Cherokees eject slave descendants

[Voegelin]

BBC
March 4, 2007

Members of the Cherokee Nation of native Americans have voted to revoke tribal citizenship for descendants of black slaves the Cherokees once owned.

A total of 76.6% voted to amend the tribal constitution to limit citizenship to "blood" tribe members . . .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6416735.stm

_________________​

Identity politics in action . . .

 

[DLaurier]

Given the degree of intermarriage between the cherokee and negros... How exactly do they decide where one lineage ends and the next begins?
Maybe these resulting "mestiso" (spelling) need to stand up and demand fair recognition.

Rather like the metis had to do here.
.

 

[wanderingone]

Didn't another nation do this awhile back? Seminole? I'll have to search around the net.. I believe when another Indian nation decided to dump the descendants of african slaves the US stopped all federal aid (because you can't federally support any organization that supports racism) and wa-la suddenly African American descendants were suddenly Seminole again.

 

[wanderingone]

Didn't have to look too far

Tribal Slave Descendants Face Uncertainty

A similar situation occurred in 2000 when the Seminole Nation voted to cast freedmen descendants out of its tribe, said attorney Jon Velie of Norman, an expert on Indian law who has represented freedmen descendants in previous cases.
"The United States, when posed the same situation with the Seminoles, would not recognize the election and they ultimately cut off most federal programs to the Seminoles," Velie said. "They also determined the Seminoles, without this relationship with the government, were not authorized to conduct gaming."
Ultimately, the Seminole freedmen were allowed back into the tribe, Velie said.

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Given the degree of intermarriage between the cherokee and negros... How exactly do they decide where one lineage ends and the next begins?
Maybe these resulting "mestiso" (spelling) need to stand up and demand fair recognition.

Rather like the metis had to do here.
.

My understanding is that the Cherokee nation is saying the people whose memberships have been revoked are not the descendants of intermarriages, that they are desecendants of freed slaves owned by the Cherokees after the civil war. (and not having Cherokee blood in their ancestry) The Cherokee, as a part of a treaty in 1866 (since they fought for the confederacy in the Civil War) where told go give these "freedmen" membership in the tribe.

 

[wanderingone]

My understanding is that the Cherokee nation is saying the people whose memberships have been revoked are not the descendants of intermarriages, that they are desecendants of freed slaves owned by the Cherokees after the civil war. (and not having Cherokee blood in their ancestry) The Cherokee, as a part of a treaty in 1866 (since they fought for the confederacy in the Civil War) where told go give these "freedmen" membership in the tribe.

It also strips membership from "blacks" who married cherokees and children of "mixed race" families.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2007030...otecherokee;_ylt=AguNEhFPUCZ.lFZhlGxPDLRH2ocA

 

[Lynden1000]

Can't say I disagree here:

"Their voice is clear as to who should be citizens of the Cherokee Nation," Smith said. "No one else has the right to make that determination. It was a right of self-government, affirmed in 23 treaties with Great Britain and the United States and paid dearly with 4,000 lives on the Trail of Tears."

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

It also strips membership from "blacks" who married cherokees and children of "mixed race" families.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2007030...otecherokee;_ylt=AguNEhFPUCZ.lFZhlGxPDLRH2ocA

Well in that case those who are blood relatives should be allowed to have membership in the tribe no question.

However if there is no proof of blood relation then they shouldn't be allowed to remain in the tribe. There are those who have claimed membership who have admitted they are simply the descedant of "Freedmen" and NOT by blood. They cite the treaty of 1866 where the "freedmen" where given membership of the tribe because the Cherokee fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War. That measure was apart of the treaty.

Just for a comparison, I am part Creek. But to join the tribe I would have to prove and point out my ancestry. There is no reason that standard should not be applied to everyone wanting membership in a Native American tribe.