Why is the Cherokee Nation voting against descendants of the African descendant bloodline?

Question

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030201647.html?nav=rss_artsandliving

Answer 1

It's all about the money. They don't want to share the casino revenues with any more people than they have to.

Answer 2

Your question is "why" are they doing this? It's simple. To be a member of the Indian nation you're supposed to be Indian. Being the descendent of a slave of a Cherokee doesn't mean you have a drop of Indian blood. But after the Civil war, the US government TOLD the Indian nations that they HAD to register their former slaves as part of their nation...but not as part of the tribe. There is a little distinction there.

That being said it doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it. But that's the problem. No one can prove that they do or don't have a claim to Native American heritage. It's really not about who had the worse discrimination over the others. We can agree both Native Americans and African Americans were treated horribly for many centuries. But the tribes have a right to determine who meets the criteria of membership.

IMHO the real answer is DNA testing. Either the descendents of the freedmen have Native American blood in their heritage or they don't. If they don't, then they're not anymore eligible for membership in those tribes than I do. I've got a smidge of Huron in my heritage...one grandmother 5 generations ago. I don't qualify for membership in the tribe, either. There are minimums that you need to meet in many tribes in order to qualify for membership. 1/32nd is usually well below that minimum. But for some of the descendents of freedmen, they have NO native blood. They were descended from slaves and not from members of the tribe. You and I have to prove who our Native ancestors were, they only have to prove a native (nameless at that) once owned their ancestor. Does that make them Cherokee or Choctaw or Creek? On this one I agree with the tribes. No.

By the same token, we have the retired sheriff who can prove his heritage. I disagree with stripping him of tribal membership. He does have Cherokee blood in his veins every bit as much as the tribal chieftain. He speaks the language, lives the heritage and has a full claim to tribal membership.

In the end, it comes down to genetics and money. Someone will have to prove that the descendants of the freedmen have a legitimate claim. This isn't going to end any time soon. The more sovereignty the tribes are given, the more challenges we'll see to policies previously forced upon them. If the US government can break treaties, the tribal courts can reverse bad policies.

Answer 3

African descendants as you say for the most part are integrated into society. Many Native Americans still live on reservations and bare the scars of the past.

You can't tell me some 18 yr old gang banger listening to Snoop Dog on his iPod, driving around in his pimp mobile really feels any after effects of slavery... what happened to the "indians" far exceeds what happened to the blacks. All we hear about is how bad the blacks had it, but nothing is hardly ever said about the indians. Sure there's a chapter or two in American History books about the Trail of Tears, but no real detail about how the Europeans came over raped and beat the "savages" then stole their land from them, forcing them to live in reservations.

So why should African descendants be entitled to the same rights when they are already part of American society while the indians still sit outside of American culture and society?

African culture is far different than Native American culture... Africans were not here when many crimes against the Native Americans took place, so I see no reason why they should be entitled to Cherokee benefits etc.

I think it's rather sad that blacks would try to find some loophole to get rich off of Indian money and casinos.

Answer 4

I totally agree with Scott's answer. The person who said what happened to the native Americans is worse than what happened to the Cherokees obviously doesn't know that some of these people being disowned are descendants of slaves owned by the Cherokees. It would be a stretch to say that those slaves' lives under the Cherokee slave owners was better than that of their owners.
Bigots should research their facts before they start spouting off their unreasoned idiotic pronouncements. Hopefully this is not a forum for exuberating in one's bigotry.

Answer 5

i'm going to co-sign what Rosebudd suggested. maximum who look black understand that they are black, they're in simple terms making a cultural distinction because of the fact to declare your black here makes a cultural affiliation with African human beings/Black human beings. which isn't a bad ingredient because of the fact there are some similarities, however the variations are in simple terms as considerable. people who deny African background tend to be of blended race. In colonial Latin usa, being blended replace right into a get out of detention center loose card, and that attitude has carried over into contemporary. I do think of even nevertheless, that frequently it particularly is in simple terms undeniable lack of information, and not self-hatred. some human beings do exactly not understand their histories that properly.

Answer 6

I think it's partly because of money and partly because they only want true bloodlines. Being an African slave of a Cherokee does not make you a Cherokee. Plus, why should they have to open up their coffers to people who are not even Indian?

Answer 7

I think it is awful. To me, you can take all of the votes you want to, but your descendants are still your descendants and your ancestors are still your ancestors and no vote is going to change that.

To address the whole "who went through worse" crap. The slaves have died and the Indians who were pushed off their land have also died. The descendants of both affected groups have no idea what their ancestors went through or can fully understand their hardships. Every generation has had their cross to bear. Why can't we be the generation that puts the past in its respected place in history and move forward with our brothers and sisters of all creeds?

Answer 8

This is very horrible. Why, a minority would deny rights to a minority, the first minority promised in a contract to give perpetual kinship status, is cruel. Thank you for asking this question.

Answer 9

never knew any of this ! very interesting article .Cant answer your question but doubt very much it's anything got to do with scotts answer !