Bureau of Indian Affairs Stumbling into a Cherokee Trap

This should be pretty interesting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44516027.../#.TnCthk_VRSc

Cherokee Nation is being 'forced' by the BIA to not eliminate the citizenship of 2800 or so ex-slaves who became citizens through an 1866 treaty.


I cannot wait until there is a Supreme Court ruling on this one...if they enforce the BIA's embargo of funds over this action, and say the Cherokee Nation has to abide by anyone else's rules over their sovereign rights...it opens the door for a comprehensive study of ALL treaties signed during that terrible period in Native American history.

I'm on the side of the indigenous. I'm hoping they get the whole COUNTRY back...LOL!


Cheers,
John

So John, you're siding with the Indians to allow the expulsion of 2800 people of color who receive health care and other benefits from being members of that tribe for 145 years?

As long as the Cherokee receive US Government funds [[which they do)... don't you think that the government has some say in how those funds are spent?

Also, I don't agree with your slippery slope argument on how ENFORCING one treaty will open the door for others.

First nation peoples do have certain rights that the US government cannot overrule.... however trampling on the rights of other American's is not one of them...

Sorry John... but I'm on the government's side. I remember the tribal politics with the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians [[the ones who own Greektown Casino)... and their attempt at removing some member merely because some tribal leaders didn't like the way they were voting on some tribal issues. That former leader of the tribe however was ousted by the tribe, without the need for government intervention.

But this time the tribe is stepping on the rights of those 2800 people of color... so sometimes government action is necessary to make sure that EVERYONE's rights are protected.

Maybe I missed something in the article but what was the motivation to revoke their citizenship? Was it simply racism? I don't understand what the Cherokee would hope to gain from the maneuver.

Wikipedia has an article about it: Cherokee freedmen controversy

gazhekwe, get over here and explain this! ;) LOL!

Perhaps you've got a small point, Gistok.

Grandfather in those who have the benefits now. Don't want to send anyone to the curb.

No further generations considered 'citizens' of the Nation, unless they can prove blood heritage.


It seems this is being done to keep voting rights amongst the ancestral Tribal members. There has been an issue of dilution of bloodlines over the centuries.

I'm all for all governmental monies being completely untied from manipulations like this...it smacks of elimination of states' rights within the republic, and seems to wield an unreasonable hand most of the time in the dealings between the BIA and the Native Nations. I feel as strongly that the BIA is well beyond its mandate, as are the other governmental agencies.


Still on the side of the Cherokee on this...with the grandfathering of benefits for those currently receiving anything.

Cheers,
John

The Cherokee Nation, as a sovereign tribe, signed a treaty in 1866 granting the freed slaves and their descendants tribal status in perpetuity. If Treaties are the Law of the land, these descendants cannot be expelled from the tribe. If you allow the tribe to renege on the treaty, where does that leave the rest of us with our treaty rights?

The sovereignty issue is specious here, because it is not at issue. The Cherokee tribe's sovereign power to enter into the treaty was not questioned. They do not have the power to unilaterally abrogate the treaty, or so we all fervently hope. If they could do so, then I suppose the US could renege on its treaties, including those with other countries, like the Treaty of Ghent, or the Jay Treaty, just to name a couple.

It has nothing to do with where the funds come from or the way any benefits to tribal members are funded. Of course, the money is at the bottom of the Tribe's decision. As funds dwindle across Indian country, many tribes are looking for ways to pare down the membership to maintain adequate benefits for those who remain.

I have also posted some info and references on this on the Paging Gazhekwe thread. Larry Echohawk's letter was very instructive, and indeed outlines a process by which such a maneuver could be handled. Of course, the Tribe disagrees with it.

Where did everybody go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

Where did everybody go?

---

Your answer was too good. It didn't leave anyone with anything to argue about.

Oh, well, thanks, Oladub. It's not like there are not a thousand questions that could come up on this. When you have too many dogs and not enough bones, you get fights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

Where did everybody go?

---

Hey, it's late on a weekday. One of us will bump this thread tomorrow.

Sincerest thanks for the insight, gazhekwe. ;)

This is making me wonder about the unanticipated social consequences of advances in DNA technology. It's already freed a lot of innocent convicts [[video:Conviction: The Incredible True Story of Betty Anne Waters) but it could also enable a lot of misguided racial purification too—and not just in this Cherokee story, but in a way that could affect any one of us.

We are all what we are and we all equally deserve justice. :D

Indians were not that concerned with "racial purity." That whole mess was a colonial invention. The whole blood quantum thing was structured by the US in dividing up the treaty payments and lands. It created the whole dogs and bones problem we are still suffering with today.

Thanks Gaz.... I'm done too.... :)

There was a new article this morning from a former tribal judge about the situation. I put the bulk of it into the Paging Gazhekwe thread. He is of the opinion that "of course tribes can abrogate a treaty." I don't happen to be so sanguine about that. It is a two way street and we sure don't want to start the traffic going the other way.

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...paign=fb-posts

Larry Echohawk's letter: http://64.38.12.138/News/2011/09/12/bia090911.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

Indians were not that concerned with "racial purity." That whole mess was a colonial invention. The whole blood quantum thing was structured by the US in dividing up the treaty payments and lands. It created the whole dogs and bones problem we are still suffering with today.

---

and I would bet MOST americans can't conceive that colonialistic problems still have sway in the 21st century

Maybe not. Those concepts were developed from the Middle Ages on, establishing a dominant race, and then the colonial efforts followed, and Divine Right, Manifest Destiny, and the concept of the Savage as subhuman. They were an Old World invention.

They are still teaching those race distinctions, unless things have changed very recently. We still use them daily. Descriptions of a black man, a white man, are very much based on race, not solely appearance. Without the race concept, we would use complexion and hair color, maybe, rather than Black, White, Indian. Those tend to be less than helpful because you don't get specific descriptions, and those terms lead to generalized stereotypical mental images.

Cherokee tribe reaches agreement to reinstate 2,800 Freedmen

By Molly O'Toole
WASHINGTON | Tue Sep 20, 2011 9:05pm EDT
[[Reuters) - The country's second-largest Indian tribe came to an agreement on Tuesday that could reinstate some 2,800 African Americans to the Cherokee Nation, just four days before an election for its principal chief.

The ousted group, known as the "Cherokee Freedmen," are descendants of slaves once owned by wealthy Indians.

"We've agreed to everything," Freedmen attorney Jonathan Velie said. "We've agreed upon an order between the Cherokee Freedmen, Cherokee Nation, the [[federal) government ... to essentially reinstate the citizens into the Cherokee Nation, so that they may vote equally with fellow Cherokee citizens."

The agreement was reached as a preliminary hearing was held in federal court in Washington, D.C. to decide whether the September 24 election for principal chief of the 300,000-member Cherokee tribe could proceed without Freedmen votes.

The hearing involved two cases regarding the controversy, in which the Freedman have brought suit against the Cherokee tribe and the federal government to guarantee their tribal rights, such as the right to vote and other benefits.

Amber Blaha, representing the U.S. government, seconded the agreement and told U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy the government only anticipated a few provisions.

Attorney General for the Cherokee Nation A. Diane Hammons said, "This basically returns to the status quo."

Kennedy required the agreement in writing by 10 a.m. Wednesday. Both parties were working together to hash out the wording and details.

The U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs had threatened to not recognize Saturday's election for principal chief of the 300,000 member Cherokee Tribe after the Cherokee Supreme Court ruled last month that the tribe had the right to change the constitution on citizenship. The Department of Housing and Urban Development also withheld $33 million in disbursement.

By the 1830s, most of the Cherokee tribe -- and many of these slaves -- were forced to move from the Eastern United States to present-day Oklahoma.

After the Civil War, in which the Cherokee fought for the South, the Cherokee and the government signed a treaty guaranteeing tribal citizenship for the freed slaves.
The U.S. government has argued that the 1866 treaty guaranteed the Freedmen tribal citizenship, regardless of Cherokee blood relation.

But last month's decision by the Cherokee Supreme Court to only recognize citizenship for those who could prove Cherokee blood relation meant many black members of the tribe were no longer considered citizens. This made them ineligible to receive benefits or vote in the coming tribal elections.

Acting Principal Chief Joe Crittenden has criticized what he called federal threats to the tribe's sovereignty.

Plaintiff Marilyn Vann, a leader of the Freedmen, was one of the number stripped of Cherokee citizenship and pursuing restoration of citizenship and voting rights, or to delay the vote for principal chief until resolution.

About 3,500 more slave descendants have citizenship applications pending with the tribe, according to an attorney who represented the Freedmen in a tribal lawsuit.
Tuesday's agreement, which will extend voting to October 8 to allow the Freedman to participate, marked an initial resolution to the long-standing tensions in the tribe.

"When I was sworn in as chief," Crittenden said in a statement Thursday night, "I swore to abide by the Cherokee Constitution and the U.S. Constitution."
[[Editing by Greg McCune)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...78K08D20110921

Ongoing news on this today is posted at Paging Gazhekwe thread.

Update posted under Paging Gazhekwe in Connections.