NationStates Jolt Archive

We know it's considered racist if a caucasian is biased about non-caucasians, but is it racist when one minority displays bias towards another minority?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/cherokees-pull-memberships-of-freed/20070304215409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

is it racist when one minority displays bias towards another minority?

Pretty much.

Well, yeah. I mean, stripping people of their tribal affiliation is pretty ridiculous given that they haven't provided a single compelling reason as to why they would do such a thing. They obviously felt that these descendants were members of the tribe in the past, and there's no reason why their opinions should change on the matter other than due to ethnocentrism or racism.

I would say the Cherokee nation did a racist act, but that's not the same as saying Cherokees are racist. There were Cherokees who voted against the act, after all, and it wouldn't be right to include them in a blanket condemnation.

Tis indeed, I believe.

I would say the Cherokee nation did a racist act, but that's not the same as saying Cherokees are racist. There were Cherokees who voted against the act, after all, and it wouldn't be right to include them in a blanket condemnation.

Thread over. Next!

I would say the Cherokee nation did a racist act, but that's not the same as saying Cherokees are racist. There were Cherokees who voted against the act, after all, and it wouldn't be right to include them in a blanket condemnation.

Correct. More accurately, the racists were the ones who supported this move and only them.

Of course, I find it amusing that the Cherokee leaders try to weasel their way out of their obvious racism by saying "the decision was democratic!" as if systematically stripping people of their tribal citizenship is okay as long as 51% of the people want it.

There is nothing in the definition of racism that implies Caucasians have to be the aggravation. To be racist, one must only discriminate against another race. It is racism even if a minority discriminates against a majority.

And as for the Cherokee: I think this move is motivated by more than racism. I think greed is an important stimulant as well.

Well, yeah. I mean, stripping people of their tribal affiliation is pretty ridiculous given that they haven't provided a single compelling reason as to why they would do such a thing. They obviously felt that these descendants were members of the tribe in the past, and there's no reason why their opinions should change on the matter other than due to ethnocentrism or racism.

Obviously, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. The FREEDMEN were slaves of the members of the tribe, not children of the Cherokees. The Cherokee Nation decided to grant membership to people who are a direct descendent of a Cherokee. In other words a blood relationship. The FREEDMEN have no blood relationship to the tribe.

Is today Stupid Questions Day?

According to the news, the Seminoles tried to pull this shit a while back and the government decided to play their little game - they stripped the Seminoles of all government granted freedoms, like the ability to conduct gaming. The Seminoles decided getting assloads of cash was the better decision.

Obviously, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. The FREEDMEN were slaves of the members of the tribe, not children of the Cherokees. The Cherokee Nation decided to grant membership to people who are a direct descendent of a Cherokee. In other words a blood relationship. The FREEDMEN have no blood relationship to the tribe.

Obviously, the Cherokees felt that the freedmen were members of the tribe when they originally granted them that status.

We know it's considered racist if a caucasian is biased about non-caucasians, but is it racist when one minority displays bias towards another minority?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/cherokees-pull-memberships-of-freed/20070304215409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Er...why wouldn't it be? Racism is racism. What is a minority in one country is a majority in another, so thusly one country's look at ethnicities has no bearing on the subject.

We know it's considered racist if a caucasian is biased about non-caucasians, but is it racist when one minority displays bias towards another minority?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/cherokees-pull-memberships-of-freed/20070304215409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

It isn't nice in this case, but every nation has the right to determine citizenship...the Cherokee are taking that right back.

How'd you feel if England decided who became a US citizen?

Yeah. Exactly.

Obviously, the Cherokees felt that the freedmen were members of the tribe when they originally granted them that status.

That wasn't their choice.

Er...why wouldn't it be? Racism is racism. What is a minority in one country is a majority in another, so thusly one country's look at ethnicities has no bearing on the subject.

Yay! So we can finally agree that limiting immigration to the US from Latin America is racism?

Finally, we're all on the same page.

Yay! So we can finally agree that limiting immigration to the US from Latin America is racism?

Finally, we're all on the same page.

Yeah, I generally feel that way. I'd prefer them to come legally for their own protection from unscrupulous employers, but the whole concept of the closed border is one that is starting to go out of date.

That wasn't their choice.

But was it the right thing to do? That's what matters more than anything.

But was it the right thing to do? That's what matters more than anything.

The "right thing to do" is to allow every nation decide who can and can not become a member of that nation.

It isn't nice in this case, but every nation has the right to determine citizenship...the Cherokee are taking that right back.


I have to agree with you there. If the US want to even pretend that it respects the aboriginal nations, it must allow them to have their own criteria for membership. The US shouldn't be allowed to withdraw money that is meant as reparations because it doesn't like a decision.


How'd you feel if England decided who became a US citizen?

The important distinction between the two examples being who lost and who won.

Cherokee is the correct plural. This is ridiculous and is part of the US-governments attempts to stamp on "minorities" and break up anything, even slightly like Communism.

Yay! So we can finally agree that limiting immigration to the US from Latin America is racism?

Finally, we're all on the same page.

I wasn't aware that we disagreed on that subject, Sinuhue. :confused:

Obviously, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. The FREEDMEN were slaves of the members of the tribe, not children of the Cherokees. The Cherokee Nation decided to grant membership to people who are a direct descendent of a Cherokee. In other words a blood relationship. The FREEDMEN have no blood relationship to the tribe.
You want to bet money on that? You know the old saying, momma's baby, daddy's maybe. I guarantee there was intermingling of the genetic material in a lot of those cases, but this wasn't done on the basis of genetic testing. It was done on the basis of a census done in the 1860s where the government person doing the census looked at the individual, decided whether the individual looked Cherokee or black, and marked him or her down as such. That's it. And if you're descended from the side that looked black, then you just got fucked by your tribespeople.

I agree with Celt. Whether we see it as racism or not is beside the point: they have national sovereignty and have every right to make the decision.
Even though they're kicking people out based on faulty data?

Cherokee is the correct plural. This is ridiculous and is part of the US-governments attempts to stamp on "minorities" and break up anything, even slightly like Communism.

What is?:confused: I wasn't aware that the US government had yet reacted to the Cherokee nations decision.

The "right thing to do" is to allow every nation decide who can and can not become a member of that nation.

I agree with Celt. Whether we see it as racism or not is beside the point: they have national sovereignty and have every right to make the decision.

You want to bet money on that?

If you can prove that you have "Cherokee blood" then you are a Cherokee no matter what other ancestry was in the “woodpile.” If you are the descendant of a Freedman and have no Cherokee blood then you are not a Cherokee. Simple.

Would you deny the Cherokee Nation the right to decide, by majority vote, who is and who is not a citizen of their nation?

Even though they're kicking people out based on faulty data?

Don't mistake this for acceptance, Nazz. I find what they've done absolutely dispicable and disgusting. Hell, I'm part Cherokee myself and would probably be considered a citizen of the Cherokee nation if I ever decided to see if I'd be accepted. It's just that this is a case of national sovereignty, and we don't have a right to tell them what to do. We can condemn it, yes, but not tell them to change it. Otherwise we're doing the same kind of thing that Bush did when he invaded Iraq, and we all know that was wrong.

Yay! So we can finally agree that limiting immigration to the US from Latin America is racism?

Finally, we're all on the same page.

Hmm there are a total of 10 million legal mexicans and 6 million other Central American people in the US. That is only the "legal" population. Double that and you would probably get the more realistic amount. I would say allowing 16 million legal and likely 12-20 illegal is not racism. In fact they make up by far the biggest group of non-US born citizens. Hardly a racist policy. Canada's latin American population is near 200k total non-Canadian born population. Who is limiting who here?

But was it the right thing to do? That's what matters more than anything.

If that's their choice, I'll support it.

I don't agree though.

I wasn't aware that we disagreed on that subject, Sinuhue. :confused:

You and I, and others here may not...but you know damn well there are NSers who are for shutting the borders completely.

Even though they're kicking people out based on faulty data?

It's also interesting...the Cherokee have the loosest possible blood quantum...they'll let pretty much ANYONE in. But not these people? Weird.

You and I, and others here may not...but you know damn well there are NSers who are for shutting the borders completely.

Well, yes, but I thought you were speaking of you and me in that post rather than a collective "We the People of NSG..." type of we.

I don't understand why people would be for closing the borders completely. It smacks of racism and a complete ignorance of what created this damned country in the first place.

I don't understand why people would be for closing the borders completely. It smacks of racism and a complete ignorance of what created this damned country in the first place.

It smacks of raping, pillaging, and the spread of disease?:D

i dont think its racist. if they arent doing it out of disgust at having black cherokees, its not really racist. if there were white decendants of slaves they would be kicked out too, i suppose

it does seem very wrong though. 140 years is a long time to be accepted only to be suddenly cut off. they are excommunicating their neighbors. it seems like there must be something more to the story that anyone should do something so mean.

Yeah, I've met every goddamn Cherokee and they're all goddamn racists.





Or not.

I would say the Cherokee nation did a racist act, but that's not the same as saying Cherokees are racist. There were Cherokees who voted against the act, after all, and it wouldn't be right to include them in a blanket condemnation.

Truth.

It smacks of raping, pillaging, and the spread of disease?:D

...smartass. :p I was referring to immigration.

...smartass. :p I was referring to immigration.

Heh, but I couldn't just let that one go, could I?

Heh, but I couldn't just let that one go, could I?

Of course not. Were our positions reversed I'd have leapt on that opening with all of the grace of a falling baboon.

If you can prove that you have "Cherokee blood" then you are a Cherokee no matter what other ancestry was in the “woodpile.” If you are the descendant of a Freedman and have no Cherokee blood then you are not a Cherokee. Simple.

but it has to be in a high enough percentage to get all the really cool benefits. ;)

that being said.....I haven't researched this enough, but as a tribe I haven't found them to do things like this for no reason.... I am sure Celtlund is right.

If you can prove that you have "Cherokee blood" then you are a Cherokee no matter what other ancestry was in the “woodpile.” If you are the descendant of a Freedman and have no Cherokee blood then you are not a Cherokee. Simple.

Would you deny the Cherokee Nation the right to decide, by majority vote, who is and who is not a citizen of their nation?

I read the original article on this--being able to prove your ancestry is linked absolutely to that census, called the Dawes census I believe. That's how you prove your ancestry. There's no DNA testing or anything else involved. You have to be able to trace back to that census, or you're screwed. In short, they're tossing people if they don't have the right papers.

And none of my comments thus far have dealt with the rights of the Cherokee to do what they wish as regards their nation---only with the crappy way they're going about it. The tribal policy is racist, plain and simple, and it's ignorant racism at that.

It isn't nice in this case, but every nation has the right to determine citizenship...the Cherokee are taking that right back.


So I assume that if the US decided to revoke citizenship of the descendants of it's former slaves that you would think they are acting perfectly within their rights?

We know it's considered racist if a caucasian is biased about non-caucasians, but is it racist when one minority displays bias towards another minority?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/cherokees-pull-memberships-of-freed/20070304215409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Minorities displaying bias towards (I believe you actually mean against, here) another minority are only racist if 'race' is the reason for the bias.

But, it's irrelevent. The Cherokee nation accepted freedmen as tribal members because of Treaty negotiation. Other things Native Americans have 'accepted' due to treaty negotiation include the theft of their land, just as a starter example...

If the Cherokee now decides they don't want to continue calling ALL freedmen citizens of their nation, I'm not sure that counts as racist.

So I assume that if the US decided to revoke citizenship of the descendants of it's former slaves that you would think they are acting perfectly within their rights?

Wouldn't that, at least partially, depend on WHY the US granted the status in the first place?

(Thinking about it - also - if you are born to an American citizen, you are (legally) an American citizen, pretty much... does the same thing apply to these 'treaty citizenships' of the Cherokee? Or, have they continued honouring a treaty that was actually specific to the freedmen.... not necessarily their offspring?)

Wouldn't that, at least partially, depend on WHY the US granted the status in the first place?
They did not grant the vote because the black population asked nicely - it was (sadly) something that the black population had to DEMAND from the white population. So there was some cohersion there too - which I support in that case.

And in the south they were only really legally recognised as human as a result of a war that imposed that value upon the southern states.


(Thinking about it - also - if you are born to an American citizen, you are (legally) an American citizen, pretty much... does the same thing apply to these 'treaty citizenships' of the Cherokee? Or, have they continued honouring a treaty that was actually specific to the freedmen.... not necessarily their offspring?)
The article seemed to say the freedmen and their descendants which - unless you take a really funky intepretation - would mean anyone born down the bloodline of the freedmen.

The Cherokee are revoking the 'Cherokeeness' of descendants of slaves that they kept?

Wouldn't the exact same situation for the US by the Americans revoking the "Americaness" of slaves that they kept?

So yeah, this is a racist act, but as was pointed out, it's a racist act by the nation and everyone who voted yes for it.

The Cherokee are revoking the 'Cherokeeness' of descendants of slaves that they kept?

Wouldn't the exact same situation for the US by the Americans revoking the "Americaness" of slaves that they kept?

So yeah, this is a racist act, but as was pointed out, it's a racist act by the nation and everyone who voted yes for it.

I'm confused. Is the reference to a Cherokee "nation" used in a similar sense to the commonly accepted meaning of the word (implying citizenry, sovereignty and self-determination), ethnic identity/genealogy, or a conflation of the two?

We know it's considered racist if a caucasian is biased about non-caucasians, but is it racist when one minority displays bias towards another minority?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/cherokees-pull-memberships-of-freed/20070304215409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

I think that's nonsense. They're not displaying bias towards another race, they're saying that it is another race.

That's not to say that I don't think it's fucked up what the Cherokee are doing. It is. But it's no more racist that a redneck beating his wife. Personally, I think that it's more to do with trying to concentrate tribal resources. The tribe gets Federal money, and wants to spread it out over as few people as possible. I guarantee that if all the money the tribe received was based on how many Cherokee there were they'd have a website with a link that said "click here and sign up to become an official Cherokee. Make Big Wampum."

The Cherokee are revoking the 'Cherokeeness' of descendants of slaves that they kept?

Wouldn't the exact same situation for the US by the Americans revoking the "Americaness" of slaves that they kept?

So yeah, this is a racist act, but as was pointed out, it's a racist act by the nation and everyone who voted yes for it.

But these people only became Cherokee because they United States forced them to. The Seminoles only relented because the US blackmailed them to.

Personally, I think that the ousted former Cherokees should form their own group and the US government should take an amount of money proportionate to the membership of the tribe that has been reduced and give it to the new group.

But these people only became Cherokee because the United States forced them to. The Seminoles only relented because the US blackmailed them to.
And Black people were only really recognised as human in the south once the north forced them to.
Black people only got the vote once they coherced the white people to give it to them.

The issue has a lot of parallels.

Personally, I think that the ousted former Cherokees should form their own group and the US government should take an amount of money proportionate to the membership of the tribe that has been reduced and give it to the new group.
I'd support that.

And in the south they were only really legally recognised as human as a result of a war that imposed that value upon the southern states.

You mean in the states that told the Union to shove it. There were Union slave states.

But these people only became Cherokee because they United States forced them to.
Still the exact same thing. If America revoked the citizenship of the descendants of slaves, people would be starting riots (if they wern't rioting over bullshit already). The Cherokees can't pull this kind of shit because they are Native Americans, if they want to, they can deal with the US government pulling the benefits that make them exempt from a number of laws.

Still the exact same thing. If America revoked the citizenship of the descendants of slaves, people would be starting riots (if they wern't rioting over bullshit already).
Agreed. I'm pretty sure if the US tried to revoke citizenship rights of Black people that all the "They have the right to decide who are their citizens" people would be a lot less sympathetic, and (justified) cries of racism would be pretty much all we would hear.

So I assume that if the US decided to revoke citizenship of the descendants of it's former slaves that you would think they are acting perfectly within their rights?

Yeah, unfortunately.

Violating human rights, yes.

Despicable, yes.

Within their self-given rights? Yes :(

If the Cherokee now decides they don't want to continue calling ALL freedmen citizens of their nation, I'm not sure that counts as racist.

This is the thing...for example in Canada, we had a situation where a native man marrying a non-native woman passed on his status to the wife and children. A native woman marrying a non-native man LOST her status and couldn't pass it on to her kids. Families were kicked off the Reserves, because the Federal government required that only status Indians live there. This happened for decades. Families grew apart because of this policy.

Then, Bill C-31 was passed, re-instating status...and suddenly families long split from the band wanted to move back. The Federal government gave the bands the choice to take them back or not...with the caveat that funding (based on population) would NOT be extended to these 'newcomers'.

What a fantastic way to create horrible division. Take these people back, and share limited resources and stretch them even further. Or don't take them, and seem like biased shit-heads. Hard choices.

The power to determine status was stripped from aboriginal peoples in the US and Canada. Now, we have power over membership, but generally still not status. Frankly, we should have power over BOTH.

Frankly, the only decent argument here has been Nazz's. The presumption is, these freedmen are NOT Cherokee by blood. But that's probably not entirely true.

I just have to question that because frankly...I've never met an Indian who doesn't know their family line down to the freakin' eight generation at least. I bet you there are ties that the community is WELL aware of apart from that census.

Frankly, the only decent argument here has been Nazz's. The presumption is, these freedmen are NOT Cherokee by blood. But that's probably not entirely true.

I just have to question that because frankly...I've never met an Indian who doesn't know their family line down to the freakin' eight generation at least. I bet you there are ties that the community is WELL aware of apart from that census.

I appreciate that, and it seems to me that in this age of ever more inexpensive DNA testing, there's a simple way to discover which tribespeople are members and which aren't. Get your swabs out and send them in, right? And since they'd be dealing with a very small sampling (relative to the general population), it would be a very clear test. Of course, you open yourself up to the possibility that some of those people screeching the loudest about being pure blooded really aren't because mom or grandma slipped one over on dad or granddad and the story never got out. Amazing what we will do to maintain our illusions sometimes, isn't it?

I appreciate that, and it seems to me that in this age of ever more inexpensive DNA testing, there's a simple way to discover which tribespeople are members and which aren't. Get your swabs out and send them in, right? And since they'd be dealing with a very small sampling (relative to the general population), it would be a very clear test. Of course, you open yourself up to the possibility that some of those people screeching the loudest about being pure blooded really aren't because mom or grandma slipped one over on dad or granddad and the story never got out. Amazing what we will do to maintain our illusions sometimes, isn't it?
The thing is, as I said, most Cherokee do not have a tradition of blood quantum as strong as other tribes. In some cases in Canada (were it their choice), you would not be a member of the tribe even if both your parents were native...if it happened that your mother was from another tribe. That's how their membership is, matrilineal, and very strict.

Some of the Cherokee have given membership to people with the most incredibly minuscule blood quantum...the lowest 'blood' standards of any tribe out there.

So to say this is about blood now, is very confusing.

Edit: But this tribe is specificly referring back to the rolls...not necessarily to blood. And to be honest, I'm reserving (hahha) judgment on this, because native issues are almost always mischaracterised by the media. I'm going to ask around the moccasin telegraph to get my info.

So to say this is about blood now, is very confusing.
That's because at essence, it's not about blood. It's about money.

I just have to question that because frankly...I've never met an Indian who doesn't know their family line down to the freakin' eight generation at least. I bet you there are ties that the community is WELL aware of apart from that census.
Because if you can't trace back your lineage and prove it hardcore, you won't be accepted in the tribe because they don't want to share their benefits or money.

Because if you can't trace back your lineage and prove it hardcore, you won't be accepted in the tribe because they don't want to share their benefits or money.

Well consider this.

A freedman has Cherokee ancestry.

Could someone related to that person also have Cherokee ancestry?

What I mean is...all the black people with that ancestor...could they claim Cherokee lineage?

I think this band is trying to close the rolls so that this sort of thing DOESN'T happen...as suddenly everyone wants to discover their 'indian heritage'.

How is this racist? The descendants deserve no retribution, the original slaves did. They're all dead now.

I'm confused. Is the reference to a Cherokee "nation" used in a similar sense to the commonly accepted meaning of the word (implying citizenry, sovereignty and self-determination), ethnic identity/genealogy, or a conflation of the two?

You confused me :( people were talking about the Cherokee "nation" before I did, and I am well-aware that there isn't some part of the US which is all of a sudden "zomg, we're not in the US anymore! internationalolz ftw!"

How is this racist? The descendants deserve no retribution, the original slaves did. They're all dead now.

It reeks of greed. Not only that, but consider this:

If the Cherokee can withdraw priviliges from a group of people (the freedmen) that were part of them, then the US can withdraw priviliges from a group of people (the Cherokee) that were part of them.

Well consider this.

A freedman has Cherokee ancestry.

Could someone related to that person also have Cherokee ancestry?

What I mean is...all the black people with that ancestor...could they claim Cherokee lineage?

I think this band is trying to close the rolls so that this sort of thing DOESN'T happen...as suddenly everyone wants to discover their 'indian heritage'.

that seemed to be a big part of it when i looked at articles on the vote. they became worried that non-cherokees would start to claim cherokee status due to being closely related to freemen.

while a tribe is usually OK with off rez members coming back into the fold even if they havent been raised with tribal traditions of any kind, i can see why they wouldnt be as welcoming of people who have no native ancestry doing the same.

it still bothers me that it puts reservation living freemen descendants decertified. people who have been part of the community and have lived on the reservation their whole lives are now going to have to scramble to make new arrangements for their lives. this part is so wrong that i wonder if there isnt some undercurrent of bad feelings against people who have kept to their own (black) kind and not intermarried with the rest of the tribe (which would give them the blood line to keep their status). perhaps the cherokee supreme court will make a ruling that allows current black cherokees their status and only deny it to those who are born from now on.

It reeks of greed. Not only that, but consider this:

If the Cherokee can withdraw priviliges from a group of people (the freedmen) that were part of them, then the US can withdraw priviliges from a group of people (the Cherokee) that were part of them.

the cherokees made an ammendment to their own constitution to have this happen. it was passed by a large majority vote. it has no bearing whatsoever on the rules of the US government and citizenship of the US.

it still bothers me that it puts reservation living freemen descendants decertified. people who have been part of the community and have lived on the reservation their whole lives are now going to have to scramble to make new arrangements for their lives. this part is so wrong that i wonder if there isnt some undercurrent of bad feelings against people who have kept to their own (black) kind and not intermarried with the rest of the tribe (which would give them the blood line to keep their status). Yup, this could have a lot to do with it.

the cherokees made an ammendment to their own constitution to have this happen. it was passed by a large majority vote. it has no bearing whatsoever on the rules of the US government and citizenship of the US.

Similarly, they cannot complain if the US then decide to remove priviliges that they give to the Cherokee, as the US has done before in similar situations.

Similarly, they cannot complain if the US then decide to remove priviliges that they give to the Cherokee, as the US has done before in similar situations.

it wouldnt be the first time the cherokee have been treated unfairly by the US government.

if the US attny general decides to interfere with this, the cherokee can take it to the US court for a ruling. if it goes against them, they can decide which is more important to them.

it wouldnt be the first time the cherokee have been treated unfairly by the US government.

I would find it quite fair, as the Cherokee are being equally unfair to people who are descendants of people who were considered Cherokee all their lives.

I know about the whole thing with "an eye for an eye" But really, whether or not it will make the world go blind, it is very fair in this case. Obviously, the Cherokee believe their own former members can handle themselves perfectly well, so wouldn't it be right to assume that the Cherokee can all handle themselves perfectly well? Why then, should they continue getting priviliges?

Well I am...like...1/8 cherokee, and I'm not racist, so I'd say no, Cherokees are not racist as a whole. :)

Similarly, they cannot complain if the US then decide to remove priviliges that they give to the Cherokee, as the US has done before in similar situations.

as i understand it from my reading up on the vote, the freemen's cherokee status comes from the disposition of former slaves at the end of the US civil war. at that time congress passed a law mandating that former slaves are citizens of the state they lived in. they subsequently passed the 14th ammendment to make sure that the law couldnt be subverted later.

the cherokees had owned slaves. some of their slaves went with them on the trail of tears walk to indian territory. they were forced by the US government to accept these newly freed people as part of the tribe by treaty in 1866 (the cherokee had fought on the confederate side). the descendants of former slaves have lived as cherokees ever since.

so it very well could be that if the freemen cherokees sue in US court, the tribe will be forced to honor that treaty.

This is the thing...for example in Canada, we had a situation where a native man marrying a non-native woman passed on his status to the wife and children. A native woman marrying a non-native man LOST her status and couldn't pass it on to her kids. Families were kicked off the Reserves, because the Federal government required that only status Indians live there. This happened for decades. Families grew apart because of this policy.

Then, Bill C-31 was passed, re-instating status...and suddenly families long split from the band wanted to move back. The Federal government gave the bands the choice to take them back or not...with the caveat that funding (based on population) would NOT be extended to these 'newcomers'.

What a fantastic way to create horrible division. Take these people back, and share limited resources and stretch them even further. Or don't take them, and seem like biased shit-heads. Hard choices.

The power to determine status was stripped from aboriginal peoples in the US and Canada. Now, we have power over membership, but generally still not status. Frankly, we should have power over BOTH.

My wife is actually Cherokee. I have some idea how badly the natives have been screwed by 'the colonies'.

Similarly, they cannot complain if the US then decide to remove priviliges that they give to the Cherokee, as the US has done before in similar situations.

Manifest Destiny was a pretty good attempt at genocide. What is left of the native population of this landmass survives only through amazing tenacity, quick talking, paying a ransom of everything that made their existence theirs... or some of each.

One could argue that the only reason the 'US govenment' even HAS 'priviliges' to 'give' to the Cherokee, is because they stole those 'priviliges' in the first place.

Well consider this.

A freedman has Cherokee ancestry.

Could someone related to that person also have Cherokee ancestry?

What I mean is...all the black people with that ancestor...could they claim Cherokee lineage?

I think this band is trying to close the rolls so that this sort of thing DOESN'T happen...as suddenly everyone wants to discover their 'indian heritage'.
Are you paying attention? You have to prove your lineage to an absurd amount, that would obviously include freedmen. And they are not denying applications, they are kicking people out of the tribe. They are welcome to do it, then the US government is welcome to pull the Cherokee nation's legal exemptions.

If you can prove that you have "Cherokee blood" then you are a Cherokee no matter what other ancestry was in the “woodpile.” If you are the descendant of a Freedman and have no Cherokee blood then you are not a Cherokee. Simple.

Would you deny the Cherokee Nation the right to decide, by majority vote, who is and who is not a citizen of their nation?

Would you support it if the US suddenly revoked citizenship to black people and shipped them back to Africa?

This isn't really that different. The Cherokees owned the slaves. The slaves were considered a part of their nation. Now people, feeling they are adequately seperated from the slavery and slaves, deciding to revoke their citizenship and take back whatever rights they have in the Cherokee nation. How is that different from me and my friends voting to have black people removed from the US. I didn't own slaves. What do I owe them?

You confused me :( people were talking about the Cherokee "nation" before I did, and I am well-aware that there isn't some part of the US which is all of a sudden "zomg, we're not in the US anymore! internationalolz ftw!"

Sorry, I wasn't really expecting you personally to answer, it was a question for all thread participants ;)

Are you paying attention? You have to prove your lineage to an absurd amount, that would obviously include freedmen. And they are not denying applications, they are kicking people out of the tribe.

But, the people they are 'kicking out of the tribe' are people that they had to accept into the tribe under duress from an invading power.

These the same cherokee that scalped people?

Are supermagicomeganonwhitepoorlittleindians capable of racism? Of course.

But, the people they are 'kicking out of the tribe' are people that they had to accept into the tribe under duress from an invading power.

Yes. An argument often heard in the south. Again, would it be racist if the south suddenly kicked out black people?

If that's their choice, I'll support it.

I don't agree though.

Would you equally support it if a majority of Canadians decided to deny Canadian citizen to anyone who didn't share a specific bloodline, even if they had been born and raised as a Canadian citizen?

Would you equally support it if the US suddenly decided to deny citizenship to anyone who didn't share provable British descent? Or to deny citizenship to anyone who couldn't trace their bloodlines back to the original 13 colonies?

Are you paying attention? You have to prove your lineage to an absurd amount, that would obviously include freedmen. And they are not denying applications, they are kicking people out of the tribe. They are welcome to do it, then the US government is welcome to pull the Cherokee nation's legal exemptions.

Where is the legal recourse for the US government to 'pull the Cherokee nation's legal exemptions'? The Cherokee don't have a right to determine their own membership? We might not like their decision, but I believe it is their decision, and in no way justifies the removal of 'legal exemptions' or whatever it is you're getting at.


To the OP; naturally racism can be inherent in any group or culture. In my view, racism is simply mistreatment of people based on race. The question I guess, is whether or not the Cherokee nation's act was a 'racist' one.

The problem I find with membership or citizenship based on bloodline is that it can't help but tie race into the equation. Not necessarily in a bad way, but membership excludes the possiblity (in most cases) of someone not 'of the blood' of ever being a member of said society. It naturally leads itself into ethnic nationalism. Not that civic nationalism is inherently better, but it lends itself less to racist decision-making than ethnic nationalism.

I don't know if this decision is more about band funds or about ethnicity. It really seems to be about ethnicity. Their decision (which, let's face it, like it or not, is their decision) to omit freedmen seems to be about defining what it means to be Cherokee. Is it because the freedmen are obviously not aboriginals, and therefore can't be a part of the culture? Or is it because the descendants of freedmen are removed from the culture so shouldn't benefit from membership of the culture? If that's the case, could a full-blooded aboriginal who's abandoned traditional beliefs and lifestyle live off-reservation and continue to gain the priveleges? I think they would. (Admittedly, I may have no clue what I'm talking about...)

So in my mind this is about race. And since people will be losing what amounts to citizenship of the Cherokee tribe for the unfortunate fact of being descended from freedman, rather than aboriginals, leads me to believe this is a racist act.

Perhaps a less damaging decision in an attempt for the Cherokee to preserve their culture and heritage would be to simply make the band membership non-inheritable to freedman, i.e. those who currently benefit from it. At least that way, no one currently living will suffer from this decision.

it still bothers me that it puts reservation living freemen descendants decertified. people who have been part of the community and have lived on the reservation their whole lives are now going to have to scramble to make new arrangements for their lives. this part is so wrong that i wonder if there isnt some undercurrent of bad feelings against people who have kept to their own (black) kind and not intermarried with the rest of the tribe (which would give them the blood line to keep their status). perhaps the cherokee supreme court will make a ruling that allows current black cherokees their status and only deny it to those who are born from now on.

One would also have to wonder if it wasn't so much that they "kept to their own kind," as they were expected to do so. Native Americans have certainly been mistreated in the past because of their heritage, but that doesn't make them exempt from human failings. Just as black citizens were expected to "keep to their own kind" in much of the US, it is very possible that they were equally expected to do so within tribal society. Sounds like this passed by a pretty huge margin, so I doubt it was really just a matter of choice on the part of the freedmen.

Where is the legal recourse for the US government to 'pull the Cherokee nation's legal exemptions'? The Cherokee don't have a right to determine their own membership? We might not like their decision, but I believe it is their decision, and in no way justifies the removal of 'legal exemptions' or whatever it is you're getting at.

Why do you think the Cherokee people should have self-determination, but the citizens of the US should not? It is not unusual for one government to deny privileges, trade, monetary support, etc. to another over a disagreement in policy.

So in my mind this is about race. And since people will be losing what amounts to citizenship of the Cherokee tribe for the unfortunate fact of being descended from freedman, rather than aboriginals, leads me to believe this is a racist act.

Indeed.

Perhaps a less damaging decision in an attempt for the Cherokee to preserve their culture and heritage would be to simply make the band membership non-inheritable to freedman, i.e. those who currently benefit from it. At least that way, no one currently living will suffer from this decision.

The same statement would be made, although you are right that it might be less economically damaging for those living. To suggest that no one currently living would suffer from it, on the other hand, seems a bit naive. 140 years (is that right?) is a pretty long time. We're talking about people who have lived as part of the Cherokee culture for generations - regardless of their skin tone or how their ancestors became part of the tribe. Telling them that their children cannot be a part of the tribe will be no less damaging to them than it would be to a full-blooded Cherokee.

Obviously, the Cherokees felt that the freedmen were members of the tribe when they originally granted them that status.

Well, reading the article, that was due to a treaty with the US in the 1800's. They may very well have been forced to adopt them into the tribe, which could be a compelling argument as to why they are now casting them out for cultural reasons.

However, not knowing the specifics of said treaty, and the reasons for it, I am not going to advocate that particular argument.

Also, it should be pointed out, that they aren't going to stop the services completely. They are going to slowly reduce them, so as not to absolutely remove people from necessary services right away-give them a chance to adapt to it, so to speak.

Not saying I necessarily agree with the decision, just trying to point out the other side of the issue in this case.

it was equally scandalous but in the end its their own decision, not ours.

Indeed, but we can certainly have opinions about it. And, through our own government, if we choose, take certain actions.

if the cherokee are to ensure the "purity" of their bloodlines, its not unreasonable to try to exclude those who arent cherokees.

What an utterly disgusting goal.

it is, as we both have pointed out, unfair to those who have lived as cherokees their whole lives to suddenly kick them out for an accident of birth.

Indeed.

Edit: ZOMG, time warp!

Where is the legal recourse for the US government to 'pull the Cherokee nation's legal exemptions'? The Cherokee don't have a right to determine their own membership? We might not like their decision, but I believe it is their decision, and in no way justifies the removal of 'legal exemptions' or whatever it is you're getting at.


To the OP; naturally racism can be inherent in any group or culture. In my view, racism is simply mistreatment of people based on race. The question I guess, is whether or not the Cherokee nation's act was a 'racist' one.

The problem I find with membership or citizenship based on bloodline is that it can't help but tie race into the equation. Not necessarily in a bad way, but membership excludes the possiblity (in most cases) of someone not 'of the blood' of ever being a member of said society. It naturally leads itself into ethnic nationalism. Not that civic nationalism is inherently better, but it lends itself less to racist decision-making than ethnic nationalism.

I don't know if this decision is more about band funds or about ethnicity. It really seems to be about ethnicity. Their decision (which, let's face it, like it or not, is their decision) to omit freedmen seems to be about defining what it means to be Cherokee. Is it because the freedmen are obviously not aboriginals, and therefore can't be a part of the culture? Or is it because the descendants of freedmen are removed from the culture so shouldn't benefit from membership of the culture? If that's the case, could a full-blooded aboriginal who's abandoned traditional beliefs and lifestyle live off-reservation and continue to gain the priveleges? I think they would. (Admittedly, I may have no clue what I'm talking about...)

So in my mind this is about race. And since people will be losing what amounts to citizenship of the Cherokee tribe for the unfortunate fact of being descended from freedman, rather than aboriginals, leads me to believe this is a racist act.

Perhaps a less damaging decision in an attempt for the Cherokee to preserve their culture and heritage would be to simply make the band membership non-inheritable to freedman, i.e. those who currently benefit from it. At least that way, no one currently living will suffer from this decision.

well it is obviously about "race". to whatever extent cherokee is a race and black is a race. its not like a navajo would be given citizenship in the cherokee nation because they are native americans eh? the freemen descendants arent being kicked out because they are black but because they arent cherokee. if whites had somehow received citizenship in the cherokee nation they might equally be removed. the isleta pueblo purged its own roles in the past few years removing some people who had lived there and participated in the community all their lives. it was equally scandalous but in the end its their own decision, not ours.

if the cherokee are to ensure the "purity" of their bloodlines, its not unreasonable to try to exclude those who arent cherokees. it is, as we both have pointed out, unfair to those who have lived as cherokees their whole lives to suddenly kick them out for an accident of birth.

Well consider this.

A freedman has Cherokee ancestry.

Could someone related to that person also have Cherokee ancestry?

What I mean is...all the black people with that ancestor...could they claim Cherokee lineage?

I think this band is trying to close the rolls so that this sort of thing DOESN'T happen...as suddenly everyone wants to discover their 'indian heritage'.

Well, most tribes use a system of how much "tribal blood" you have determines if you are in the tribe or not. For instance, if you have 1/8 Cherokee, you are considered Cherokee, however anything lower is not. Of course, I don't know the exact numbers that the Cherokee use(or even if they do this or not), but this is just an example.

Why do you think the Cherokee people should have self-determination, but the citizens of the US should not? It is not unusual for one government to deny privileges, trade, monetary support, etc. to another over a disagreement in policy. .

Maybe I'm missing something? How are the citizens of the US losing self-determination? Maybe I just wasn't sure what TPH meant by 'legal exemptions'. There's a difference between what the Cherokee have by law, and 'priveleges, trade, and monetary support'.

The same statement would be made, although you are right that it might be less economically damaging for those living. To suggest that no one currently living would suffer from it, on the other hand, seems a bit naive. 140 years (is that right?) is a pretty long time. We're talking about people who have lived as part of the Cherokee culture for generations - regardless of their skin tone or how their ancestors became part of the tribe. Telling them that their children cannot be a part of the tribe will be no less damaging to them than it would be to a full-blooded Cherokee.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's crappy all around. But the right for the Cherokee to determine what comprises membership should take priority, even if we aren't particularly fussy about that decision.

Perhaps legal challenges will change this decision in the long run.

Would you equally support it if a majority of Canadians decided to deny Canadian citizen to anyone who didn't share a specific bloodline, even if they had been born and raised as a Canadian citizen?

Would you equally support it if the US suddenly decided to deny citizenship to anyone who didn't share provable British descent? Or to deny citizenship to anyone who couldn't trace their bloodlines back to the original 13 colonies?

Short answer: I would.

Any sovereign country has a right to determine their citizenship however they want, no matter what the motivations for it are. The difference between the Northern Americans powers and the Cherokee being a huge boost in population and a culture built on diversity.

Speaking of diversity- British descent is relatively small in US bloodlines compared to other European countries. Germany for example, and perhaps Even France. In later years, Irish probably had more influence than British too.

Maybe I'm missing something? How are the citizens of the US losing self-determination? Maybe I just wasn't sure what TPH meant by 'legal exemptions'. There's a difference between what the Cherokee have by law, and 'priveleges, trade, and monetary support'.

You seemed to have a problem with the idea of the US putting pressure on the Cherokee nation for its decisions by removing their legal exemptions. To suggest that the US cannot or should not determine when it will and will not grant such exemptions is to remove the self-determination of the US.

If this decision is as it appears to be, then I would fully support removing said exemptions, just as I would fully support trade embargoes and such against any nation completely outside of the US which chose to do something similar.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's crappy all around. But the right for the Cherokee to determine what comprises membership should take priority, even if we aren't particularly fussy about that decision.

The Cherokee absolutely have that right. And we absolutely have a right to react to it.

Perhaps legal challenges will change this decision in the long run.

Perhaps.

One would also have to wonder if it wasn't so much that they "kept to their own kind," as they were expected to do so. Native Americans have certainly been mistreated in the past because of their heritage, but that doesn't make them exempt from human failings. Just as black citizens were expected to "keep to their own kind" in much of the US, it is very possible that they were equally expected to do so within tribal society. Sounds like this passed by a pretty huge margin, so I doubt it was really just a matter of choice on the part of the freedmen.

it seems to have passed by the margin reflecting cherokee vs black voters. its pretty disturbing

those are the things we dont know so we cant really judge. maybe the freemen have been treated like crap the whole time. maybe they have been welcomed in the past as full members. maybe they just exist in their own seperate space. without knowing, its hard to say if its unfair or a mindbogglingly bad way to treat your neighbors.

Short answer: I would.

Any sovereign country has a right to determine their citizenship however they want, no matter what the motivations for it are. The difference between the Northern Americans powers and the Cherokee being a huge boost in population and a culture built on diversity.

So you never have any opinion whatsoever about the decisions of other nations?

Note, I didn't ask if you would allow such a decision to stand. You obviously have no power over that - nor should you. I'm asking if you would support such a decision.

Speaking of diversity- British descent is relatively small in US bloodlines compared to other European countries. Germany for example, and perhaps Even France. In later years, Irish probably had more influence than British too.

Indeed.

The Cherokee don't have a right to determine their own membership?
What's your next trick, ask me when I'm going to stop beating my wife?

They do determine their membership - that's why everyone isn't allowed to join. They can deny whomever they want, the point is they are kicking people out of the tribe on bunch of racist bullshit.

well it is obviously about "race". to whatever extent cherokee is a race and black is a race. its not like a navajo would be given citizenship in the cherokee nation because they are native americans eh? the freemen descendants arent being kicked out because they are black but because they arent cherokee. if whites had somehow received citizenship in the cherokee nation they might equally be removed. the isleta pueblo purged its own roles in the past few years removing some people who had lived there and participated in the community all their lives. it was equally scandalous but in the end its their own decision, not ours.

if the cherokee are to ensure the "purity" of their bloodlines, its not unreasonable to try to exclude those who arent cherokees. it is, as we both have pointed out, unfair to those who have lived as cherokees their whole lives to suddenly kick them out for an accident of birth.

Exclusion based on not being a part of a group can be just as racist as targeting someone due to being a part of a different group. If I have a club that says 'admittance to anglo-saxons only', it's naturally percieved as racist, isn't it? The Cherokee may not have been specifically excluding blacks, but then again, perhaps they were.

But you got me on 'Cherokee' as a race. My bad.

What's your next trick, ask me when I'm going to stop beating my wife?

They do determine their membership - that's why everyone isn't allowed to join. They can deny whomever they want, the point is they are kicking people out of the tribe on bunch of racist bullshit.

I was after the 'legal exemptions' side of your argument.

Although my next trick may involve a tablecloth or hacksaw.

You seemed to have a problem with the idea of the US putting pressure on the Cherokee nation for its decisions by removing their legal exemptions. To suggest that the US cannot or should not determine when it will and will not grant such exemptions is to remove the self-determination of the US.


Indeed. We can't force them into doing or not doing anything, however that doesn't mean that we are forced to do anything for them. Depending on the specifics of the tribe and treaty involved, we have little or no control over what they do, however there is control over what the government does for them, depending on the specifics of various treaties involved.


The Cherokee absolutely have that right. And we absolutely have a right to react to it.


Indeed. The government can't tell them they can't do this, but that doesn't mean they have to bend over backwards. To allow.

You seemed to have a problem with the idea of the US putting pressure on the Cherokee nation for its decisions by removing their legal exemptions. To suggest that the US cannot or should not determine when it will and will not grant such exemptions is to remove the self-determination of the US.

If this decision is as it appears to be, then I would fully support removing said exemptions, just as I would fully support trade embargoes and such against any nation completely outside of the US which chose to do something similar.



The Cherokee absolutely have that right. And we absolutely have a right to react to it.



Perhaps.

I don't have a problem with the US using political and economic pressure to influence unsavoury decision making, not unlike South Africa and Apartheid. (Although there is no comparison here, just a reference to the use of 'soft power'.)

However, it all depends what you mean by 'legal exemptions', because if we're talking about rights granted by treaty, then any US government denial is simply illegal. Anything granted outside the framework of those treaties is another matter.

And what the US government can do regardless of what is signed in treaties is a whole other topic of debate.

My eyes must be playing tricks on me.

I could have sworn what you quoted was originally posted by Dempublicents1, and not Neesika...

D'oh. It was. But when I went to quote Demp, it didn't take Neesika's quote, so I had to delete it... and well, yeah. That's the jist.

Indeed. We can't force them into doing or not doing anything, however that doesn't mean that we are forced to do anything for them. Depending on the specifics of the tribe and treaty involved, we have little or no control over what they do, however there is control over what the government does for them, depending on the specifics of various treaties involved.



Indeed. The government can't tell them they can't do this, but that doesn't mean they have to bend over backwards. To allow.

My eyes must be playing tricks on me.

I could have sworn what you quoted was originally posted by Dempublicents1, and not Neesika...

Exclusion based on not being a part of a group can be just as racist as targeting someone due to being a part of a different group. If I have a club that says 'admittance to anglo-saxons only', it's naturally percieved as racist, isn't it? The Cherokee may not have been specifically excluding blacks, but then again, perhaps they were.

But you got me on 'Cherokee' as a race. My bad.

it was nitpicky but there is a serious issue there.

cherokees ARE a group defined by bloodline. without that bloodline what ARE they? a social group? a bunch of people getting special priveleges for no discernable reason? if you dilute that bloodline too much you arent cherokee any more. with all the intermarrying over the centuries, there are more people with cherokee blood than there are registered cherokees. if you had to include everyone with any cherokee genes the cherokee nation would turn into an american social club genetically no different than the eagle's club. the cherokee nation would cease to exist.

so is it racist to insist on the racial purity of your nation that is based on bloodline?

it was nitpicky but there is a serious issue there.

cherokees ARE a group defined by bloodline. without that bloodline what ARE they? a social group? a bunch of people getting special priveleges for no discernable reason? if you dilute that bloodline too much you arent cherokee any more. with all the intermarrying over the centuries, there are more people with cherokee blood than there are registered cherokees. if you had to include everyone with any cherokee genes the cherokee nation would turn into an american social club genetically no different than the eagle's club. the cherokee nation would cease to exist.

so is it racist to insist on the racial purity of your nation that is based on bloodline?

I don't think you could effectively define Cherokee membership by anything but bloodline. But there's usually a degree of bloodline required to maintain membership. It's different if you have 1/4 Cherokee blood, than 1/32 Cherokee blood. So a way to define the Cherokee nation by gene pool is already in place if you limit how much blood quantum is required for membership.

So the question remains, why would the descendents of freedmen not be considered to have the 'blood quantum', if their ancestors had 100% Cherokee status? Clearly to me, the Cherokee Supreme Court feels that freedmen were not 100% Cherokee members, and that blood quantum only counts if your ancestors were considered Cherokee before they were forced to admit ex-slaves as Cherokee.

I don't think it's necessarily racist to have a nation based on bloodline. 'Racial Purity' is another matter. Germany still bases their citizenship on bloodline. I don't think anyone has fond memories of their attempts at racial purity. At least in modern Germany, if you're a citizen, you know your descendants will be German regardless of actual race/ethnicity. Not so when they were obsessed with keeping bloodlines 'pure'.

(And before anyone jumps on me, I'm not trying to compare the Cherokee with Nazi Germany. Just the obsession with racial purity.)

I don't think you could effectively define Cherokee membership by anything but bloodline. But there's usually a degree of bloodline required to maintain membership. It's different if you have 1/4 Cherokee blood, than 1/32 Cherokee blood. So a way to define the Cherokee nation by gene pool is already in place if you limit how much blood quantum is required for membership.

So the question remains, why would the descendents of freedmen not be considered to have the 'blood quantum', if their ancestors had 100% Cherokee status? Clearly to me, the Cherokee Supreme Court feels that freedmen were not 100% Cherokee members, and that blood quantum only counts if your ancestors were considered Cherokee before they were forced to admit ex-slaves as Cherokee.

I don't think it's necessarily racist to have a nation based on bloodline. 'Racial Purity' is another matter. Germany still bases their citizenship on bloodline. I don't think anyone has fond memories of their attempts at racial purity. At least in modern Germany, if you're a citizen, you know your descendants will be German regardless of actual race/ethnicity. Not so when they were obsessed with keeping bloodlines 'pure'.

(And before anyone jumps on me, I'm not trying to compare the Cherokee with Nazi Germany. Just the obsession with racial purity.)
there in lies a court case eh?

the cherokee were forced to accept freemen and their descendants as cherokees at the end of the civil war. as i understand it, anyone who "looked black" was classified as 100% black by the federal government no matter if they were in fact half cherokee or not.

no matter that they were forced onto tribal rolls, they are not cherokee. any freeman descendant who married a cherokee would have cherokee children without question. these, therefore are descendants of freemen who have never intermarried with cherokees in any generation for the past 140 years. or who havent mixed more than any other american who can claim cherokee blood but not enough to be able to register with the nation.

in normal circumstances, an indian nation is allowed to decide its own membership. they are a sovereign nation. they have their own constitution that spells out the rules of membership. they have the right to ammend that constitution. however, there is this treaty from 1866 that they are (probably) bound by that forces them to accept their freed slaves as tribal members. depending on the judge, and it could conceivably go to the US supreme court, it could go either way.

there in lies a court case eh?

the cherokee were forced to accept freemen and their descendants as cherokees at the end of the civil war. as i understand it, anyone who "looked black" was classified as 100% black by the federal government no matter if they were in fact half cherokee or not.

no matter that they were forced onto tribal rolls, they are not cherokee. any freeman descendant who married a cherokee would have cherokee children without question. these, therefore are descendants of freemen who have never intermarried with cherokees in any generation for the past 140 years. or who havent mixed more than any other american who can claim cherokee blood but not enough to be able to register with the nation.

in normal circumstances, an indian nation is allowed to decide its own membership. they are a sovereign nation. they have their own constitution that spells out the rules of membership. they have the right to ammend that constitution. however, there is this treaty from 1866 that they are (probably) bound by that forces them to accept their freed slaves as tribal members. depending on the judge, and it could conceivably go to the US supreme court, it could go either way.

Yeah. I get where the Cherokee nation is coming from. However, for a people who rely on treaty interpretation to defend their interests no longer wish to stick to the terms of their treaty, however ill-gotten that treaty may have been obtained, lessens their legal credibility.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Yeah. I get where the Cherokee nation is coming from. However, for a people who rely on treaty interpretation to defend their interests no longer wish to stick to the terms of their treaty, however ill-gotten that treaty may have been obtained, lessens their legal credibility.

We'll just have to wait and see.

hey its not like the US hasnt tried to get around its own agreements in indian treaties. this is why we have courts, to make sure that everyone is held to their agreements.

Where is the legal recourse for the US government to 'pull the Cherokee nation's legal exemptions'? The Cherokee don't have a right to determine their own membership? We might not like their decision, but I believe it is their decision, and in no way justifies the removal of 'legal exemptions' or whatever it is you're getting at.


That's a bit of a chicken/egg situation.

You see, the ousted members were members of the tribe. Why don't members of the tribe get to decide their membership.

Yes, it's easier to decide the issue of allowing new members in, but forcing old members out, especially in such numbers, is a much trickier affair.

There was a similar debate in Jewish circles years back. A bunch of Rabbis said that reform and conservative Jews, as Americans understand those terms, aren't really Jewish. They made it official. Problem is, Jews had as a group decided that they were.

This isn't an issue of a group excluding people from it's membership. It's a case of a group splitting into two, against the wishes of one of the two new groups. One large and well organized one, and another small and unorganized one that may now disintegrate altogether.

What resources the US govt provides to the original group, it is only fair that those resources should now be split between the two groups. Including the land that was allocated to them.

Obviously, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. The FREEDMEN were slaves of the members of the tribe, not children of the Cherokees. The Cherokee Nation decided to grant membership to people who are a direct descendent of a Cherokee. In other words a blood relationship. The FREEDMEN have no blood relationship to the tribe.

Membership by blood? I think if anyone offered anyone membership based solely on if they are white or not, the hell would break loose in Canada.

And Black people were only really recognised as human in the south once the north forced them to.
Black people only got the vote once they coherced the white people to give it to them.

The issue has a lot of parallels.

I'd support that.

Yes, but the South remained a part of the US. Today it is host to a large sentiment that the South is the "real America" or at least the part that is populated by "real Americans."

The Nation as a whole opted to give blacks legal, if not cultural, equality. The South is just the part of the country in which the minority sentiment is the strongest.

Blacks did not coerce Whites into giving them the vote. Capitalist businessmen and labor unions in the industrial north realized that slavery was against their best interests. Slaves recognized this too. Three groups, with not much else in common, united to make abolitionism the dominant philosophy of the United States.

The only parallel is that this situation is a civil war fought on paper and the cessationists won. And because they won, they got to decide that they were the "original" group and the losers were leaving the original, rather than there being two new groups made up of the members of one old one.

Membership by blood? I think if anyone offered anyone membership based solely on if they are white or not, the hell would break loose in Canada.

It's not really that crazy a concept. Many nations base citizenship on who your parents were, rather than where exactly you are born. So in Canada, if you're parents don't have Canadian citizenship but you are born on Canadian soil, you have Canadian Citizenship. But if your parents are German, you may also automatically have the right to German citizenship, because they base their citizenship on bloodline.

It's not really that crazy a concept. Many nations base citizenship on who your parents were, rather than where exactly you are born. So in Canada, if you're parents don't have Canadian citizenship but you are born on Canadian soil, you have Canadian Citizenship. But if your parents are German, you may also automatically have the right to German citizenship, because they base their citizenship on bloodline.

I'd assume all people here, in this forum (since they can operate a computer), do have the intelligence to guess the reaction of the world if Germany would base its citizenship (membership) solely on blood.

What resources the US govt provides to the original group, it is only fair that those resources should now be split between the two groups. Including the land that was allocated to them.

Good point, and I hadn't thought of that...

We know it's considered racist if a caucasian is biased about non-caucasians, but is it racist when one minority displays bias towards another minority?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/cherokees-pull-memberships-of-freed/20070304215409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

& if they enslaved that particular group's ancestors, then it's bloody yes. As an African, I don't know where I belong to this "racism & slavery" debate but I'll just keep an eye on my man OBAMA, not OSAMA for all you dimwits who wish to get both Blacks and Arabs in one boat (even respectable news channels are falling for that word play & they stop themselves and say “oh, I don’t know where that came from” :p)

I'd assume all people here, in this forum (since they can operate a computer), do have the intelligence to guess the reaction of the world if Germany would base its citizenship (membership) solely on blood.

They only recently changed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

Jus sanguinis (Latin for "right of blood") is a right by which nationality or citizenship can be recognized to any individual born to a parent who is a national or citizen of that state. It contrasts with jus soli (Latin for "right of soil").

At the end of the 19th century, the French-German debate on nationality saw Ernest Renan oppose the German conception of an "objective nationality", based on "blood", "race" or even, as in Fichte's case, "language". Renan's republican conception explains France's early adoption of jus soli. Many nations have a mixture of jus sanguinis and jus soli, including the United States, Canada, Israel, Germany (as of recently), Greece, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and others.

Article 116(1) of the German constitution confers a right to citizenship upon any person who is admitted to Germany as "refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such a person." At one time, ethnic Germans living abroad (Aussiedler) could obtain citizenship through a virtually automatic procedure, but since 1990 the law has been steadily tightened to limit the number of immigrants who can come each year and require proof of language skills and cultural affiliation.

so is it racist to insist on the racial purity of your nation that is based on bloodline?I'd like to point something out here as well. Membership in tribal nations is based on blood, because that is what the governments of the US and Canada decided it would be based on. Why? Because inevitably, it means we will eventually cease to exist. We just happen to be taking a long time to get there, mostly because inter-aboriginal marriages are extremely high.

We are peoples. Defined not just by blood, but by culture, and our laws. Blood is important to some of us only in the sense of whether we are patrilineal, matrilineal, clan based or otherwise. But blood as a quantum, is ONLY important to us now, because without it, the governments of the US and Canada can pretend they have no further obligations to us, based on the criteria THEY have imposed upon us.

Oh sure, we could reject that criteria and not play the 'white man's game'.

Yeah, we can just throw in the towel too. Regardless of the intetion, that's essentially what taking that step would mean.

Would you support it if the US suddenly revoked citizenship to black people and shipped them back to Africa?

This isn't really that different. The Cherokees owned the slaves. The slaves were considered a part of their nation. Now people, feeling they are adequately seperated from the slavery and slaves, deciding to revoke their citizenship and take back whatever rights they have in the Cherokee nation. How is that different from me and my friends voting to have black people removed from the US. I didn't own slaves. What do I owe them?

I think it's interesting that you believe the Cherokee have an obligation above and beyond what other descendants of slave-holders have to the descendants of slaves.

The only way I can reconcile that view, is if you also believe the Cherokee should be afforded full, and complete sovereignty.

Would you equally support it if a majority of Canadians decided to deny Canadian citizen to anyone who didn't share a specific bloodline, even if they had been born and raised as a Canadian citizen?

Would you equally support it if the US suddenly decided to deny citizenship to anyone who didn't share provable British descent? Or to deny citizenship to anyone who couldn't trace their bloodlines back to the original 13 colonies?

Wow Dem, are we suddenly talking about sovereign nations? Or are we in the real world, where Indian nations are domestic dependent nations, without full sovereignty?

I fully support the right of any tribal nation to determine their own membership, completely absent of the interference of the colonial powers.

I may not like the choices made. But I support their right to make those choices.

Period.

I think it's interesting that you believe the Cherokee have an obligation above and beyond what other descendants of slave-holders have to the descendants of slaves.

The only way I can reconcile that view, is if you also believe the Cherokee should be afforded full, and complete sovereignty.

I don't think they have personal responsiblity. Like I said, I compared it to the national responsibility of the US. Again, would you consider this to be equally laudable if the South was claiming they should be entitled to ask Blacks to leave and to deny them citizenship since it was forced on them? The Southern states don't have full sovereignty either and yet I hold them to exactly the same requirement. Governments of any type should not suddenly revoke citizenship for an entire race. That's exactly what is happening here. We're not talking about forcing it on them, now. It's done.

This is comparable to any of hundreds of nations or states in the world suddenly booting people out based on race. Many of the inclusions of various ethnicities was caused by colonialism. That was then. NOW it's there. To suddenly revoke citizenship requires racism. Plain and simple. I'm not sure of any basis on which you could claim it's not.

Are you paying attention? You have to prove your lineage to an absurd amount, that would obviously include freedmen. And they are not denying applications, they are kicking people out of the tribe. They are welcome to do it, then the US government is welcome to pull the Cherokee nation's legal exemptions.

The rolls are are big steaming pile of dog shit. As they usually are.

Let me give you an example of why I say that.

In Canada, many Indians were given the option...take scrip, or take Treaty.

If you took Treaty, you remained Indian. If you took scrip...you become non-Indian, with the wave of a magic wand. (Some of those people were later recognised as Metis, even if they were full-blooded Indian) Also sneaking into the band rolls were non-natives, through marriage, or by mistake.

The rolls are not proof of much.

Now what I'd like to know is how the US gov't can justify taking any action on this at all. Are they doing it under a constitutional challenge? Has the US given over membership/status determinations to the tribe, or does it still dictate some issues of membership/status?

I'd like to hear more about this from the parties involved, because...no offence...but most of you know pretty much jack shit about native issues.

I don't think they have personal responsiblity. Like I said, I compared it to the national responsibility of the US. Again, would you consider this to be equally laudable if the South was claiming they should be entitled to ask Blacks to leave and to deny them citizenship since it was forced on them? The Southern states don't have full sovereignty either and yet I hold them to exactly the same requirement. Governments of any type should not suddenly revoke citizenship for an entire race. That's exactly what is happening here. We're not talking about forcing it on them, now. It's done.

This is comparable to any of hundreds of nations or states in the world suddenly booting people out based on race. Many of the inclusions of various ethnicities was caused by colonialism. That was then. NOW it's there. To suddenly revoke citizenship requires racism. Plain and simple. I'm not sure of any basis on which you could claim it's not.

It's a different issue though when talking about reserve lands. Reserve lands are NOT open to anyone that is a citizen of the US, they are specifically reserved for Indian nations.

The Southern states can not kick out the descendants of slaves because the citizenship of those descendants is NOT determined by blood relation to the rest of the Southerners.

So you are in essence, insisting that the Cherokee recognise these people as their relations. Now, it may well be (as Nazz has pointed out) that this is true. But proof is a bitch, always has been...many many natives are denied any status for the same reason...lack of proof, even if they are near to full blooded.

I think, from what little I know of this, that this is a shit move, and it pisses me off as much as the bands up here who refused to take back the Bill C-31 Indians. But when you have limited resources, and a growing population, sometimes it can seem like a viable option.

And there is so much more wrong to that than simply, 'oh those racist Indians'.

The rolls are are big steaming pile of dog shit. As they usually are.

Let me give you an example of why I say that.

In Canada, many Indians were given the option...take scrip, or take Treaty.

If you took Treaty, you remained Indian. If you took scrip...you become non-Indian, with the wave of a magic wand. (Some of those people were later recognised as Metis, even if they were full-blooded Indian) Also sneaking into the band rolls were non-natives, through marriage, or by mistake.

The rolls are not proof of much.

Now what I'd like to know is how the US gov't can justify taking any action on this at all. Are they doing it under a constitutional challenge? Has the US given over membership/status determinations to the tribe, or does it still dictate some issues of membership/status?

I'd like to hear more about this from the parties involved, because...no offence...but most of you know pretty much jack shit about native issues.

Amusing. No. Not really. How you don't see it is amazing. Regardless of how natives were treated, this is not the fault of the people who are being victimized by this. The people we are talking about are descendents of people who were victimized by the Cherokee. You keep beating this drum about how it's unfair that Cherokees aren't sovereign, what about the people the Cherokee owned? They deserve LESS consideration? Hmmmm.... is it possible you're not even trying to look at this objectively.

You're claiming the needs of natives are greater than those of the people they owned. Your claiming that on the basis of race. It's racism. There is not another word for it. It's textbook.

Yes, yes, I know. Poor natives. Why should they hold any obligation to the people they actively owned. Like I said, can everyone boot slaves out of their states, or just our special friends?

EDIT: Keep in mind, that, yes, I feel for the issues thrust upon the native tribes and I do feel the governments of the countries that put them in that position have an obligation. No question. Equally the tribes that chose to own slaves have an obligation to those people as much as the US has an obligation to treat black people members of our society, so do the Cherokee.

It's a different issue though when talking about reserve lands. Reserve lands are NOT open to anyone that is a citizen of the US, they are specifically reserved for Indian nations.

The Southern states can not kick out the descendants of slaves because the citizenship of those descendants is NOT determined by blood relation to the rest of the Southerners.

So you are in essence, insisting that the Cherokee recognise these people as their relations. Now, it may well be (as Nazz has pointed out) that this is true. But proof is a bitch, always has been...many many natives are denied any status for the same reason...lack of proof, even if they are near to full blooded.

I think, from what little I know of this, that this is a shit move, and it pisses me off as much as the bands up here who refused to take back the Bill C-31 Indians. But when you have limited resources, and a growing population, sometimes it can seem like a viable option.

And there is so much more wrong to that than simply, 'oh those racist Indians'.

Sure there is much more here. Of course. It's ALSO "those racist indians". They are being racist. What word would you use when you take rights away from a group based on their blood? To pretend that's not racism is to completely deny the meaning of the word.

The citizenship of the those slaves was not based on blood either. Until this vote occurred. It's absolutely comparable to the south where the citizenship was forced on those states. And it would be racist for them to fix it that way.

And if these groups are limited on funds, how is it NOT racist to decide who gets them by race and deny it to people who once shared those funds based on race? Isn't that precisely what racism is? It's denying these people rights and support in order to protect the "more important" people. I don't buy it. There isn't any excuse that's going to make it less racist.

Sure there is much more here. Of course. It's ALSO "those racist indians". They are being racist. :rolleyes:
And there is so much more wrong to that than simply, 'oh those racist Indians'.
There is no fucking exclusion of racism stated, or implied in what I said.

Now what I'd like to know is how the US gov't can justify taking any action on this at all. Are they doing it under a constitutional challenge? Has the US given over membership/status determinations to the tribe, or does it still dictate some issues of membership/status?

The nations have total control of who they let join or not, but they are trying to kick people out of the tribe based on, for all points and purposes, race.

I think Neesika's made it clear multiple times that she doesn't agree with this particular decision.

It must just be the debate sharks smelling blood or something...

:rolleyes:

There is no fucking exclusion of racism stated, or implied in what I said.

No, what is implied in what you said is that the racism by being discussed is ignoring that other issues exist. The point is that there ARE other issues and there is a big problem with this is both RACIST and it denies the obligation that native tribes have for the people they OWNED.

I think Neesika's made it clear multiple times that she doesn't agree with this particular decision.

It must just be the debate sharks smelling blood or something...

There is a difference between:

1) a people having the right to be racist
2) supporting racism

I support their right. I don't support the racism.

But I also, without further evidence, am not about to assume that we know enough to say this is all about race.

I think Neesika's made it clear multiple times that she doesn't agree with this particular decision.

It must just be the debate sharks smelling blood or something...

Because despite the fact you think she doesn't agree, she has said repeatedly that the decision should be supported and that they have every right to make racist decision because of their history.

No, what is implied in what you said is that the racism by being discussed is ignoring that other issues exist. The point is that there ARE other issues and there is a big problem with this is both RACIST and it denies the obligation that native tribes have for the people they OWNED.

Fuck off Jocabia, I'm not about to be drawn into your semantic wrangling as you attempt to define my words and intentions for me. Go play that game with Dem.

There is a difference between:

1) a people having the right to be racist
2) supporting racism

I support their right. I don't support the racism.

But I also, without further evidence, am not about to assume that we know enough to say this is all about race.

It may not be motivated by race, but it's clear the decision is that people of a certain race are going to have their status revoked because they aren't "really" citizens. People have a right to be racist. Somehow if this was the US voting to deny support to natives anymore that your response would be different. I guess only certain people have a right to be racist, hmmm?

Because despite the fact you think she doesn't agree, she has said repeatedly that the decision should be supported and that they have every right to make racist decision because of their history.

She didn't say that their decision should be supported, she stated that she supports their right to make the decision. Otherwise, an outside group is effectively making that decsion, which is unnacceptable.

Fuck off Jocabia, I'm not about to be drawn into your semantic wrangling as you attempt to define my words and intentions for me. Go play that game with Dem.

Yes, talking aobut hte fact that Cherokees used to own the people they are now kicking out and that you are lauding their right to kick out the people they used to own while simultaneous touting the obligation of the US and Canadian governments to natives. Apparently, one group has an obligation to those they've wronged, a group you coincidentally belong to, and other groups, a group you coincidentally belong to, do not have an obligation to those they've wronged.

There's nothing semantic about the problem here. There is ABSOLUTELY no difference.

It may not be motivated by race, but it's clear the decision is that people of a certain race are going to have their status revoked because they aren't "really" citizens. People have a right to be racist. Somehow if this was the US voting to deny support to natives anymore that your response would be different. I guess only certain people have a right to be racist, hmmm?

1) The US has the right to be racist.
2) I support that right.
3) I will also blast them if they exercise it.

It's sort of like:

1) People have a right to yakk about ZOG.
2) I support that right.
3) I will blast anyone who attempts to do this within my hearing.

Above all, I support sovereignty for aboriginal nations. ABOVE ALL. Human rights are of the utmost importance, and need to be addressed. AFTER sovereignty.

It may not be motivated by race, but it's clear the decision is that people of a certain race are going to have their status revoked because they aren't "really" citizens. People have a right to be racist. Somehow if this was the US voting to deny support to natives anymore that your response would be different. I guess only certain people have a right to be racist, hmmm?

I think, from what little I know of this, that this is a shit move, and it pisses me off as much as the bands up here who refused to take back the Bill C-31 Indians. But when you have limited resources, and a growing population, sometimes it can seem like a viable option.

And there is so much more wrong to that than simply, 'oh those racist Indians'.

Fuck. Off.

She didn't say that their decision should be supported, she stated that she supports their right to make the decision. Otherwise, an outside group is effectively making that decsion, which is unnacceptable.

She said it was a good thing, in fact. And I suspect no one would be lauding this decision if this were the US or Canada choosing to deny support to natives.

"because without it, the governments of the US and Canada can pretend they have no further obligations to us, based on the criteria THEY have imposed upon us."

The US have an obligation to the descendents of the people they wronged. However, she simultaneously claims that natives have no such obligation to the people they wronged. She said it was good they were deciding their membership for themselves. I suspect she wouldn't be as pleased if this were Canada or the US do exactly the same thing to natives.

But she can prove me wrong and tell me she supports the rights for the US to vote to stop supporting natives. I mean, that's just the US determining its own membership, no? Sovereignty is more important than human rights as he says, no?

1) The US has the right to be racist.
2) I support that right.
3) I will also blast them if they exercise it.

It's sort of like:

1) People have a right to yakk about ZOG.
2) I support that right.
3) I will blast anyone who attempts to do this within my hearing.

Above all, I support sovereignty for aboriginal nations. ABOVE ALL. Human rights are of the utmost importance, and need to be addressed. AFTER sovereignty.

Hmmmm... I don't notice you blasting the Cherokee for this decision. In fact, until people called you out on it, you sounded pretty damn happy about it.

Human rights are the of the utmost importance. End of sentence.

Jocabia. Show me where I said it was a good thing.

She said it was a good thing, in fact. And I suspect no one would be lauding this decision if this were the US or Canada choosing to deny support to natives.

"because without it, the governments of the US and Canada can pretend they have no further obligations to us, based on the criteria THEY have imposed upon us."

The US have an obligation to the descendents of the people they wronged. However, she simultaneously claims that natives have no such obligation to the people they wronged. She said it was good they were deciding their membership for themselves. I suspect she wouldn't be as pleased if this were Canada or the US do exactly the same thing to natives.

But she can prove me wrong and tell me she supports the rights for the US to vote to stop supporting natives. I mean, that's just the US determining its own membership, no? Sovereignty is more important than human rights as he says, no?

Neesika can fight her own battles, much better than I can. But you're seriously twisting her words. I'm sure she'd prefer a situation where the US wouldn't have to support the natives because they would be completely independant.

It's way passed my bedtime. Too tired for this debating crap.

If that's their choice, I'll support it.

I don't agree though.

Hmmm.. you'll support their decision. Shall I find the numerous quotes where you talk about how nice it is that they're making the decision. You didn't like what the decision turned out to be, but it doesn't work that way. Should the US be voting on revoking the rights of natives, it's not a guess that you wouldn't be talking about how happy you are to see the US excercising sovereignty before civil rights.

Neesika can fight her own battles, much better than I can. But you're seriously twisting her words. I'm sure she'd prefer a situation where the US wouldn't have to support the natives because they would be completely independant.

It's way passed my bedtime. Too tired for this debating crap.

Oh, I agree she'd support that situation. So would I. One has nothing to do with the other. This isn't a decision to not include various peoples. It's a decision to exclude people already included. To take their rights away. A racist decision. An embarrassing decision. It completely undermines the idea that a government owes any support to those they've wronged in the past.

Hmmmm... I don't notice you blasting the Cherokee for this decision. In fact, until people called you out on it, you sounded pretty damn happy about it.

Human rights are the of the utmost importance. End of sentence.

Self-determination IS a human right.

And I tend to value it very highly.

I'm not going to blast them on this, because frankly, I am not going to accept the characterisation of the reports. I'm going to wait until I get more evidence from people closer to the situation.

I will give the US short shrift, even without all the evidence, because the US is a world power, and doesn't have to deal with issues of colonialism etc.

I'm willing to give aboriginal nations more leeway before passing judgment. Crow about 'oh look, Neesika hates blacks' all you want Jocabia. It's really just you in love with your own argument...as usual.

Hmmm.. you'll support their decision. Shall I find the numerous quotes where you talk about how nice it is that they're making the decision. You didn't like what the decision turned out to be, but it doesn't work that way. Should the US be voting on revoking the rights of natives, it's not a guess that you wouldn't be talking about how happy you are to see the US excercising sovereignty before civil rights.

That's because no one is denying the US sovereignty.

Thanks Mike...but don't waste your breath. When Jocabia gets on a roll, it's better to nod and smile, and make a sandwich.

Yes. An argument often heard in the south. Again, would it be racist if the south suddenly kicked out black people?

I'm not sure there is a legitimate parallel. Blacks were (despite what some have claimed in this thread) already considered 'people' in the South, they just weren't going to be accorded the equivalent voting rights - instead, they were alloted 'proportional votes'.

In this time, in this nation, the argument about equal but different is still one that rages, and some people still claim that you can legitimately define people to have different rights yet still be 'equal'. Obviously it was a shm then, just as it is now - but the point is, Blacks were considered 'people' in the South, and were a part of this 'tribe' as much as anyone else - except for that niggling 'equal but not-equal' thing.

It's also a little misleading to claim that slavery was a particular peculiarity of the South. Lincoln said if he could have fought the war without releasing a slave, he would - because people kept slaves both sides of the 'line'.

And, of course - it can't be both ways. Either the South and North were divided, in which case the Union did pressure the 'treaties' of the South as an invading power... or the South and North always remained part of the same entity (which might allow it to legitimately be called a 'Civil War') - in which case the North is just as responsible for the citizenship/non-citizenship of the slaves.

There is no such grey area with the Cherokee. They were invaded.

Self-determination IS a human right.

And I tend to value it very highly.

I'm not going to blast them on this, because frankly, I am not going to accept the characterisation of the reports. I'm going to wait until I get more evidence from people closer to the situation.

I will give the US short shrift, even without all the evidence, because the US is a world power, and doesn't have to deal with issues of colonialism etc.

I'm willing to give aboriginal nations more leeway before passing judgment. Crow about 'oh look, Neesika hates blacks' all you want Jocabia. It's really just you in love with your own argument...as usual.


Yes, it's a human right. One being denied the people they are removing rights from. Interesting that only the rights of the natives are important here.

Yes, it's a human right. One being denied the people they are removing rights from. Interesting that only the rights of the natives are important here.

Interesting that you haven't fulfilled my request to show me where I said this was a good thing.

I'm not sure there is a legitimate parallel. Blacks were (despite what some have claimed in this thread) already considered 'people' in the South, they just weren't going to be accorded the equivalent voting rights - instead, they were alloted 'proportional votes'.

In this time, in this nation, the argument about equal but different is still one that rages, and some people still claim that you can legitimately define people to have different rights yet still be 'equal'. Obviously it was a shm then, just as it is now - but the point is, Blacks were considered 'people' in the South, and were a part of this 'tribe' as much as anyone else - except for that niggling 'equal but not-equal' thing.

It's also a little misleading to claim that slavery was a particular peculiarity of the South. Lincoln said if he could have fought the war without releasing a slave, he would - because people kept slaves both sides of the 'line'.

And, of course - it can't be both ways. Either the South and North were divided, in which case the Union did pressure the 'treaties' of the South as an invading power... or the South and North always remained part of the same entity (which might allow it to legitimately be called a 'Civil War') - in which case the North is just as responsible for the citizenship/non-citizenship of the slaves.

There is no such grey area with the Cherokee. They were invaded.

The parrallel here is that the US and Canada have an obligation to those they have mistreated in the past, by at least, at the very least, granting them equal rights. I'm sure no one would deny that.

Tribal governments apparently have no such obligation. According to Sin, self-determination is all-important, but that self-determination is subject to majority vote of a majority race over a minority race.

Interesting that you haven't fulfilled my request to show me where I said this was a good thing.

You supported it. You've said repeatedly that it's good that they are exercising self-determination.

You didn't use the word good. Congrats. Are you really going to try to pretend like you don't actually support that they are voting to deny self-determination, which you think is all-important, to the minorities among them? You don't support the outcome, but you take no issue with actually idea that rights are subject to majority vote.

.

Tribal governments apparently have no such obligation. According to Sin, self-determination is all-important, but that self-determination is subject to majority vote of a majority race over a minority race.

I will come back to this conversation, when I am friskier, and less annoyed. But I make a request of you, Jocabia.

Stop fucking pretending that you can characterise my arguments, spin them out, or in any way whatsoever make them for me. It's something about you I have always detested, as much as I hate it in Dem. Speak for yourself. Ask me questions, fine. But cut out this passive-aggressive bullshit where you frame my arguments for me in the most insulting light, and then insist I back up that untenable position you've created.

If you can manage to do that, I'll get back to this. If you can't, well, no loss. I'll continue to avoid debating you, as I have for a very, very long time now.

Edit: You know what, scratch that...because I know you can't do what I've asked.

So just fuck off. Plain and simple.

You supported it. You've said repeatedly that it's good that they are exercising self-determination. Nice try.

Show me where I said, "I support this racism".

I support their right to make this decision. And I can disagree with it, and still continue to support their right to make it.

You don't want that to be true.

Tough shit, Jocabia...you don't get your way all the time.

That's because no one is denying the US sovereignty.

Thanks Mike...but don't waste your breath. When Jocabia gets on a roll, it's better to nod and smile, and make a sandwich.

Someone is denying the freedmen sovereignty, no? But we've established by majority vote that the Cherokee think that there is no obligation to the descendents of those your government has wronged. I don't think that's going to play well for them, but that's me. There is nothing good about the fact this vote occurred, regardless of outcome. Denial of rights should not be a matter of majority votes.

Nice try.

Show me where I said, "I support this racism".

I support their right to make this decision. And I can disagree with it, and still continue to support their right to make it.

You don't want that to be true.

Tough shit, Jocabia...you don't get your way all the time.

The vote, regardless of outcome was racist. You support the act and you said plainly, "I support the decision." "I don't agree with it, but I support it."

Yes, you didnt' say "I support this racism" because at the time you were denying that it was racist. Like I said, I don't see how claiming that governments have no obligation to the descendents of those they've wronged, even to the extent of equal rights, is going to help the natives in the long wrong. It seems pretty damned counter-productive, but, hey, I can see why you'd support the act of voting on whether to give rights to certain races. I mean, that's not racism, right?

I will come back to this conversation, when I am friskier, and less annoyed. But I make a request of you, Jocabia.

Stop fucking pretending that you can characterise my arguments, spin them out, or in any way whatsoever make them for me. It's something about you I have always detested, as much as I hate it in Dem. Speak for yourself. Ask me questions, fine. But cut out this passive-aggressive bullshit where you frame my arguments for me in the most insulting light, and then insist I back up that untenable position you've created.

If you can manage to do that, I'll get back to this. If you can't, well, no loss. I'll continue to avoid debating you, as I have for a very, very long time now.

Edit: You know what, scratch that...because I know you can't do what I've asked.

So just fuck off. Plain and simple.

I'm not mischaracterizing your arguments. At least, not intentionally. You are supporting the act of voting on the rights of minorities. I quoted you saying so. You claim that's not supporting racism. But what else is it? Yes, it upsets me that you act as if we should be absolutely concerned about this behavior both as human beings AND as individuals concerned about the continued support of our governments towards the natives.

As I understand it, there are three means by which a person becomes a citizen of a nation: one is by being born in that nation, one is by being born to citizens of that nation and one is through a legal process called "naturalization."

I can think of only two means of losing that citizenship: renouncing it oneself and committing a crime against that nation and having that citizenship taken from you as a penalty for that crime.

The freedmen were, initially, made citizens of the Cherokee Nation by "naturalization" (I really think going into the circumstances surrounding that action is pointless. There comes a time when protesting the past becomes silly). The children subsequently born to them were legally born citizens of that nation. I don't recall reading anywhere in the article that the descendents of the freedmen renounced the citizenship and I don't recall seeing that they, en masse, committed a heinous crime against the Cherokee Nation. The current action is arbitrary and the motives suspect.

It brings into question the validity of anyone's citizenship. If the Cherokee Nation can oust a group at will, no matter how long they have been part of that Nation, then other groups might follow.

I wonder how it would be received if Armenians, Mexicans, the Irish, the Scots or the Italians (or anyone else, for that matter) suddenly lost their citizenship, as a group, because it was voted on.

As I understand it, there are three means by which a person becomes a citizen of a nation: one is by being born in that nation, one is by being born to citizens of that nation and one is through a legal process called "naturalization."

I can think of only two means of losing that citizenship: renouncing it oneself and committing a crime against that nation and having that citizenship taken from you as a penalty for that crime.

The freedmen were, initially, made citizens of the Cherokee Nation by "naturalization" (I really think going into the circumstances surrounding that action is pointless. There comes a time when protesting the past becomes silly). The children subsequently born to them were legally born citizens of that nation. I don't recall reading anywhere in the article that the descendents of the freedmen renounced the citizenship and I don't recall seeing that they, en masse, committed a heinous crime against the Cherokee Nation. The current action is arbitrary and the motives suspect.

It brings into question the validity of anyone's citizenship. If the Cherokee Nation can oust a group at will, no matter how long they have been part of that Nation, then other groups might follow.

I wonder how it would be received if Armenians, Mexicans, the Irish, the Scots or the Italians (or anyone else, for that matter) suddenly lost their citizenship, as a group, because it was voted on.

That sums it up nicely. I know I was upsetting Sin last night, but really that's the heart of the issue. This isn't about giving people citizenship, but taking it away. The difference is not subtle. If someone asked the US to offer citizenship and benefits to all Africans because we once had slaves, that would be nonsensical. However, it would equally nonsensical to say the US should be allowed a majority vote on which minority groups retain the citizenship they already have and that it should lauded as an act of self-determination.

More importantly, I'm concerned about the message this sends. This says that Cherokees (and any other nation that made similar choices) don't believe governments have an obligation to even, at the very least, respect the citizenship of those they've wronged in the past. The Cherokee government has an obligation to recognize that these people are members of their nation as a result of slavery. They've just re-wronged them by majority and it really opens the door for Canada and the US to do the same under the exact same principle.

EDIT: nevermind... don't want to get too drawn into this one.

It's not really that crazy a concept. Many nations base citizenship on who your parents were, rather than where exactly you are born. So in Canada, if you're parents don't have Canadian citizenship but you are born on Canadian soil, you have Canadian Citizenship. But if your parents are German, you may also automatically have the right to German citizenship, because they base their citizenship on bloodline.

From what I understand of such laws, continued citizenship in adulthood is usually dependent on some action taken by the person. For instance (although this is a bit backwards from what you were saying), my mother was born on German soil. Until she was 21, she carried joint citizenship in both the US and Germany. But, at that point, in order to keep her German citizenship, she would have had to move to Germany and renounce her US citizenship.

Likewise, children of US citizens born abroad are considered to be US citizens. But, at adulthood, if they choose to be citizens of the nation in which they were born, they lose US citizenship.


Wow Dem, are we suddenly talking about sovereign nations? Or are we in the real world, where Indian nations are domestic dependent nations, without full sovereignty?

Should they choose full sovereignty, I would support the US granting them that sovereignty, but that is neither here nor there.

I fully support the right of any tribal nation to determine their own membership, completely absent of the interference of the colonial powers.

That would be full sovereignty.

I may not like the choices made. But I support their right to make those choices.

Period.

Ah, well that is rather different than what I thought you said - which was that you supported their choice. Sorry that I misunderstood you.

I don't think many would say that any Native American nation doesn't have that right. But we can certainly dislike the choices they make. And it is certainly possible for those choices to be racist.

You supported it. You've said repeatedly that it's good that they are exercising self-determination.

You didn't use the word good. Congrats. Are you really going to try to pretend like you don't actually support that they are voting to deny self-determination, which you think is all-important, to the minorities among them? You don't support the outcome, but you take no issue with actually idea that rights are subject to majority vote.

To be fair, Jocabia, we aren't really talking about "rights" in the sense that we normally think of them. Whether or not they are a part of the Cherokee nation, these people are US citizens, entitled to all the rights thereof. The things granted by being a part of the Cherokee are in addition to those. In a sense, they are more like privileges than legal rights. They will not be "men without a country," as it were.

Of course, that doesn't mean that they have not come to depend upon these things and on the land on which they live, and I think we can all agree that taking these things away from them is wrong. But, in truth, I'm more worried about an entire group of people being denied their heritage than I am about the economic issues. After generations of being a part of the Cherokee, these people are now being told, essentially, to fuck off - that their children will not be Cherokee, that they are not "real" Cherokee, and so on.


Stop fucking pretending that you can characterise my arguments, spin them out, or in any way whatsoever make them for me. It's something about you I have always detested, as much as I hate it in Dem

Eh? :eek:

I hardly think that I need to be brought into your conflict with Jocabia.

To be fair, Jocabia, we aren't really talking about "rights" in the sense that we normally think of them. Whether or not they are a part of the Cherokee nation, these people are US citizens, entitled to all the rights thereof. The things granted by being a part of the Cherokee are in addition to those. In a sense, they are more like privileges than legal rights. They will not be "men without a country," as it were.

Of course, that doesn't mean that they have not come to depend upon these things and on the land on which they live, and I think we can all agree that taking these things away from them is wrong. But, in truth, I'm more worried about an entire group of people being denied their heritage than I am about the economic issues. After generations of being a part of the Cherokee, these people are now being told, essentially, to fuck off - that their children will not be Cherokee, that they are not "real" Cherokee, and so on.

I would consider being kicked off the land you were born on, land you were told you had a right to, to be a violation of your rights. I would consider being denied services you were previously entitled to because you're not the right race to be a violation of your rights. I don't consider my right to property to be a privelege, nor do I consider theirs a privelege.

However, the larger issue, as I've brought up repeatedly is the message this sends that the Cherokee (and those who have made similar claims before them) believe that a government, the Cherokee nation, has no obligation to the descendents of those they've previously wronged and those they've considered to be a part of their citizenship previously. It very much opens the door to an argument that the US and Canada have no further obligation to the Cherokee and can just withdraw all agreements and let them find their own way in the world.

I'm fairly certain no one wants that.

I would consider being kicked off the land you were born on, land you were told you had a right to, to be a violation of your rights. I would consider being denied services you were previously entitled to because you're not the right race to be a violation of your rights. I don't consider my right to property to be a privelege, nor do I consider theirs a privelege.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think property works the same way on a reservation. It is my understanding that the tribe owns all of the reservation land, and that those who live on the reservation are then granted the use of portions of it.

What I was trying to get at is that, as it currently stands, it would appear that the Cherokee nation actually has no authority to grant and uphold legal "rights." The US government does so, giving the Cherokee certain leeway in how and when certain services/land/etc. are used, as well as exemption from certain taxes, etc. A truly direct comparison between the Cherokee nation and the US, while it may be useful, definitely has huge flaws.

However, the larger issue, as I've brought up repeatedly is the message this sends that the Cherokee (and those who have made similar claims before them) believe that a government, the Cherokee nation, has no obligation to the descendents of those they've previously wronged and those they've considered to be a part of their citizenship previously.

Indeed. I don't think anyone is really arguing with you here.

It very much opens the door to an argument that the US and Canada have no further obligation to the Cherokee and can just withdraw all agreements and let them find their own way in the world.

That argument has been made for quite some time, I believe. And it will continue to be made. This may lend some support to that argument. In fact, I could definitely see the argument being made that the US should not support a racist government, even if it has wronged the people under that government in the past - and I'd have a hard time arguing with it.

However, the larger issue, as I've brought up repeatedly is the message this sends that the Cherokee (and those who have made similar claims before them) believe that a government, the Cherokee nation, has no obligation to the descendents of those they've previously wronged...


Actually - here is pretty much the heart of the argument to me.

There is no automatic mechanism that says a nation must grant citizenship to anyone they crew around with - not the US, not the Cherokee. You are creating a false equality. The Cherokee didn't offer citizenship to some people because they had wronged them. The Cherokee offered citizenship to some people because they were forced into it.

The US similarly doesn't 'have obligation to the descendents of those they've previously wronged', at least - not in any formal way. If that were true, any African family that had one ancestor that had been a plantation slave, would have some fast-track access route to American citizenship, if they choose to take it.

On the contrary - the specific rules of citizenship (being born in the nation, and/or to citizen parents) are what guarantees 'rights' to tenth generation slave-descendents... nothing to do with the fact that they were wronged.


...and those they've considered to be a part of their citizenship previously. It very much opens the door to an argument that the US and Canada have no further obligation to the Cherokee and can just withdraw all agreements and let them find their own way in the world.

I'm fairly certain no one wants that.

One could make the argument that this is fine, and, indeed, I would absolutely back it.

Of course, if the Cherokee are no longer an obligation of the US, then it would be churclish of the US to maintain an occupying force in their native lands.

So - let's just move the 'imports' off of the native lands, and then we'll let them support themselves eh? That'll show them.

Actually - here is pretty much the heart of the argument to me.

There is no automatic mechanism that says a nation must grant citizenship to anyone they crew around with - not the US, not the Cherokee. You are creating a false equality. The Cherokee didn't offer citizenship to some people because they had wronged them. The Cherokee offered citizenship to some people because they were forced into it.

The US similarly doesn't 'have obligation to the descendents of those they've previously wronged', at least - not in any formal way. If that were true, any African family that had one ancestor that had been a plantation slave, would have some fast-track access route to American citizenship, if they choose to take it.

On the contrary - the specific rules of citizenship (being born in the nation, and/or to citizen parents) are what guarantees 'rights' to tenth generation slave-descendents... nothing to do with the fact that they were wronged.

So again, would it be acceptable for the South to suddenly revoke citizenship from black people? It was forced on them, no? The significant difference here is that they aren't voting not to give rights to people, but to take them away.

Yes, I absolutely hold that if you chose as a government, as a group to engage in slavery, imperialism, etc., that when you decide you're no longer going to engage in those practices that you deal with what's left. Here, we have natives left and either we owe them some obligation because their ancestors owned the land and the Cherokees have an equal obligation to Freedmen for the same reason, or the reason doesn't exist and there is no longer any obligation to even grant citizenship to descendents of our slaves or the natives of the land. It completely undermines the origins of our agreements with natives and, quite frankly, makes it very difficult to argue that Cherokees should get any kind of consideration by the US or Canada. Obviously, ancestry does not convey obligation to a government, according to the Cherokees.

Yes, if your parents were citizens that citizenship is passed to you. However, here they revoked that citizenship and any benefits of being members of the tribe based on the claim that their obligation to the descendents of slaves had ended and that they are now on their own. And, fine, but that's a big door they're opening. Because it means that any special priveleges for natives should end too and we can just take back that reservations and the gaming rights and they can see where that leaves them. In fact, wouldn't that about leave them, oh, I don't know. right where they're leaving the Freedmen? Seems fair.



One could make the argument that this is fine, and, indeed, I would absolutely back it.

Of course, if the Cherokee are no longer an obligation of the US, then it would be churclish of the US to maintain an occupying force in their native lands.

So - let's just move the 'imports' off of the native lands, and then we'll let them support themselves eh? That'll show them.

Nope. Not their native lands. Remember, we took from their ancestors. You don't owe anything to descendents, just like the Cherokee don't. See where that argument leads.

So again, would it be acceptable for the South to suddenly revoke citizenship from black people? It was forced on them, no? The significant difference here is that they aren't voting not to give rights to people, but to take them away.

Yes, I absolutely hold that if you chose as a government, as a group to engage in slavery, imperialism, etc., that when you decide you're no longer going to engage in those practices that you deal with what's left. Here, we have natives left and either we owe them some obligation because their ancestors owned the land and the Cherokees have an equal obligation to Freedmen for the same reason, or the reason doesn't exist and there is no longer any obligation to even grant citizenship to descendents of our slaves or the natives of the land. It completely undermines the origins of our agreements with natives and, quite frankly, makes it very difficult to argue that Cherokees should get any kind of consideration by the US or Canada. Obviously, ancestry does not convey obligation to a government, according to the Cherokees.

Yes, if your parents were citizens that citizenship is passed to you. However, here they revoked that citizenship and any benefits of being members of the tribe based on the claim that their obligation to the descendents of slaves had ended and that they are now on their own. And, fine, but that's a big door they're opening. Because it means that any special priveleges for natives should end too and we can just take back that reservations and the gaming rights and they can see where that leaves them. In fact, wouldn't that about leave them, oh, I don't know. right where they're leaving the Freedmen? Seems fair.





Nope. Not their native lands. Remember, we took from their ancestors. You don't owe anything to descendents, just like the Cherokee don't. See where that argument leads.

you are so enamored of that south thing. the south doesnt grant anyone citizenship, the government of the united states does.


ALL indian nations have a responsibility to their people to maintain some standard for membership. without a standard, the nation dies. the cherokees are not the only people to ever kick out members. it happened here in new mexcio last year (or the year before) with the isleta pueblo. they ended up removing some very long term members and their families from their rolls. this was their right. did some people get hurt? you bet they did. it is something the isletans had to deal with.

the cherokees also have to maintain some standard for membership. they do not want that membership to include the descendants of former slaves but only cherokees. while it is quite unfair, its not an unreasonable standard. they want now to end the deal they were forced into after the civil war. maybe they will be allowed to, maybe they wont. it still might be denied by the cherokee supreme court. it might also be denied by federal courts. in any case it is their right to press the case since it is the will of the majority of voters.

native special rights like gaming and reservations are not presents given them by the US government. they are allowed them by treaty and by the law that pertains to the states. cherokees can have gambling because nevada can have gambling.

native special rights like gaming and reservations are not presents given them by the US government. they are allowed them by treaty and by the law that pertains to the states. cherokees can have gambling because nevada can have gambling.
The thing about abilities granted by treaty or law is that those abilities can be revoked if treaty or law is broken.

The thing about abilities granted by treaty or law is that those abilities can be revoked if treaty or law is broken.

oh i think youll find that if the case goes to the US supreme court and they rule against the cherokees, they will accept the ruling just as any other americans would.

I'm not mischaracterizing your arguments. At least, not intentionally.

That's what you do a lot of the time, Jocabia. A lot of the time. And you seem to make a point of doing it in order to provoke other posters into flaming you. I would go so far as to characterize you as a bit of a bully in that sense.

Ah, there it is. Just like a state. This is just like Georgia suddenly voting to stop giving any benefits or state rights, like voting for state representatives, welfare, driving priveleges, etc., to black people. And in that case I would absolutely hope that the US government would override that racism, even though Georgia granting those rights and priveleges to blacks was forced on them. I would absolutely support the US going and denying all support to Georgia, etc. You were right to compare it to a state.

And, hey, it's majority vote. You want to leave minority rights and priveleges up to majority vote? Really?

sorry but the rules are different for states than they are for indian nations.

you are so enamored of that south thing. the south doesnt grant anyone citizenship, the government of the united states does.


ALL indian nations have a responsibility to their people to maintain some standard for membership. without a standard, the nation dies. the cherokees are not the only people to ever kick out members. it happened here in new mexcio last year (or the year before) with the isleta pueblo. they ended up removing some very long term members and their families from their rolls. this was their right. did some people get hurt? you bet they did. it is something the isletans had to deal with.

the cherokees also have to maintain some standard for membership. they do not want that membership to include the descendants of former slaves but only cherokees. while it is quite unfair, its not an unreasonable standard. they want now to end the deal they were forced into after the civil war. maybe they will be allowed to, maybe they wont. it still might be denied by the cherokee supreme court. it might also be denied by federal courts. in any case it is their right to press the case since it is the will of the majority of voters.

native special rights like gaming and reservations are not presents given them by the US government. they are allowed them by treaty and by the law that pertains to the states. cherokees can have gambling because nevada can have gambling.

Ah, there it is. Just like a state. This is just like Georgia suddenly voting to stop giving any benefits or state rights, like voting for state representatives, welfare, driving priveleges, etc., to black people. And in that case I would absolutely hope that the US government would override that racism, even though Georgia granting those rights and priveleges to blacks was forced on them. I would absolutely support the US going and denying all support to Georgia, etc. You were right to compare it to a state.

And, hey, it's majority vote. You want to leave minority rights and priveleges up to majority vote? Really?

That's what you do a lot of the time, Jocabia. A lot of the time. And you seem to make a point of doing it in order to provoke other posters into flaming you. I would go so far as to characterize you as a bit of a bully in that sense.

People often don't recognize the consequences of what they're saying. Sinuhue actively said she never supported the decision, but I quoted her entire post that said, she didn't agree with the decision, but that she supported it.

She also said that self-determination trumps equality. Calling her out on that doesn't make me a bully. She justified racism. She said she supports a racist decision. That's not a mischaracterization. I'm not going to dance around the truth because people don't realize what they're saying.

Our nordic friend also thought people were mischaracterizing his arguments when people rightfully called them racist.

People justifying their personal prejudices is rather common, and pointing it out makes them face it. If that makes me a bully, I'm a bully. It's interesting to me that whether it's a fair practice or not, in terms of calling people on their prejudices, usually directly coincides with people's personal line as to what level of prejudice is acceptable.

I also notice, that like Sinuhue, people have a tendency to slowly morph their argument as they discuss things because they realize their previous claims were racist, ludicrous, prejudiced, unreasonable, etc., but rather than simply conceding the point they act as if they were always saying the same thing, much like Sin pretended she never supported the decision despite explicitly saying she supported the decision, in those words.

Tell you what, Jocabia - seeing as we're briefly on the topic of bullying - if you'd like to seem less of an overall bully, maybe you'd see fit to remove this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12403258&postcount=6) post from this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519981) thread in Moderation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231). Beckley removed his offending post(s), so there's nothing served by retaining your own. Not that you've gone and actually threatened Mod action, Heavens no - you're much too circumspect for that. But this rubs up against the semi-insidious nature of your particular style of bullying tactics. You always try coming off as thoroughly dispassionate, even while you hector others.

Anyway, I won't allow myself to be drawn into your reindeer games. I just thought I'd take this opportunity to let you know that some of us are onto you.

One last time, I will repeat this.

I support the right of the Cherokee to make this decision.
I do not like the choice they made.

I support the right of people to deny the Holocaust.
I do not support Holocaust denial.

Period.

If you, one more time, attempt to tell me what I in fact support, in the face of the many, many times I have said exactly the above, I will put you on a long overdue ignore.

I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference, Jocabia. But that is an intellectual fault of yours, not mine.

Tell you what, Jocabia - seeing as we're briefly on the topic of bullying - if you'd like to seem less of an overall bully, maybe you'd see fit to remove this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12403258&postcount=6) post from this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519981) thread in Moderation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231). Beckley removed his offending post(s), so there's nothing served by retaining your own. Not that you've gone and actually threatened Mod action, Heavens no - you're much too circumspect for that. But this rubs up against the semi-insidious nature of your particular style of bullying tactics. You always try coming off as thoroughly dispassionate, even while you hector others.

Anyway, I won't allow myself to be drawn into your reindeer games. I just thought I'd take this opportunity to let you know that some of us are onto you.


Actually, I'll give you that one. I saw his reply that he didn't know. I did consider removing it but as there were several I didn't see the point. Perhaps I should have. Not sure what that has to do with being a bully. He was spamming moderation, several threads actually. I didn't threaten him. I let him know what would happen as several others did. Meanwhile, the mods aren't unreasonable. I'm sure they'll accept it as an honest mistake.

When I last looked he hadn't removed his posts so I didn't have a good reason to remove mine. Like I said, I did consider it once he said it was just a mistake.

I didn't threaten him. I let him know what would happen as several others did.


Links, please.

One last time, I will repeat this.

I support the right of the Cherokee to make this decision.
I do not like the choice they made.

Period.

If you, one more time, attempt to tell me what I in fact support, in the face of the many, many times I have said exactly the above, I will put you on a long overdue ignore.

I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference, Jocabia. But that is an intellectual fault of yours, not mine.

Sin, that's perfect. Exactly highlights my point. I'm not telling you what you support. I'm telling you what you said you support. You did say you supported their choice. In explicit language. Maybe you mispoke and I can grant you that if you say that. You didn't say you said it wrong. You blamed me for taking what you said as what you think. If that makes you want to ignore me, press the button. Why would I care?

If that's their choice, I'll support it.

I don't agree though.

You said explicitly that you disagree with the choice but that you SUPPORT IT. That's what YOU said. Not me. Now if you didn't MEAN that, then say that you didn't. Reacting to what YOU say is not me telling you what YOU think. I'm telling you what YOU said.

Can you bold the word "right" there? I don't think it's there. Is it in white text? You said you support their choice, not their right to make it. Were you mistaken in saying that? You tell me. Was I mistaken in saying you said so? Nope. It's right there in black and white.

Links, please.

Ha. I take it you didn't actually look at all of the threads he spammed. I guess collecting evidence prior to your attacks isn't really necessary, huh? I didn't realize this discussion was necesary, but here you go.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519974&page=2
EDIT: Nevermind. Just saw that Beckley's decided it'd be smart to spam the mod forum. :rolleyes:

In this forum. The Moderation forum. You report people breaking rules. Just cause the title says "spam?" doesn't mean you can spam here. It means someone is reporting another person for spamming up a thread somewhere in the NS Section of Jolt.


Please go read the rules. They are located HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Good gawd...

*waves a hand* This is not the forum you are looking for.

/Jedi mind trick

This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=29) is.

Shazbotdom got it right in assuming he was confused. I saw this post and figured he was a puppet.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12401966&postcount=4
indeed. If you want faster results, IF they are even around or even have time to talk to you then IRC is the way to go. I've tried it a few times where they werent able to get around to talking but then again, they have like what...12,000 regions and more nations to deal with plus tasks? But if you can be patient, like the person said before me, use the getting help page, may take reminding them a few times but they try hard to get it done. It takes a lot to be a moderator

See, generally, before I make a comment like that I actually take a look around and see what I can figure out. In this case I found about 6 spam posts made relatively quickly by a poster with less than 10 posts claiming to have been around for a while. Apparently, my reasoned comment based on my actual research is less appropriate than your comment that apparently wasn't worth, oh, just a moment to see where it may have come from.

Are we done with this or do I have to justify anything else to you?

Jocabia.

You are behaving like an ass. I hope you have the honesty to accept that, and realise that what you are doing is wrong.

You are in fact denying me my right to clarify myself when questioned. You equate clarification with lying.

I didn't say 'right' the first time.
You made a stink.
I said right.
You make some more stink. "But you said, but you said, but you said".
Yes. I said. And you took it out of context, and accused me of being a racist, and of supporting racism.

So I clarified for you. But that's not good enough, because clearly I must be covering something up. Gleefully, you pounce, and you pretend to give people the chance to clarify when you have misunderstood something...but your chance is a false one. I've seen it with you again, and again.

You don't get to tell me what I support. You can shuffle, and bitch, and moan, and point and whine. But in the end, you are not the one forming my opinions. You can mischaracterise them, as you have done here, but you don't form them.

I am truly sorry that you need to validate yourself in this way, and I hope you learn to recognise this in yourself, and tackle it as a pretty ugly fault in your character.

Que le vaya bien.

Jocabia.


You respect the sovereignty, not the sovereign so to speak. Seems pretty obvious to me. And perfectly reasonable.

Are we done with this or do I have to justify anything else to you?

How about your sense of entitlement?

In the context of the thread in question, he stood down, but your sense of entitlement as a veteran of NS dictated that he needs be slapped down, be he clueless n00b or worked by strings. And that's why you left your post up after he took his down - especially after this had been drawn to your attention.

Anyway, I'm done. Good luck lining up your next multi-page assault on wordplay.

*takes ball and glove and whistles on the way out of the park*

*takes ball and glove and whistles on the way out of the park*

Think I'll join ya Dobbs :)

Jocabia.

You are an ass. I've known this for some time.

You are in fact denying me my right to clarify myself when questioned. You equate clarification with lying.

I didn't say you lied. However, if you'd like to show where I said you were lying, please quote me. You wouldn't admit you were wrong and that you said what you claimed I made up.

I said you were mistaken. You instead blamed me and continue to. You're welcome to clarify you're point, but if something you said was wrong and you don't want me to take it as your opinion then you say it isn't.



I didn't say 'right' the first time.
You made a stink.

No, actually, I made a stink abou the racism you were defending. It wasn't until sometime later when I said you supported the choice and you were claiming you never said such a thing that I made a stink.


I said right.
You make some more stink. "But you said, but you said, but you said".
Yes. I said. And you took it out of context, and accused me of being a racist, and of supporting racism.

Out of context? That's the whole post. Please, show the context that explains it differently. I'm happy to wait. Or you could simply stop blaming me for taking you at what you say. You called on me to prove you said what I claimed you said. I did. It upset you. That's how it goes sometimes.

I accused you of supporting racism with your arguments. You were. You still are. YOu still think they should be permitted to make racist decisions. You support them making those decisions even if you disagree with those decisions. You believe the rights and priveleges of certain races should be subject to vote. Again, do you deny that that while you would hope the vote didn't turn out like it did that you support the fact that they voted?



So I clarified for you. But that's not good enough, because clearly I must be covering something up. Gleefully, you pounce, and you pretend to give people the chance to clarify when you have misunderstood something...but your chance is a false one. I've seen it with you again, and again.

Amusing. Can you link me to the post where you said, "Oh, I see. I did say that. I mispoke. I was actually meaning to say..."

Nope. What I got was, "Jocabia, you bastard, prove I said it or quit lying." Shall I quote the numerous posts insulting me?

Clarified, my ass. You went on the attack. You claimed I made up that you'd said it. You're still claiming I made it up. You said it. I assumed you meant it and when you attacked me for that rightful assumption I proved you'd said it. It's that simple.


You don't get to tell me what I support. You can shuffle, and bitch, and moan, and point and whine. But in the end, you are not the one forming my opinions. You can mischaracterise them, as you have done here, but you don't form them.

I get to tell you what you said you support. I get to quote you. That's the magic of forums. You get to say, "Oh, I didn't really mean that." What you don't get to say is "you're lying. I never said that."

See the difference?


I am truly sorry that you need to validate yourself in this way, and I hope you learn to recognise this in yourself, and tackle it as a pretty ugly fault in your character.

Que le vaya bien.

Only one of us is attacking the other. Only one of us is doing so because they were called to task for what they said. Only one of us attacked the other for putting words, their own quoted words, in their mouth. Only one of us. It's not me.

neesika's position could not possibly be clearer.

she supports the cherokees right to decide their own membership. she does not like the decision they made.

now cant we all just get along?

How about your sense of entitlement?

In the context of the thread in question, he stood down, but your sense of entitlement as a veteran of NS dictated that he needs be slapped down, be he clueless n00b or worked by strings. And that's why you left your post up after he took his down - especially after this had been drawn to your attention.

Anyway, I'm done. Good luck lining up your next multi-page assault on wordplay.

*takes ball and glove and whistles on the way out of the park*

Amusing. I didn't know he removed his posts. That's why my post is still there. Amusingly, you didn't know what happened when you made the claims and now rather than just accept that fact you defend it by claiming I ignored that he'd removed his posts and that I'm a bad person because I didn't keep watching to see if he would remove his posts. How could I not laugh? I couldn't make this stuff up.

Meanwhile, if you're asking why I didn't remove it just now, we're discussing it. How silly would it be to remove the evidence in the middle of the discussion? It would look like I was yanking the rug from under you. But, hey, maybe it really is your silly strawman argument that motivated me. I guess, despite all the evidence to the contrary, you just got that lucky.

neesika's position could not possibly be clearer.

she supports the cherokees right to decide their own membership. she does not like the decision they made.

now cant we all just get along?

I think there is a part of what she said she supports that falls in between the two very true things you said. She definitely said that she disagreed with the decision, but she also said that the actual vote was something she supported, just not the results.

The vote itself is what I said was racist. Their right to vote is not at question.

The subject of the thread is whether the act was racist. It didn't have to go this route it ended up going, but it's very pertinent to discuss whether support of the act of voting on whether or not to boot people out based on race is racist. It's the very topic of the thread.

I'm a bully because on a debate forum where I don't know anyone from Adam that I don't put relationships before debate. I several times told her that she was welcome to clarify her points, but instead she attacked me for, according to her, being unfair for making up the things she explicitly said.

They only recently changed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

Jus sanguinis (Latin for "right of blood") is a right by which nationality or citizenship can be recognized to any individual born to a parent who is a national or citizen of that state. It contrasts with jus soli (Latin for "right of soil").

Dont believe everything you read on Wiki. That info is unsourced.

Damn. I should have written something more special for my 300th post!!!!

S'alright. Save something special for 500th.

Dont believe everything you read on Wiki. That info is unsourced.

Damn. I should have written something more special for my 300th post!!!!

I think there is a part of what she said she supports that falls in between the two very true things you said. She definitely said that she disagreed with the decision, but she also said that the actual vote was something she supported, just not the results.

The vote itself is what I said was racist. Their right to vote is not at question.

The subject of the thread is whether the act was racist. It didn't have to go this route it ended up going, but it's very pertinent to discuss whether support of the act of voting on whether or not to boot people out based on race is racist. It's the very topic of the thread.

I'm a bully because on a debate forum where I don't know anyone from Adam that I don't put relationships before debate. I several times told her that she was welcome to clarify her points, but instead she attacked me for, according to her, being unfair for making up the things she explicitly said.


the vote may or may not be racist.

if the very idea of a seperate cherokee nation is racist, then it is racist for them to want to be "cherokee only".

no non cherokee is allowed to be a member except for these freemen descendants who were forced on them at the end of the civil war. is that racist?

as far as im concerned, we dont really know if its racism or not. its blatantly unfair for sure. but wanting to be "cherokee only" (a misnomer at best since the nation is made up of more than just cherokees) is only as racist as the concept of the cherokee nation is racist.

the vote may or may not be racist.

if the very idea of a seperate cherokee nation is racist, then it is racist for them to want to be "cherokee only".

no non cherokee is allowed to be a member except for these freemen descendants who were forced on them at the end of the civil war. is that racist?

as far as im concerned, we dont really know if its racism or not. its blatantly unfair for sure. but wanting to be "cherokee only" (a misnomer at best since the nation is made up of more than just cherokees) is only as racist as the concept of the cherokee nation is racist.

Laying down the issue for a moment, isn't there a difference between a government closing their borders, their enrollment, and a government kicking former members off that governments land and revoking their citizenship?

I think that's line. It's really the difference between Georgia booting out all black people or refusing to accept that all black people everywhere should get benefits in Georgia.

How is purifying the Cherokee roles any different than any other group trying to "purify" their membership? And isn't the mere suggestion that such a thing should be the subject of a vote racist? In this case, democracy is very much tyranny of the majority. They not only used the democracy to take rights and priveleges from the minority, but in doing so they took away the minorities ability to ever rectify that, to ever gain a majority.

The Freedmen descendents are as Cherokee as the descendents of American slaves are American. Which is to say, all the way.

Could the freedmen Cherokee then not still identify themselves as Cherokee and reach a settlement with the Federal government on the basis of the treaty that made them Cherokee? Essentially a tribe within a tribe?

Could the freedmen Cherokee then not still identify themselves as Cherokee and reach a settlement with the Federal government on the basis of the treaty that made them Cherokee? Essentially a tribe within a tribe?

I actually think that would be an appropriate response. The government should treat this like a forced seccession (sp?), like voting northern CA out of CA. They should get their share of the reservation and any federal aid, access to anything they collectively worked for prior to the booting. Seems a fair compromise.

Laying down the issue for a moment, isn't there a difference between a government closing their borders, their enrollment, and a government kicking former members off that governments land and revoking their citizenship?

I think that's line. It's really the difference between Georgia booting out all black people or refusing to accept that all black people everywhere should get benefits in Georgia.

How is purifying the Cherokee roles any different than any other group trying to "purify" their membership? And isn't the mere suggestion that such a thing should be the subject of a vote racist? In this case, democracy is very much tyranny of the majority. They not only used the democracy to take rights and priveleges from the minority, but in doing so they took away the minorities ability to ever rectify that, to ever gain a majority.

The Freedmen descendents are as Cherokee as the descendents of American slaves are American. Which is to say, all the way.

as i understand it, the thing that really is driving the issue is not the freemen descendants living on the reservation but the idea of "right of return" that would allow non cherokees to move to the reservation. anyone with the necessary blood quantum can declare themselves cherokee and will be accepted as a member of the tribe no matter if they know anything about being a cherokee or not. (subject to verification) without this move anyone descended from the original freeman rolls would have that right of return. they dont so much hate their neighbors as much as hate the idea that an unknown number of non cherokees have a right to membership.

how true that is, i have no way to know. it might just be self justification for people who really DO hate their neighbors.

but i do know that keeping some control over the membership is essential to retaining the cherokee nation. for decades (whenever the policy wasnt outright genocide) the policy of the US govt was to breed out our indian population. to have them give up their tribal affiliations, move to the city, marry white people and fade away. and there certainly are lots of americans who can claim "indian blood" but have no idea what tribe it might come from.

many indians are not interested in becoming ersatz white people. they love their history and traditions and choose to stay on their reservations as members of their tribes even though it might be an easier life for them if they move away. the only way to keep that way of life is to make sure that they keep their "purity". if they dont, in a few generations they will be indistinguishable from white america.

as such, its their tribe, their nation, and their decision. i dont have to think its right to know that they alone should have the right to make the decision.

there also may be factors of US law that come into play that we dont know about. indian nations are a special class within the us legal system. there are all sorts of rules that apply that we dont have a clue about.

Laying down the issue for a moment, isn't there a difference between a government closing their borders, their enrollment, and a government kicking former members off that governments land and revoking their citizenship?

Aren't the Cherokees an independent sovereign nation though? I don't recall the US government severing diplomatic ties with Uganda when Idi Amin did the same thing to the Ugandan asians.

as i understand it, the thing that really is driving the issue is not the freemen descendants living on the reservation but the idea of "right of return" that would allow non cherokees to move to the reservation. anyone with the necessary blood quantum can declare themselves cherokee and will be accepted as a member of the tribe no matter if they know anything about being a cherokee or not. (subject to verification) without this move anyone descended from the original freeman rolls would have that right of return. they dont so much hate their neighbors as much as hate the idea that an unknown number of non cherokees have a right to membership.

how true that is, i have no way to know. it might just be self justification for people who really DO hate their neighbors.

but i do know that keeping some control over the membership is essential to retaining the cherokee nation. for decades (whenever the policy wasnt outright genocide) the policy of the US govt was to breed out our indian population. to have them give up their tribal affiliations, move to the city, marry white people and fade away. and there certainly are lots of americans who can claim "indian blood" but have no idea what tribe it might come from.

many indians are not interested in becoming ersatz white people. they love their history and traditions and choose to stay on their reservations as members of their tribes even though it might be an easier life for them if they move away. the only way to keep that way of life is to make sure that they keep their "purity". if they dont, in a few generations they will be indistinguishable from white america.

as such, its their tribe, their nation, and their decision. i dont have to think its right to know that they alone should have the right to make the decision.

there also may be factors of US law that come into play that we dont know about. indian nations are a special class within the us legal system. there are all sorts of rules that apply that we dont have a clue about.

If those were the real concerns then a solution would have to deal with the right of return and not boot out those who have been living as Cherokees their whole life based on race.

As far as purity, I see no difference between that argument and our Nordic friends argument believing that purity is the only way to save white people. People were right to call the argument racist then and to call it that now. Arguing for racial purity is racist. It can be nothing less. Could it be justified? That's debatable, but that debating it's inherent racism denies the meaning of the word.

Aren't the Cherokees an independent sovereign nation though? I don't recall the US government severing diplomatic ties with Uganda when Idi Amin did the same thing to the Ugandan asians.

Actually, they aren't. That was Sin's point.

They are much more comparable to a state.

Aren't the Cherokees an independent sovereign nation though? I don't recall the US government severing diplomatic ties with Uganda when Idi Amin did the same thing to the Ugandan asians.

No, they aren't. The are domestically dependent nations.

Actually, they aren't. That was Sin's point.

They are much more comparable to a state.

Interesting. I always assumed that there was a legal fiction that they were an independent sovereign nation. I say legal fiction because their conduct is prescribed by treaties which are definitely one sided, but otherwise observe the forms of an agreement between two 'equal' states.

I mean, they are not bound by the constitution or anything.

Even then, it seems a bit much to tell them they have autonomy about tribal matters, until people don't agree with it.

No, they aren't. The are domestically dependent nations.

Well, I oppose that. They should either be sovereign - with treaty based assistance if needed - or incorporated fully. Hybrid schemes are always crap.

I've been lied to by my government again. :mad: (LOL).

For a different take on this issue, I went to the Cherokee's website.

http://www.cherokeephoenix.org/News/News.aspx?StoryID=2480

A few key differences between this article and the AP one.

For starters,

On March 3, Cherokee Nation citizens voted by nearly 3-to-1 to amend the tribe’s constitution and restrict tribal citizenship to descendants of Indians by blood listed on the Dawes Rolls and to exclude descendants of Freedmen and intermarried whites.

This is new information.


On the legality side;

“He did say if they were voted out we would be back in court,” Jon Velie, an attorney for the Freedmen, said. Velie added that by voting out the Freedmen and intermarried white descendants, the CN is risking its sovereignty. “The vote of the Cherokee people is really not just a vote to vote out the Freedmen, but it may be a vote to violate a treaty. The Treaty of 1866 re-established the government-to-government relationship with the United States. A condition of that treaty was the inclusion of the former slaves into the tribe and their membership, so by violating the treaty it puts a pretty precarious position on what the relationship with the United States would be for violation of a conditional treaty.”


However, I find this little bit at the end interesting...

The special election was brought about by a petition of registered Cherokee voters, and was the first ever stand-alone election for the tribe to vote on a constitutional amendment.

The petition drive followed a March 2006 ruling by the CN Supreme Court that stated the 1866 Treaty assured Freedmen descendants tribal citizenship. Following that ruling, approximately 2,800 Freedmen descendants enrolled as tribal citizens.

So, at a glance, it would appear that a large number of people weren't citizens until very recently, as they were not enrolled as such. The vote turnout according to this article was "6,702 citizens voted in favor and 2,041 voted against. (unnoficial)". So it appears that the vote against the decision was largely by people who were new citizens, and who only recently were gaining benefits of membership.

It seems like the Cherokee are largely trying to protect their entitlements from people trying to take a piece of the pie. There may definitely be people caught up in this who identify as Cherokee yet aren't full-blooded, but it seems that perhaps many are just trying to cash in on 'Indian rights'.

If those were the real concerns then a solution would have to deal with the right of return and not boot out those who have been living as Cherokees their whole life based on race.

As far as purity, I see no difference between that argument and our Nordic friends argument believing that purity is the only way to save white people. People were right to call the argument racist then and to call it that now. Arguing for racial purity is racist. It can be nothing less. Could it be justified? That's debatable, but that debating it's inherent racism denies the meaning of the word.

it may well be racist. i guess id have to think it through some more

but without that racism, the cherokees will cease to exist.

Almost exactly like the Bill C-31 fiasco here in Canada.

Thanks for the info, Mike.

Never hurts to check other sources.

So, at a glance, it would appear that a large number of people weren't citizens until very recently, as they were not enrolled as such. The vote turnout according to this article was "6,702 citizens voted in favor and 2,041 voted against. (unnoficial)". So it appears that the vote against the decision was largely by people who were new citizens, and who only recently were gaining benefits of membership.

It seems like the Cherokee are largely trying to protect their entitlements from people trying to take a piece of the pie. There may definitely be people caught up in this who identify as Cherokee yet aren't full-blooded, but it seems that perhaps many are just trying to cash in on 'Indian rights'.Almost exactly like the Bill C-31 fiasco here in Canada.

Thanks for the info, Mike.

it may well be racist. i guess id have to think it through some more

but without that racism, the cherokees will cease to exist.

Consider this.

The biggest argument for abolishing Reservations, and scattering the tribes to the legal winds is: "the system of reservations and blood quantum is racist, and has no place in a free, democratic society".

Where were these appeals to human rights when these systems were implemented?

It's convenient NOW to bring them up. When what it means is stripping us of our status, and legal rights.

Better yet...when we oppose this position, it automatically looks as though we oppose human rights.

Catch 22, no?

Consider this.

The biggest argument for abolishing Reservations, and scattering the tribes to the legal winds is: "the system of reservations and blood quantum is racist, and has no place in a free, democratic society".

Where were these appeals to human rights when these systems were implemented?

It's convenient NOW to bring them up. When what it means is stripping us of our status, and legal rights.

Better yet...when we oppose this position, it automatically looks as though we oppose human rights.

Catch 22, no?

A difficult position, sometimes requiring difficult decisions. And it's okay to have a decision, as long as everyone else agrees with it...?

For a different take on this issue, I went to the Cherokee's website.

http://www.cherokeephoenix.org/News/News.aspx?StoryID=2480

A few key differences between this article and the AP one.

For starters,



This is new information.


On the legality side;




However, I find this little bit at the end interesting...



So, at a glance, it would appear that a large number of people weren't citizens until very recently, as they were not enrolled as such. The vote turnout according to this article was "6,702 citizens voted in favor and 2,041 voted against. (unnoficial)". So it appears that the vote against the decision was largely by people who were new citizens, and who only recently were gaining benefits of membership.

It seems like the Cherokee are largely trying to protect their entitlements from people trying to take a piece of the pie. There may definitely be people caught up in this who identify as Cherokee yet aren't full-blooded, but it seems that perhaps many are just trying to cash in on 'Indian rights'.


i think they HAD to re-enroll after they were kicked out in 1983, they ended up suing in cherokee courts (i dont know why the gap in time) to get reinstated. the cherokee supreme court ruled last year that they cant be de-enrolled. thats why they decided to vote on an ammendment that would allow the de-enrollment.

there are almost 300,000 cherokees, a vote of less than 10,000 people on such an important issue is disturbing.

The Cherokee Nation expelled many descendants of slaves in 1983 by requiring them to show a degree of Indian blood through the Dawes rolls. A tribal court reinstated them in March 2006. That spurred today's special election, which received a go-ahead Feb. 21 when a federal judge in Washington denied the freedmen's request for an injunction to halt the balloting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030201647_pf.html

its an interesting article with more information.

Consider this.

The biggest argument for abolishing Reservations, and scattering the tribes to the legal winds is: "the system of reservations and blood quantum is racist, and has no place in a free, democratic society".

Where were these appeals to human rights when these systems were implemented?

It's convenient NOW to bring them up. When what it means is stripping us of our status, and legal rights.

Better yet...when we oppose this position, it automatically looks as though we oppose human rights.

Catch 22, no?

its very popular here in the US now that some tribes are finally getting on their feet through the influx of gambling money to claim that indian reservations are obsolete and need to be abolished.

i guess they are only useful as a prison.

it may well be racist. i guess id have to think it through some more

but without that racism, the cherokees will cease to exist.

Exist purely. They won't cease to exist unless they suddenly stop breeding altogether.

Exist purely. They won't cease to exist unless they suddenly stop breeding altogether.

there will cease to be cherokees.

except perhaps as insignificant heritage markers like being "irish" because you have an irish last name.

there will cease to be cherokees.

except perhaps as insignificant heritage markers like being "irish" because you have an irish last name.

Oddly, I'm not Irish and I do have an Irish last name. Good choice.

However, so? Why do we care? What value does purity have, other than promoting the myth of race?

Oddly, I'm not Irish and I do have an Irish last name. Good choice.

However, so? Why do we care? What value does purity have, other than promoting the myth of race?

it doesnt mean much to me, im not an indian. however i am unwilling to deny its importance to those who ARE indians.

it doesnt mean much to me, im not an indian. however i am unwilling to deny its importance to those who ARE indians.

Would you worry about white people disappearing? Trying to protect racial purity is racism, by definition. Cherokee is a culture, not some unique bloodline. Certainly not one that can be isolated at least.

Exist purely. They won't cease to exist unless they suddenly stop breeding altogether.

Like the clans, or the reivers?

For a different take on this issue, I went to the Cherokee's website.

http://www.cherokeephoenix.org/News/News.aspx?StoryID=2480

A few key differences between this article and the AP one.

For starters,

.




This is new information.


On the legality side;




However, I find this little bit at the end interesting...



So, at a glance, it would appear that a large number of people weren't citizens until very recently, as they were not enrolled as such. The vote turnout according to this article was "6,702 citizens voted in favor and 2,041 voted against. (unnoficial)". So it appears that the vote against the decision was largely by people who were new citizens, and who only recently were gaining benefits of membership.

It seems like the Cherokee are largely trying to protect their entitlements from people trying to take a piece of the pie. There may definitely be people caught up in this who identify as Cherokee yet aren't full-blooded, but it seems that perhaps many are just trying to cash in on 'Indian rights'.

Interesting, but I'm not sure it changes things.

We live in a culture that is becoming more exclusive, as in the sense of excluding people, all the time. The more people complain about discrimination and prejudice, the more the retreat into their own little enclaves. The more they want to be included in the larger culture, the more they try to exclude others. We are so busy concentrating on that which separates us, that we are completely ignoring that which brings us together. The argument, to me, is less about whether the Cherokee Nation has the right to determine it's membership (like some exclusive country club), than it is about what diminishes us more, including people who are culturally unlike us or excluding people who are culturally unlike us. Race is really irrelevant and culture can as easily be passed to a black or caucasian as to an Indian. I imagine that Neesika will disagree and state that genetics is as important as culture. But you have only to look at the Hawai'ian Islands to realize that culture doesn't care what color you are. Ok, I'm rambling now, but, really, I think the more people harp on racism, the more racism there will be.

Like the clans, or the reivers?

I admit. I don't know what you mean. Please expound.

Interesting, but I'm not sure it changes things.

We live in a culture that is becoming more exclusive, as in the sense of excluding people, all the time. The more people complain about discrimination and prejudice, the more the retreat into their own little enclaves. The more they want to be included in the larger culture, the more they try to exclude others. We are so busy concentrating on that which separates us, that we are completely ignoring that which brings us together. The argument, to me, is less about whether the Cherokee Nation has the right to determine it's membership (like some exclusive country club), than it is about what diminishes us more, including people who are culturally unlike us or excluding people who are culturally unlike us. Race is really irrelevant and culture can as easily be passed to a black or caucasian as to an Indian. I imagine that Neesika will disagree and state that genetics is as important as culture. But you have only to look at the Hawai'ian Islands to realize that culture doesn't care what color you are. Ok, I'm rambling now, but, really, I think the more people harp on racism, the more racism there will be.

Firstly, natives are unarguably the one group (or group of groups) that are different legally from the rest of North American society, due to treaties and the general evolution of North American society. Until the last decade or so, nobody would have called these reservations or bands 'exclusive country clubs'. Now that money is flowing in from gaming, their exclusivity is an issue for some.

And you can't end racism by ignoring it. 'Harping on racism' is an important step to ending it.

The situation here; race vs. economics vs. treaty rights, will most likely be decided by a courtroom. It's the money folks.

white people isnt a culture. and no im not worried about them disappearing even if i thought it was likely.

as neesika said in a past post, bloodline is what they are allowed. it may be that if they were allowed to use whatever criteria was most meaningful to them, blood wouldnt come into it at all. i wouldnt know. all i know is that they want to keep their culture and there are few ways to do it. enforcing bloodline is the one they are allowed.

If they wanted to change that, how does this help? You can't say "dammit we don't want to honor bloodline" while saying "ok, anyone not the bloodline get out even the people we've treated as members for some time." Can't have it both ways. It's like saying that I hate my girlfriend for requiring me to kiss her while begging her to kiss me more.

Meanwhile, blood is not related to culture. Culture is about how you live, not what blood you have. As long as they promote their culture no amount of racial mixing will affect it, unless counter to your claims, bloodline is important to their culture. Is it?

Pick a culture, you're avoiding the point. Who cares what culture you belong to, are you fighting to keep it pure?

Would you worry about white people disappearing? Trying to protect racial purity is racism, by definition. Cherokee is a culture, not some unique bloodline. Certainly not one that can be isolated at least.

white people isnt a culture. and no im not worried about them disappearing even if i thought it was likely.

as neesika said in a past post, bloodline is what they are allowed. it may be that if they were allowed to use whatever criteria was most meaningful to them, blood wouldnt come into it at all. i wouldnt know. all i know is that they want to keep their culture and there are few ways to do it. enforcing bloodline is the one they are allowed.

I admit. I don't know what you mean. Please expound.

The Scottish clans, and the border reivers. I mean, if you want to preserve these things, you do need some control over bloodline which is more than just a voluntary scheme.

The Scottish clans, and the border reivers. I mean, if you want to preserve these things, you do need some control over bloodline which is more than just a voluntary scheme.

You only have to control the bloodline if the bloodline is what you are trying to preserve. The Scottish clans as a culture can survive as long as it's pertinent. There bloodlines might not. (Yes, I know you're talking about the past, I'm just trying to make the argument current).

You only have to control the bloodline if the bloodline is what you are trying to preserve. The Scottish clans as a culture can survive as long as it's pertinent.

And the clans haven't survived as a culture - except for the disney version. And the reiver culture is completely dead. Yet less than two hundred years ago people still recognized it, even though it was in huge decline.

I don't think you can preserve cultures without controlling bloodline. I am hard pressed to think of an example. You could suggest the Jews, but they had their bloodline controlled with negative reinforcement for most of their history however.

If they wanted to change that, how does this help? You can't say "dammit we don't want to honor bloodline" while saying "ok, anyone not the bloodline get out even the people we've treated as members for some time." Can't have it both ways. It's like saying that I hate my girlfriend for requiring me to kiss her while begging her to kiss me more.

Meanwhile, blood is not related to culture. Culture is about how you live, not what blood you have. As long as they promote their culture no amount of racial mixing will affect it, unless counter to your claims, bloodline is important to their culture. Is it?

Pick a culture, you're avoiding the point. Who cares what culture you belong to, are you fighting to keep it pure?

if the cherokees had been allowed their preference the freedmen probably never would have been part of the tribe except for those who had intermarried by the end of the civil war. unlike the southern states that were forced to keep freed slaves as neighbors, the cherokees had to accept them as "members of the family".

i dont know what the point IS. the only way to get cherokee culture is to be a cherokee. you cant pick it up anywhere else. if they want to keep that to themselves by bloodline, that its their business isnt it?

if the cherokees had been allowed their preference the freedmen probably never would have been part of the tribe except for those who had intermarried by the end of the civil war. unlike the southern states that were forced to keep freed slaves as neighbors, the cherokees had to accept them as "members of the family".

i dont know what the point IS. the only way to get cherokee culture is to be a cherokee. you cant pick it up anywhere else. if they want to keep that to themselves by bloodline, that its their business isnt it?

Only because they define family differently than we do. They are members of their government. That government happens to have some communist principle but that doesn't change the similarity.

Yep. It's as much their business as it is the business of Georgia if they choose to deny rights and priveleges to blacks. Which is to say that business is subject to the laws of the US.

Meanwhile, how does that change that it's A) racist and B) an act that pretty much craps all over the idea that any government owes a debt to the decendents of past members OR people they've somehow wronged, like natives OR slaves.

And reasoned response would be to tell the Cherokee they are right and that we should stop living with past decisions or paying for past issues. Cherokees and Freedmen will be just like everyone else. Interesting enough, were the government to do so, it will pull the rug out from under the Cherokee, oh, just about as bad as they are doing to the Freedmen.

Only because they define family differently than we do. They are members of their government. That government happens to have some communist principle but that doesn't change the similarity.

Yep. It's as much their business as it is the business of Georgia if they choose to deny rights and priveleges to blacks. Which is to say that business is subject to the laws of the US.

Meanwhile, how does that change that it's A) racist and B) an act that pretty much craps all over the idea that any government owes a debt to the decendents of past members OR people they've somehow wronged, like natives OR slaves.

And reasoned response would be to tell the Cherokee they are right and that we should stop living with past decisions or paying for past issues. Cherokees and Freedmen will be just like everyone else. Interesting enough, were the government to do so, it will pull the rug out from under the Cherokee, oh, just about as bad as they are doing to the Freedmen.

well here is the difference as i see it

georgia isnt a family. it isnt a tribe, a race, a unified group of any kind. its a geographical zone whose residents constantly change. the special debt owed by georgia to its freedmen population was satsified long ago. no georgian owes any descendant of a georgian slave anything.

to use a more current example, al sharpton cant sue the strom thurmond family for a share of its patrimony because al's great grandfather was owned by strom's great grandfather.

but when it comes to cherokees, current descendants of freedmen who cannot show intermarriage within the tribe (exclusive of marrying other black cherokees) can still make a blood claim to the tribe that enslaved their great grandparents.

its racist only as much as it is racist to want to keep track of your communities bloodline and define membership by that blood line. its not racist against blacks in particular but of everyone not cherokee. im not going to condemn that kind of racism. and the courts will decide if the cherokee still owe the freedmen descendant anything or not. i dont see that its a debt that should go forever but the wording of the treaty is what will make the difference.

to use a more current example, al sharpton cant sue the strom thurmond family for a share of its patrimony because al's great grandfather was owned by strom's great grandfather.

Of course not. He's dead. Sharpton could sue Essie Mae Washington-Williams (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4473680) though. He'd lose, and I don't think he's dumb enough to try, but he could.

And the clans haven't survived as a culture - except for the disney version. And the reiver culture is completely dead. Yet less than two hundred years ago people still recognized it, even though it was in huge decline.

I don't think you can preserve cultures without controlling bloodline. I am hard pressed to think of an example. You could suggest the Jews, but they had their bloodline controlled with negative reinforcement for most of their history however.

Lots of cultures don't survive. How does that change anything? I can think of dozens of examples where the bloodline WAS preserved and the culture still died away or evolved. That's kind of the nature of an ever-evolving world. It would seem all evidence suggests that while there relationship between cultures and bloodlines it's not a necessary relationship.

Meanwhile, I'm hardpressed to believe that if we were talking about keeping Germans pure that anyone would actually be promoting the idea, save a few refugees from Stromfront.

well here is the difference as i see it

georgia isnt a family. it isnt a tribe, a race, a unified group of any kind. its a geographical zone whose residents constantly change. the special debt owed by georgia to its freedmen population was satsified long ago. no georgian owes any descendant of a georgian slave anything.

to use a more current example, al sharpton cant sue the strom thurmond family for a share of its patrimony because al's great grandfather was owned by strom's great grandfather.

but when it comes to cherokees, current descendants of freedmen who cannot show intermarriage within the tribe (exclusive of marrying other black cherokees) can still make a blood claim to the tribe that enslaved their great grandparents.

its racist only as much as it is racist to want to keep track of your communities bloodline and define membership by that blood line. its not racist against blacks in particular but of everyone not cherokee. im not going to condemn that kind of racism. and the courts will decide if the cherokee still owe the freedmen descendant anything or not. i dont see that its a debt that should go forever but the wording of the treaty is what will make the difference.


Cherokees are not a family either (unless you define family to include people who are unrelated and then you'd be hardpressed not to include Chicago). Races don't exist. A better comparison would be a community (a word with origins related to communal and communism). And Georgia very well could be considered a community. But even take it smaller to would definitely be considered a community, a family, even a race. If a bunch of white people in rural Georgia DEMOCRATICALLY passed a law denying all rights an priveleges to black people because giving them rights in the first place was forced on them, would you be arguing that they are just trying to preserve their culture?

I just love how non-natives continue to insist that they should be the ones to define who we are and how we organise ourselves.

"Race matters! Get on the Reserve you dirty Indian!"
changes to:
"Race doesn't exist! Get off the Reserve you dirty Indian...we want the oil there!"

Frankly, the jackasses using 'human rights' as the platform to further destroy our communities, piss me off as much as those who used racism and colonialism to do the same. It's just a branch on the same tree called "We know best".

I just love how non-natives continue to insist that they should be the ones to define who we are and how we organise ourselves.

"Race matters! Get on the Reserve you dirty Indian!"
changes to:
"Race doesn't exist! Get off the Reserve you dirty Indian...we want the oil there!"

Frankly, the jackasses using 'human rights' as the platform to further destroy our communities, piss me off as much as those who used racism and colonialism to do the same. It's just a branch on the same tree called "We know best".

Quote me saying "Race matters". You can't. I never said it. It didn't "change to" anything unless you somehow think that as a non-native I somehow have to answer for other non-natives.

The US and Canada were wrong to put Indians on reserves, to nearly destroy them, to mistreat them as they did. I never supported the act. I had nothing to do with the act. My government did. My government is still responsible for that behavior. However, you're going to have a hard time making that argument since you're the Cherokee government doesn't have the same level of responsibilty for their past actions.

Doesn't change that ANYONE saying "race matters" and granting or denying rights and priveleges based on race is practicing racism.

The fact that being a non-native somehow makes my opinion less valuable when we're discussing the idea of racism is, well, ironic.

I won't answer for the sins of my parents or, worse, people who just happen to look like my parents. Our government should for the sins of the past because it's the same government. That's the native claim. You bring up the past as if I, personally, must answer for it, while defending an act that as if a government shouldn't have to. Hypocrisy that is.

Race doesn't matter. It never mattered. Race should NEVER have been the base for how people are treated or what rights and priveleges they are given or denied. It NEVER should have happened. "They did it first" is not a defense. I'm not "they". The Freedmen are not "they".

It's not "we know best". It's the US has laws. Racism is illegal. The Cherokee are no more sovereign than Georgia. Accept it. The Cherokees are a part of the US and Canada and are subject to that FACT. We have a rule of law. Do you think it's always wrong to enforce laws on racial equality or only when it applies to your people?

Cherokees are not a family either (unless you define family to include people who are unrelated and then you'd be hardpressed not to include Chicago). Races don't exist. A better comparison would be a community (a word with origins related to communal and communism). And Georgia very well could be considered a community. But even take it smaller to would definitely be considered a community, a family, even a race. If a bunch of white people in rural Georgia DEMOCRATICALLY passed a law denying all rights an priveleges to black people because giving them rights in the first place was forced on them, would you be arguing that they are just trying to preserve their culture?

i have no problem with the various indian nations of north america doing whatever they can to preserve their way of life. i dont find it offensive. i dont find it the equivalent of nazi germany. i think our countries would be poorer for losing our native cultures.

i have no problem with the various indian nations of north america doing whatever they can to preserve their way of life. i dont find it offensive. i dont find it the equivalent of nazi germany. i think our countries would be poorer for losing our native cultures.

I agree with the bolded. I think our countries are poorer for our past behavior. For destroying multiple cultures, various parts of the native cultures of those that were slaves, various parts of the native cultures of those that actually chose to come here and various parts of the native cultures of those who were already here. There are things that they knew that we will never recover and it's a sad thing.

However, I don't support doing "whatever they can" because once you accept that argument then you must allow it to be applied equally, meaning any white group that feels threatened can use it, any black group, hispanic, muslim, jewish, christian, etc. "Our way of life is endangered. We get a free pass on racism."

As Sin said, who are we to say what these various groups can and cannot do within our borders? Apparently, each of these groups get to decide individually if they are feeling endangered and what they'd like to do about it. Again, once you start this argument, where does it end? Do you see a hard line of where that slide stops? I don't.

EDIT: Keep in mind that at the rise of the Nazis, German culture, the entire country was very much in dire circumstances and that they rose under the guise of trying to protect the German people from their decline. And I'm not suggesting the comparison between the Cherokees and Nazis extends past making racist decisions. There is no comparison beyond that between denying rights and priveleges to the Freedmen and the genocide that the Nazis attempted to accomplish. I am not suggesting this is any way similar to genocide.

We know it's considered racist if a caucasian is biased about non-caucasians, but is it racist when one minority displays bias towards another minority?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/cherokees-pull-memberships-of-freed/20070304215409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Anyone who recognizes and approves of the concept of race as a means of identifying one's self or others is a racist. Period.

I agree with the bolded. I think our countries are poorer for our past behavior. For destroying multiple cultures, various parts of the native cultures of those that were slaves, various parts of the native cultures of those that actually chose to come here and various parts of the native cultures of those who were already here. There are things that they knew that we will never recover and it's a sad thing.

However, I don't support doing "whatever they can" because once you accept that argument then you must allow it to be applied equally, meaning any white group that feels threatened can use it, any black group, hispanic, muslim, jewish, christian, etc. "Our way of life is endangered. We get a free pass on racism."

As Sin said, who are we to say what these various groups can and cannot do within our borders? Apparently, each of these groups get to decide individually if they are feeling endangered and what they'd like to do about it. Again, once you start this argument, where does it end? Do you see a hard line of where that slide stops? I don't.

EDIT: Keep in mind that at the rise of the Nazis, German culture, the entire country was very much in dire circumstances and that they rose under the guise of trying to protect the German people from their decline. And I'm not suggesting the comparison between the Cherokees and Nazis extends past making racist decisions. There is no comparison beyond that between denying rights and priveleges to the Freedmen and the genocide that the Nazis attempted to accomplish. I am not suggesting this is any way similar to genocide.

there is only one set of people in the united states who get to define themselves legally. that is where the hard slide stops. letting the cherokees kick out whoever they choose will not affect the legal status of anyone else in the united states. its a metaphor only.

sure it would be wrong for the south to disenfranchise black residents. so what? its not going to happen.

it is more important for these various indian nations to exist than it is to stop racism on the reservation by ending their right to decide their own membership. to deny their right to define themselves is to deny their right to exist.

the more important issue is the enforcement of the treaty that gave the freedmen their cherokee status. indian nations live and die by their treaties. if it cant be gotten around, it doesnt matter what they did to their own constitution, they are bound by the treaty.

in the end im pretty sure the US supreme court will decide if they have the right to change this treaty provision. there are certainly arguments on both sides. whatever the court decides is what the cherokees will abide by, just like any other american. im fine with that too.

let me do a little bit of armchair legal analysis.

what was the point of the treaty of 1866 and what is the point of this recent vote?

after the civil war there were millions of freedmen. they were thrust upon the country with nothing. they had no land, no tools, no NOTHING. they had been by and large kept in ignorance. they went from being property to being responsible for themselves but had little means of taking care of themselves.

the federal government was worried that the various former slave owners would solve this local problem by pushing their former slaves out. that they would keep those they needed for farm work and force the rest to move out of the area, the state, the region. (before the war, virginia required that freed slaves leave the state). this would be an unacceptable solution. so the federal govt passed laws and ammendments guaranteeing the freedmens rights to at least stay put. they would be full citizens with all the same rights as white citizens.

with this same problem in mind, they had to decide what to do about the freed slaves of the "5 civilized tribes" in oklahoma. the solution was similar--the tribes had to keep the people they had been holding as slaves. they couldnt push them out onto the rest of oklahoma to deal with. this way they protected the rights and lives of newly freed slaves as much as possible by not forcing them completely out of the only lives they knew.

the feds in the 1880s set up the dawes commission to do a census of the 5 civilized tribes in oklahoma. it drew up a list of freedmen, deciding who was cherokee and who was black based on giving them a good looking at. if they were judged to be black, they were 100% black, no cherokee blood at all.

over the course of 140 years, some freedmen stayed and some went. some families intermarried with their cherokee neighbors, some didnt. some cherokees stayed, some didnt. some intermarried with noncherokees, some didnt.

cut to today. the cherokee nation membership is decided by relationship to those people in the dawes census. if you have a certain percentage ancestry from that list, you are or can claim to be cherokee. some people are cherokee because they are related to the cherokee part of the list, some are cherokee only because of the black part of the list. the cherokees want to remove those who are only cherokee because of their black heritage.

they are not removing those who have the legal amount of cherokee blood but have black ancestors. they are only removing those who, if they didnt have this special status would never be considered cherokee.

this is complicated by the problem of the 100% black freedmen in reality being to some extent intermarried with the cherokees so that for some black cherokees, their blood percentage is legally lower than it actually is.

what the cherokees want to do now is to say that 140 years is long enough to keep noncherokees in the tribe. that their responsibility to the descendants of their former slaves has been satisfied. they more than anything else do not want non reservation black people to be able to claim cherokee citizenship based on a blood relationship to former slaves of the cherokee. unfortunately the only way to do that is to remove ALL people whose only relationship to the tribe is by freedmen blood. this has to include those who live on the reservation today. it is not based on how black you are but on how cherokee you arent.

no other tribes have to accept non-blood-related people as members. no other descendants of former slave owners have any special responsibility to the descendants of former slaves.

i find it possible that the US supreme court might agree with the cherokees that their responsibilty to their noncherokee freedmen descendants can come to an end. it is also quite possible the the courts might rule that the provisions of the 1866 treaty must still be enforced.

what i dont have a problem with is the desire to have the cherokee nation be cherokee. yes it is wrong to kick out people who have lived with you their whole lives but there is no other way to do it. whenever any tribe makes the effort to clean up their rolls (usually in response to an influx of gaming money) someone gets screwed. its a terrible thing but its not racist except to the extent that one might claim that the concept of an indian tribe is inherently racist.

there is only one set of people in the united states who get to define themselves legally. that is where the hard slide stops. letting the cherokees kick out whoever they choose will not affect the legal status of anyone else in the united states. its a metaphor only.

That's not true. Blacks didn't get to define themselves legally. Many hispanics were just included in the US when political groups brought in the states like Texas and California. Some groups were purchased. Alaskans come to mind. Southerners didn't get to define themselves and fought a war in the attempt. Many of them still feel disenfranchised over that issue, thus the reason for the frequency of the Confederate flag. Being wronged by US government is not an action reserved for natives (no pun intended).


sure it would be wrong for the south to disenfranchise black residents. so what? its not going to happen. [/QUOTE]

It's no different than what is happening here. Accepting blacks was forced on them. Should be allowed to democratically reverse this "wrong" and to attempt to recapture or protect their culture. And, yes, there is most certainly a souther culture.



it is more important for these various indian nations to exist than it is to stop racism on the reservation by ending their right to decide their own membership. to deny their right to define themselves is to deny their right to exist. [/QUOTE]

If we agree that defining yourself by race is a practice that is defensible, then we have to agree to that. Period. You can't say it's okay so long as we like you doing it. It doesn't deny them the right to exist. It denies them the right to use law to protect their purity. There is a HUGE difference. Would you like me to quote NyNordland and how similar his arguments are to yours? He believed his hopes for legal measures to "protect" white people was in the interest of preventing them from disappearing.



the more important issue is the enforcement of the treaty that gave the freedmen their cherokee status. indian nations live and die by their treaties. if it cant be gotten around, it doesnt matter what they did to their own constitution, they are bound by the treaty. [/QUOTE]

If they aren't going to uphold their end of the treaty, what interest is their in the US upholding their end? More importantly when the entire basis of the current system is that the US has an obligation to the native peoples because of past wrongs, then it kind of falls apart after this vote. Apparently, government hold not commitment to giving even equal treatment to people who they wronged in the past.


in the end im pretty sure the US supreme court will decide if they have the right to change this treaty provision. there are certainly arguments on both sides. whatever the court decides is what the cherokees will abide by, just like any other american. im fine with that too.[/QUOTE]

I agree with all this. I frequently disagree with the court (for example in their unwillingness to enforce equality law in terms of our treatment of same-sex couples. If I can marry Sinuhue, you should be allowed as well, or it's sex-based descrimination.) Their decisions are not beyond reproach. Obviously, they must be abided by, but I would disagree with them if they upheld this vote, like I disagree with the vote ever taking place.

I don't know it, but I THINK in the long run this will do an incredible amount of damage to the current status of natives in the US and Canada. I think it undermines the basis of that status. I also think the solution that Mike suggested about dividing the benefits among both groups will like be thought of by others and will be a fairly defensible results. I think both of these things are undesirable results for the Cherokee and for natives in general.

Nice to see you-its been a while.

Who? Sin? Myself? Ash? Grave? Threads about racism?

You,I meant.

Sorry-I thought I had quoted you.

Nice to see you-its been a while.

Who? Sin? Myself? Ash? Grave? Threads about racism?

You,I meant.

Sorry-I thought I had quoted you.

Yes, it's good to see you. I pop back for stints at a time and it seems you're doing the same. Were that all reunions were so pleasant. ;-)

I hope it's good things keeping you away.

Consider this.

The biggest argument for abolishing Reservations, and scattering the tribes to the legal winds is: "the system of reservations and blood quantum is racist, and has no place in a free, democratic society".

Where were these appeals to human rights when these systems were implemented?

It's convenient NOW to bring them up. When what it means is stripping us of our status, and legal rights.

Does it have to? Could Native Americans not both receive that status and be able to include descendants of any "blood quantum" and even new people (perhaps spouses, etc.) who wish to live in and preserve that culture? Maybe it's a pipe dream, but it isn't inherently either/or. The situation may make it seem that way now, but the answer to a shitty situation isn't to be shitty - it's to fight against the actual problems.

It would seem to me that a person's "membership", as it were, in a tribal society has (or should have) much more to do with culture than with bloodlines. Would a child adopted by two Cherokee and then raised within the tribal structure not be Cherokee? Would a Cree who married into the tribe and adopted their lifestyle completely really be less Cree than a full-blooded descendant who rejected that lifestyle?

And the clans haven't survived as a culture - except for the disney version. And the reiver culture is completely dead. Yet less than two hundred years ago people still recognized it, even though it was in huge decline.

I don't think you can preserve cultures without controlling bloodline. I am hard pressed to think of an example. You could suggest the Jews, but they had their bloodline controlled with negative reinforcement for most of their history however.

Any culture that cannot be preserved without controlling bloodlines is not worth preserving. If people aren't going to cherish it unless they are pressured to breed only with those of a specific ethnicity, then it probably isn't a culture worthy of that sentiment.

what the cherokees want to do now is to say that 140 years is long enough to keep noncherokees in the tribe. that their responsibility to the descendants of their former slaves has been satisfied. they more than anything else do not want non reservation black people to be able to claim cherokee citizenship based on a blood relationship to former slaves of the cherokee. unfortunately the only way to do that is to remove ALL people whose only relationship to the tribe is by freedmen blood. this has to include those who live on the reservation today. it is not based on how black you are but on how cherokee you arent.

No, this isn't the only way. The Cherokee could, for instance, vote to no longer accept people who have a blood connection, but no cultural connection, to the tribe into the rolls. It would make a hell of a lot more sense, and be a hell of a lot less racist, than what they have chosen to do.

People who have lived within this culture for generations are no less Cherokee than someone who happens to have a certain blood quantum. In fact, they are more Cherokee than many with that blood quantum, as those people quite often do not honor or live within the Cherokee culture at all.

what i dont have a problem with is the desire to have the cherokee nation be cherokee. yes it is wrong to kick out people who have lived with you their whole lives but there is no other way to do it. whenever any tribe makes the effort to clean up their rolls (usually in response to an influx of gaming money) someone gets screwed. its a terrible thing but its not racist except to the extent that one might claim that the concept of an indian tribe is inherently racist.

If the concept is based entirely on who your parents are, it IS inherently racist. If that is the basis of the tribe, then the tribe simply isn't worth preserving. That isn't "culture". It's nothing more than selective breeding.

Does it have to? Could Native Americans not both receive that status and be able to include descendants of any "blood quantum" and even new people (perhaps spouses, etc.) who wish to live in and preserve that culture? Maybe it's a pipe dream, but it isn't inherently either/or. The situation may make it seem that way now, but the answer to a shitty situation isn't to be shitty - it's to fight against the actual problems.

It would seem to me that a person's "membership", as it were, in a tribal society has (or should have) much more to do with culture than with bloodlines. Would a child adopted by two Cherokee and then raised within the tribal structure not be Cherokee? Would a Cree who married into the tribe and adopted their lifestyle completely really be less Cree than a full-blooded descendant who rejected that lifestyle?

You know, in the interest of peace, that I think we can all agree that this is a bad situation, made bad by a lot of people screwing a lot of other people. Regardless of whether we agree with their handling of issues, the issues are clearly a result of a long history of mistreatment of the native tribes.

That said, I really do hope that the Cherokee, and other tribes considering this move, reconsider and examine whether or not being Cherokee, or of any tribe, is at the heart just blood or if they find a way to make their government and ours recognize the importance and value of their culture and those, all those, that are a part of it.

I think we're going to see this kind of thing come up more and more when people are out their getting genetic testing to identify their racial ties and using it to claim scholarships, various benefits, etc. I'm hoping that it will lead to more meaningful ways to seek to provide equality of opportunity and to preserve cultural identities rather than the kind of response seen here.

No, this isn't the only way. The Cherokee could, for instance, vote to no longer accept people who have a blood connection, but no cultural connection, to the tribe into the rolls. It would make a hell of a lot more sense, and be a hell of a lot less racist, than what they have chosen to do.

that would leave anyone leaving the reservation and their children without a right to return to the rez. that could doom a tribe.



People who have lived within this culture for generations are no less Cherokee than someone who happens to have a certain blood quantum. In fact, they are more Cherokee than many with that blood quantum, as those people quite often do not honor or live within the Cherokee culture at all.



maybe so maybe not. some people are getting screwed on this for sure.



If the concept is based entirely on who your parents are, it IS inherently racist. If that is the basis of the tribe, then the tribe simply isn't worth preserving. That isn't "culture". It's nothing more than selective breeding.

that is the basis for EVERY indian tribe. it might be fine with you to say that indian culture is worth nothing, its not OK with me.

that would leave anyone leaving the reservation and their children without a right to return to the rez. that could doom a tribe.

I would think that the point is that if people learn the culture and become a part of it that would welcome under such a system. It seems to me that any dogmatic system would doom including one based on having a certain amount of blood.



maybe so maybe not. some people are getting screwed on this for sure.




that is the basis for EVERY indian tribe. it might be fine with you to say that indian culture is worth nothing, its not OK with me.

Perhaps the basis as established by the people who forced them on the reservation, but blood purity wasn't the basis of EVERY indian tribe when these cultures were created. If you say that discounting blood says their culture is worth nothing, you are basically implying that blood is the only thing of value in and to their culture, and I think you'll find that most of us deny that. Their culture is much more. I think absent in ties to blood their culture has a huge value and I think Dem has pretty clearly said that as well.

let me do a little bit of armchair legal analysis.


Good analysis.

I think sometimes we get caught up in the specifics of legal decisions and agreements and sometimes forget the intent of them. Quite clearly, due to the blood quantum method of determining citizenship, the Cherokee and other native bands are held to a different kind of standard entirely when it comes to settling their affairs with ex-slaves. It's not as if Georgia is giving out tax-returns to every single descendent of an ex-Georgian slave throughout America...

Now, that being said, you are also right about somehow not alienating and damaging the people who seriously consider themselves Cherokee, yet cannot claim the legal status. Grandfather clauses seem like a reasonable alternative. I had made the suggestion of splitting assets, however I think you would have to prove a large and active Freedmen-Cherokee community for that notion to be persuasive to me (espescially the more I look into this.)

I don't doubt that racism is the motivation for some of the people who pushed for the constitutional change. However I think the whole situation is mostly motivated by economics, which is unfortunate.

In the end, the Cherokee are bound by two legal issues - blood, and their treaty. We can claim the racist card all we want, but they are bound by these things, and they have to work within these constructs to protect their way of life and promote the concept of their culture.

It's not fair for the rest of us to criticise them when they are being held to different standards of reparation than the rest of society.

Does it have to? Could Native Americans not both receive that status and be able to include descendants of any "blood quantum" and even new people (perhaps spouses, etc.) who wish to live in and preserve that culture? Maybe it's a pipe dream, but it isn't inherently either/or. The situation may make it seem that way now, but the answer to a shitty situation isn't to be shitty - it's to fight against the actual problems.

Um, fight against the actual problems? Like, oh, trying to gain power over status? Yeah. We've been doing that since day one.

I can't speak for the tribes in the US, but in Canada as it stands, the tribes have wrested control over membership. But not status. Status is government mandated, and is based on blood. So sure, we can let others in...but they don't get status, and the resources we have are based on status, not membership.

We didn't make it about blood, but it is about blood now. And until we have the power to make our own decisions, it will continue to be about blood.

People that are blaming US for this, and calling US racist are so totally missing the point that I can hardly believe it.

Perhaps the basis as established by the people who forced them on the reservation, but blood purity wasn't the basis of EVERY indian tribe when these cultures were created. If you say that discounting blood says their culture is worth nothing, you are basically implying that blood is the only thing of value in and to their culture, and I think you'll find that most of us deny that. Their culture is much more. I think absent in ties to blood their culture has a huge value and I think Dem has pretty clearly said that as well.

no, you are right, blood wasnt the basis of every tribe. for all i know it wasnt the basis of ANY tribe.

however it is now the basis of every tribe. thats just the way the system works.

how can you have cherokee culture without cherokees? who will continue the culture? how can culture be more than the people involved? unless you are OK with studying cherokee culture the way we study phoenican culture you have to have living cherokees living as cherokees. whatever that means in modern times and whatever it might evolve into.

we have taken so much away from our indian neighbors do we really need to take the rest in a pretense of fighting racism?

that would leave anyone leaving the reservation and their children without a right to return to the rez. that could doom a tribe.

No, it wouldn't - not necessarily. Someone wishing to return would need to go through whatever else someone from outside the bloodline would have to go through. Most likely, they would have to demonstrate a dedication to the culture and to live as Cherokee.

maybe so maybe not. some people are getting screwed on this for sure.

Indeed.

that is the basis for EVERY indian tribe. it might be fine with you to say that indian culture is worth nothing, its not OK with me.

No, it isn't. And I think it is INCREDIBLY insulting to suggest that any culture is nothing more than who you are related to.


Um, fight against the actual problems? Like, oh, trying to gain power over status? Yeah. We've been doing that since day one.

And that is precisely what you should be doing, if a lack of said power truly is the problem (which I wholeheartedly believe it is).

I can't speak for the tribes in the US, but in Canada as it stands, the tribes have wrested control over membership. But not status. Status is government mandated, and is based on blood. So sure, we can let others in...but they don't get status, and the resources we have are based on status, not membership.

And I think that all (or at least most) of us can agree that, if Native American nations are to be societies of their own, then that self-determination is of utmost importance.

We didn't make it about blood, but it is about blood now. And until we have the power to make our own decisions, it will continue to be about blood.

To be fair, in this case, it is the Cherokee making it about blood. The freedmen were included - by a treaty with the government, no less - and they are now trying to make it more clearly about blood.

People that are blaming US for this, and calling US racist are so totally missing the point that I can hardly believe it.

Are you a member of the Cherokee tribe? I could have sworn you've told us otherwise before. People are calling this decision, and others like it, racist. They are not calling you personally, or all Native Americans, racist.

however it is now the basis of every tribe. thats just the way the system works.]

If it is, it shouldn't be. That's a sure-fire way to make sure that the culture dies out.

how can you have cherokee culture without cherokees?

You can't. But who is and is not Cherokee need not be determined by how much blood of a certain lineage they have.

who will continue the culture?

Those who cherish it, just as it is now.

how can culture be more than the people involved?

Culture is the customs of the people involved. Not who their daddy happens to be.

unless you are OK with studying cherokee culture the way we study phoenican culture you have to have living cherokees living as cherokees.

And actual ethnicity has any bearing here.....how?

we have taken so much away from our indian neighbors do we really need to take the rest in a pretense of fighting racism?

No one is talking about taking anything away here except the Cherokee. (in this discussion, anyways)

I side with the Cherokee. I've followed this thread from the beginning, went elsewhere and read some of the black indian, black cherokee opinion (http://www.african-nativeamerican.com/expulsion.htm). I've done a lot of thinking about it. All sides... even considering the southern/conferderacy similarity(and my first insitinct was to go with the confederacy similarity which i saw from the jump... that was in my mind immediatly when I read it .. before it was mentioned here). .. BUT it's much more complicated. I learnt from reading up on this about the Seminoles, I think it is .. they were told.. either they keep the ppl in ..or lose their 'privilages' . Shitty! They (Ameri indians)wouldn't even be in this situation if we hadn't came over here.. and who ever it was that was involved in accepting the africans from the africans and brought them back here which brought them into the indians. I swear .. It keeps getting worse for the Indians .. and if this makes it to the US supreme court and they are told that they have keep these people... it's like the last stand IMO. Since the Cherokee are the biggest in the US. I mean talk to almost anyone.. who is it that say they got "in em' ..Cherokee. So yes they are the most 'liberal' if that's the right word, but still. Actually I'm suprised the Lumbees haven't gone through this yet. There are a hell of a lot of them around here and they all despise blacks, even though they are very mixed with them. But I guess they came along later so didn't have contact with the freed slaves or something?

I side with the Cherokee. I've followed this thread from the beginning, went elsewhere and read some of the black indian, black cherokee opinion (http://www.african-nativeamerican.com/expulsion.htm). I've done a lot of thinking about it. All sides... even considering the southern/conferderacy similarity(and my first insitinct was to go with the confederacy similarity which i saw from the jump... that was in my mind immediatly when I read it .. before it was mentioned here). .. BUT it's much more complicated. I learnt from reading up on this about the Seminoles, I think it is .. they were told.. either they keep the ppl in ..or lose their 'privilages' . Shitty! They (Ameri indians)wouldn't even be in this situation if we hadn't came over here.. and who ever it was that was involved in accepting the africans from the africans and brought them back here which brought them into the indians. I swear .. It keeps getting worse for the Indians .. and if this makes it to the US supreme court and they are told that they have keep these people... it's like the last stand IMO. Since the Cherokee are the biggest in the US. I mean talk to almost anyone.. who is it that say they got "in em' ..Cherokee. So yes they are the most 'liberal' if that's the right word, but still. Actually I'm suprised the Lumbees haven't gone through this yet. There are a hell of a lot of them around here and they all despise blacks, even though they are very mixed with them. But I guess they came along later so didn't have contact with the freed slaves or something?

Just a question... who is it worse for? If you're going to cite who "shitty" it is for the natives, do you think it's less or more "shitty" for the people they owned. Guess who was on the trail of tears with the Cherokee? The Freedmen. The Cherokee owned people. They were forced to accept them as citizens under almost exactly the same terms and for almost exactly the same reasons southern states were and as a result of their participation in the Civil War, just like the southern states.

Yes, the Cherokee have been wronged and re-wronged, repeatedly. It wasn't the Freedmen who did it. The fact that they endured racism does not excuse racism on the part of the Cherokee or any tribe. The Freedmen are being treated unfairly and in a racist way. Yes, there is much to this issue, but none of what anyone could add endicts the Freedmen which would be the ONLY excuse for denying them citizenship.

Jeeze, you make it sound as if the Freedmen are all going to be cast off on a fucking ice floe. Grow up.

Jeeze, you make it sound as if the Freedmen are all going to be cast off on a fucking ice floe. Grow up.

I make it sound as if Freedmen are going to be denied rights and priveleges on the basis of race. Rights and priveleges they had before this decision. Nothing more. Nothing less. I think it's funny that people can invoke the problems of the Cherokee natives and that's appropriate to the discussion, but pointing out that Cherokee Freedmen currently have the EXACT same problems and more AND are now having their issues increased, it's not appropriate to the discussion. Interesting dichotomy that is.

I'll tell you what. I'll stop referencing the plight of the Cherokee Freedmen as an reason for not being racist against them if everyone else stops mentioning the plight of the Cherokee natives as an excuse for that racism. Deal?

I'll tell you what. I'll stop referencing the plight of the Cherokee Freedmen as an reason for not being racist against them if everyone else stops mentioning the plight of the Cherokee natives as an excuse for that racism. Deal?

And I'll tell you what: stop. Deal?