the National Museum of the American Indian, which collaborated with the Museum of African American History and Culture, wanted to put the conflict over the tribal rights of Cherokee Freedmen into a broader perspective.Comment:  For recent news on the Freedmen issue, see Glover Supports Freedmen, Cherokee PR or Propaganda, and Obama Opposes Punishing Cherokees. For more on the IndiVisible exhibit, see Preview of IndiVisible and IndiVisible at the NMAI.

Investigate tribes for "oppression"?

Dems call for DOJ probe of Indian tribesA civil rights controversy surrounding several Indian tribes could pit President Obama against some of Capitol Hill’s most prominent liberals and black lawmakers.

Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), John Lewis (D-Ga.) and others asked Attorney General Eric Holder in a letter dated last Thursday to initiate a “full-scale investigation” of five Indian tribes for allegedly abusing the rights of the Freedmen: African-Americans descended from freed slaves once owned by Indians.

Also signing onto the letter were other senior lawmakers from the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), including Reps. Diane Watson (D-Calif.), Shelia Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the caucus’s chairwoman.

“Over forty years after enactment of the landmark Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, there is a place in the United States that African Americans cannot vote or receive federal benefits as a matter of law,” the letter states. “The victims of this racial oppression are known as freedmen, who are descendants of African slaves owned by Indians. They are called freedmen, but they are anything but free.”

The call for an aggressive investigation of the tribes by Congress could force Obama to contradict a position he took on the campaign trail last year.

In the spring of 2008, the then-Illinois senator helped solidify his Native American support by arguing against Washington intervening in a dispute involving a group of Freedmen and the leaders of the Cherokee Nation. The Freedmen had been expelled from the tribe after it amended its constitution in March 2007.Comment:  The letter obscures the facts of the case. A more accurate statement would go something like this: "Many African Americans of Cherokee descent can no longer vote or receive benefits because they're no longer citizens of the Cherokee Nation."

The letter may or may not accurately state the motivation behind the facts--that it's based on racial "oppression." That remains to be determined.

Obama's position was that the courts should decide. That still seems to be the best remedy. Until then, I don't think a DOJ investigation is justified.

For more on Obama's position, see Obama Tackles Tough Issues and Obama Opposes Punishing Cherokees. For more on the underlying issues, see Cherokee PR or Propaganda and Blacks vs. Cherokees.

Glover supports Freedmen

Actor touts freedmen rights

He says black people and American Indians have a pivotal past.Actor Danny Glover on Friday called on the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma to allow freedmen descendants into the tribe with full citizenship rights.

Speaking at a forum hosted by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Glover said other tribes will take similar action if the Cherokee Nation succeeds in blocking freedmen descendants' tribal citizenship.

The issue is in court after a March 2007 vote by the Cherokee Nation to remove freedmen descendants from tribal rolls.

Glover described the relationship linking American Indians and black people as one of the most pivotal in the nation's evolution.

"I've always embraced that relationship," he said. "My own grandmother was part Choctaw."

He cited the history of black people who escaped their captors and found refuge among the Indian tribes, as well as the strategic help black people offered the Seminoles in their war against the tyranny of the colonies.

Both groups, Glover said, have seen genocide and exploitation.

"But I am disturbed by what I see," he said, calling on black people to serve as the moral compass on such issues as the freedmen descendants' quest to have full citizenship rights in the Cherokee Nation. "These are very important decisions that we have to make. They are moral decisions."Comment:  For more on the subject, see Cherokees Vote Freemen Out.

Cherokee PR or propaganda

Cherokee Nation rolls out new Web sitesThe Cherokee Nation is rolling out a public relations campaign this week in response to federal lawmakers who say the tribe should be denied benefits unless it recognizes descendants of the tribe’s former black slaves, known as freedmen.

But one freedmen rights activist accused the nation of resorting to “propaganda” to make its case.

The campaign includes two Web sites designed to address misconceptions about a 2007 special election where Cherokee voters decided to remove about 2,800 freedmen descendants and other non-Indians from tribal rolls, said Mike Miller, spokesman for the nation.

Obama opposes punishing Cherokees

Obama weighs in against CBC legislation on CherokeesCBC lawmakers have proposed a number of provisions this year that would cut off federal funding to the tribe because of its decision in March 2007 to remove the Freedmen—descendants of freed slaves once owned by tribe members—from Cherokee membership.

But Obama disagrees with those measures. In a statement to The Hill provided by his Senate office, the Illinois Democrat said that although he opposes unwarranted tribal disenrollment, Capitol Hill should not get involved.

“Discrimination anywhere is intolerable, but the Cherokee are dealing with this issue in both tribal and federal courts . . . I do not support efforts to undermine these legal processes and impose a congressional solution,” said Obama. “Tribes have a right to be self-governing and we need to respect that, even if we disagree, which I do in this case. We must have restraint in asserting federal power in such circumstances.”Comment:  Good to see the writer who implied Obama was guilty of double-talk was wrong.

For more on the Democratic nominee, see The 2008 Presidential Campaign.

Double-talk from Obama?

Indian Voters Send Obama and Black Caucus Message:  Get Off Our Back!Native Americans across the country are getting fed up with the double talk coming from presidential candidate Barack Obama saying he supports the sovereign status of tribal governments while supporting the Congressional Black Caucus on several bills that include terminating federal recognition of the Oklahoma Cherokee Nation.

The Native American Housing and Self Determination Act provides Federal assistance for Native American tribes while also recognizing their right to tribal self-governance. Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. This is where political double talk gets it's meaning. While campaigning, Obama tells Native Americans he supports their full sovereignty tribal nation rights while supporting the CBC blocking funding and calling for the termination of an Indian Nation.Comment:  Just because Obama is a member of the caucus doesn't mean he supports or even knows about their actions. I'm guessing he's a little preoccupied with running for president to think about the Cherokee right now.

For more on the subject, see The 2008 Presidential Campaign.

Blacks vs. Cherokees

CBC warns Reid on Cherokee fundsMembers of the Congressional Black Caucus have promised Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that they will try to block a Native American housing assistance bill if the measure does not include language that prevents the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma from receiving any of the benefits.

The House included such a prohibition in its Indian housing assistance bill passed in September. But the Senate version does not include similar language.

“We are writing to advise you that members of the CBC will not support, and will actively oppose, passage of a [Native American housing assistance] bill that does not include this limitation,” the CBC stated in a letter sent to Reid on March 13.

The dispute between the CBC and the Cherokee Nation arose last year after the tribe amended its constitution to exclude the Freedmen—a group of freed slaves who have been members since the Civil-War era—from tribal membership. Black lawmakers have charged the tribe is ignoring the Treaty of 1886, an agreement the Cherokees signed with the U.S. government that gave tribal citizenship to the Freedmen.

“We must send the unequivocal message to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma that failure to provide full citizenship rights to the Cherokee Freedmen will have severe consequences,” CBC members wrote Reid.

Cherokee vs. Cherokee vs. Cherokee vs. Cherokee

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 4/8/07:

What's in a name? A lot, Indians say

4 groups battle to be deemed authentic descendants of Georgia CherokeesThe four groups have battled for years, arguing they represent the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee recognized by the state General Assembly in 1993. The largely honorary designation allows members to sell "authentic" crafts but does not grant governmental powers.

For 14 years, various factions have wrangled to claim the legislatively blessed name.

Alliances form and then fall out. Sometimes they re-form. People question one another's Native American pedigrees, which draws howls of indignation and counterattacks. They have sued each other, threatened protests, slammed each other in print and insulted each other on the Internet.Comment:  I'll say it again: The accepted standard for being Indian is enrollment in a federally recognized tribe. This is the standard used by the 560-plus tribes themselves and tribal organizations such as Haskell University when they hire Indians.

Tribes that qualify for federal recognition have generally met a stringent set of criteria based on having a continuous history and culture. "Continuous" generally means since first contact with Euro-Americans, which is usually hundreds of years ago.

Needless to say, no Indian group formed in the last 100 years, or formed to build a casino, qualifies as a tribe. A tribe such as the Mashantucket Pequots must show a continuous history and culture since the 1600s--unless it qualifies through a special act of Congress.

For tribes recognized by a state government but not the federal government, and other alleged tribes, the burden of proof is tougher. If they can't prove something akin to a continuous history and culture, we have every reason to doubt their authenticity.

State-recognized tribes such as the Lumbee and Chickahominy are close to meeting the federal criteria for recognition, so I have no problem calling them tribes. The battling Cherokee groups in this article haven't proved anything yet, so I wouldn't call them anything except "tribes" (in quotation marks).

All clear? If anyone needs a primer in Indian History 101, just let me know.

Defining Cherokees racially

Cheyfitz:  The case of the Cherokee freedmenIn denying the charge of racism, Smith points to the racially diverse citizenry of the Cherokee Nation. Yet at the same time, he does not consider that defining a nation by its blood is certainly defining it racially and that to exclude individuals or a group of people from citizenship in that nation because they lack the necessary blood quantum (however that is determined) is to exclude them racially, an act that certainly can be construed as racist.

In denying Cherokee racism while endorsing the practice of it in tribal politics, Smith finds himself caught in a contradiction of the colonial politics of Indian country, which he does not care to examine. Intentionally or not, this carelessness allows him to have his race-cake and eat it too.

Dueling truths about the Freedmen

The truth about Cherokee citizenship vs. the real truth about Cherokee citizenship. Interesting stuff.

Reporting on the Freedmen vote

The Cherokee-Freedmen Story:  What the Media Saw• In general, the Cherokee-Freedmen story was reported as a classic clash between oppressor and victim. Missing were nuance, historical perspective, and a context within which to understand the contemporary significance of the story.

• Spokespeople on both sides of the issue had their say in the news reporting, and but opponents of the amendment (Freedmen president Marilyn Vann and attorney Jon Velie) generally were quoted before Cherokee officials (Principal Chief Chad Smith and spokesman Mike Miller).

• Both issues of racism and self-determination were discussed, but the racism theme figured more prominently (that is, sooner) in the story than the self-determination theme.

Freedmen play the race card?

Cherokee Nation Vote:  No Such Thing as a Black or White IndianDropping the Freedman group and Intermarried Whites as tribal members puts them on equal footing with millions of other American Indian descendants that have to prove their Indian heritage by blood and tribal roll number linkage. Something to think about: "What If Indian Nation leaders open up their tribal membership to anyone? If this happened it would change the political and economic structure of America. This action by Indian Nations would open up a Pandora's box the federal government never thought it would have to deal with again, after it's "for real holocaust" against American Indian Nations.

Today, some African Americans claiming Indian heritage are calling themselves Black Indians. There is no such thing as a Black American Indian or White American Indian! You're American Indian or you're not! If you're Black or White and have Indian heritage, that is all you can and should claim. It's an insult to the American Indian community for people of another race to claim their Indian heritage while doing so through their dominant race color.