NationStates Jolt Archive

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.



Who is it worse for? Having a hard time deciding really.

ok, if the cherokee do get by with their vote.. and the freedmans are expelled. you know we (US) will foot the bill of those people(certainly the government won't complain,, they better the hell not.. we got illegals coming into this country every freakin day using many of our resources..that the tax payers foot... so that excuse is out the window as far as im concerned). they will not be out on the street with no where to live. I know it wasn't the blacks that caused this. They more than likely would not have ever sat foot on this continent if it wasn't for people going there and them being sold by their own kind and someone else bringing them back. The same with the indians , i dont think they wouldv'e sailed to africa and dealt with the black masters(tribal leaders)and brought them back. All this crap was thrown on them, we were involved in the very beginnings of it ever starting. Now, I know where you are coming from about the unfairness.. on both sides. But doesnt it have to stop somewhere? Actually I know you will say it doesnt have to stop.. if a culture cant withstand change and outbreeding..or whatever we call it and survive then it deserves to fade on out. part of moving on. You may be right, but I'm not certain of that. I feel for them. I personally know a black dude that had absolutely nothing to do with the indian community his entire life.. til he started dating one of the 'rez' girls and now they got a kid.. HE gets money .. what type of crap is that.. if anything he should be paying for his child.. not him getting paid. And no .. that one thing isn't what made me feel the feel the way I do.. it might have hardened my stance though. But actually, I think you need to talk to Sin and communicate more openly with her. Her with you as well. Throughout this thread I have not seen you attacking the native americans.. I've seen you see something that if allowed to go by very well might come back and slap them in the face. As far as the south goes.. well Fat chance a southern state could or even would ever try to say all blacks are losing rights and gotta leave. won't happen. But it very well can backfire on the cherokee.

I'm lit by the way.. been up all night.. im not drunk .. but still .. since im drinking im not wording myself exactly how i should be. heck i cant really do that sober.

Who is it worse for? Having a hard time deciding really.

ok, if the cherokee do get by with their vote.. and the freedmans are expelled. you know we (US) will foot the bill of those people(certainly the government won't complain,, they better the hell not.. we got illegals coming into this country every freakin day using many of our resources..that the tax payers foot... so that excuse is out the window as far as im concerned). they will not be out on the street with no where to live.

The Freedmen are being denied access to THEIR property. How is the federal government of the US going to make that right just by throwing some benefits at them. In addition to the benefits the government provides, they are also being denied access to facilities that are already build for medical and various other benefits. They are also being denied access to income from the casinos. They are being denied access to their tribe. How exactly does the US make up for that? Seperate but equal?


I know it wasn't the blacks that caused this. They more than likely would not have ever sat foot on this continent if it wasn't for people going there and them being sold by their own kind and someone else bringing them back.

Sold by their own kind seems important to you. They often weren't sold by their own kind. They were often sold out by other tribes who didn't like them or who had conquered them in a battle. The natives had similar interactions with white settlers and equally sold out other tribes or their own tribes. It really has nothing to do with the issue at hand as it doesn't change that both groups were victims.


The same with the indians , i dont think they wouldv'e sailed to africa and dealt with the black masters(tribal leaders)and brought them back. All this crap was thrown on them, we were involved in the very beginnings of it ever starting.

Most of the white settlers didn't sail to Africa either. It was no more thrust on the Cherokee than on white settlers. They chose to own people. Both groups did. Both groups were wrong. The fact that the people buying these people had the same skin color as one of those groups is really irrelevant.


Now, I know where you are coming from about the unfairness.. on both sides. But doesnt it have to stop somewhere? Actually I know you will say it doesnt have to stop..

No. I'm saying it does have to stop. I'm arguing that it should stop. If a group can suddenly deny citizenship to a group that has been citizens for 140 years on the basis of race, that's a new wrong. It's new unfairness. And, yes, we should say right here that "correcting" the past in this way is simply re-wronging the same group they wronged in the past and in a similar fashion on some levels.

Should we violate their sovereignty? Most likely no. I really hope they handle this internally and that they come up with a better solution. I feel for them. I do. Both groups. It's sad that one group is using their majority status to wrong the other. I hope they eventually recognize that either among their leadership or in their courts.

We have options though. If the owners of a company decide to split or a vote occurs ousting a group, there is a requirement to compensate that group fairly based on their part of the whole. I think it would equitable that if they oust a portion of the tribe that their current holdings and what they get from the government be divided according to their percentages in the tribe. This recognizes the Cherokee Freedmen's value to the tribe and their stock in the development of the Cherokee nation over the past 140 years. If they want to vote to divide in two then it should be exactly that.

This action however would make them revisit the decision and would certainly be coercive. I honestly hope it doesn't come to that. I think there is still a good chance that they'll do the right thing. I really hope they choose to do so.


if a culture cant withstand change and outbreeding..or whatever we call it and survive then it deserves to fade on out. part of moving on. You may be right, but I'm not certain of that. I feel for them. I personally know a black dude that had absolutely nothing to do with the indian community his entire life.. til he started dating one of the 'rez' girls and now they got a kid.. HE gets money .. what type of crap is that.. if anything he should be paying for his child.. not him getting paid.

He's not getting paid. His child is receiving the benefits entitled to him by being a member of the tribe. He's not being paid any more than a woman is being paid child support. Child support is for the child.


And no .. that one thing isn't what made me feel the feel the way I do.. it might have hardened my stance though. But actually, I think you need to talk to Sin and communicate more openly with her. Her with you as well.

Yes, the interaction with Sin was disappointing from both sides. I'm hoping at the very least when I'm a bit more detached I'll be able to revisit this thread and learn from how that fell out. I like Sin and I'm sorry she was upset. I'm not sure it'll change but we are discussing it on another site and I'm still holding out hope that we'll work it out.


Throughout this thread I have not seen you attacking the native americans..

I don't believe that natives are any more likely to be racist than anyone else in North America. This is one act by one group at one time. The group voting represented about 1% of the entire Cherokee nation. They can hardly be endicted as a people for this event. I do think the event will have repercussions for them as a people and I think that is one of the more concerning parts of the vote.


I've seen you see something that if allowed to go by very well might come back and slap them in the face. As far as the south goes.. well Fat chance a southern state could or even would ever try to say all blacks are losing rights and gotta leave. won't happen. But it very well can backfire on the cherokee.

I think it will. I think they've opened a door that none of us are ready to walk through. I hope I'm wrong. I hope that they, everyone involved, find a better solution not based on race. So far, that hasn't been reflected in their addressal of the problem.

And, yes, it would never happen in the south, but it's been tried and it's actually a fairly common complaint (that the blacks were forced on them). I'm glad it's unlikely in the south. I wish it were equally unlikely everywhere.

I'm lit by the way.. been up all night.. im not drunk .. but still .. since im drinking im not wording myself exactly how i should be. heck i cant really do that sober.

Honestly, you're doing fine. I don't agree with you, but as far as I can tell you seem to be getting your point across. It's not elegant, but lots of people are not elegant on their best day. You seem to be doing your best to see both sides of the issue even if you only agree with one. It's a good tactic and I've enjoyed discussing it with you.

By the way, since we've gone back and forth a bit on what culture is, I thought I'd post the definition (yes, that only addresses it on a basic level).

5 a: the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time <popular culture> <southern culture>

These are the two forms we are using the word in and it can include the set of traits assigned to a racial group. I think of native culture as being more than that, more of what a refers to. I'd like to think of all culture that way. However, Ash and others and Dem and I are kind of referring to different parts of the definition.

Sold by their own kind seems important to you. They often weren't sold by their own kind. They were often sold out by other tribes who didn't like them or who had conquered them in a battle.

Didn't you know? All people with dark skin are the same "kind". Seriously. :rolleyes:

Didn't you know? All people with dark skin are the same "kind". Seriously. :rolleyes:

Hey, I know they aren't but I was speaking of black africans.. they were black from africa were they not.. how would you like me to lable them.. and yes i might lump people together sometimes.. dont play like you dont.. you more than likely do and don't realize it.

Now.. I'm trying to post my reply to Joc.. but im having jolt troubles.

Didn't you know? All people with dark skin are the same "kind". Seriously. :rolleyes:

Using Dem .. cause it's not letting me do it normally.

The Freedmen are being denied access to THEIR property. How is the federal government of the US going to make that right just by throwing some benefits at them. In addition to the benefits the government provides, they are also being denied access to facilities that are already build for medical and various other benefits. They are also being denied access to income from the casinos. They are being denied access to their tribe. How exactly does the US make up for that? Seperate but equal?

> I don't know. I wasn't thinking project benefits.. I was thinking more. But what do I know.


Sold by their own kind seems important to you. They often weren't sold by their own kind. They were often sold out by other tribes who didn't like them or who had conquered them in a battle. The natives had similar interactions with white settlers and equally sold out other tribes or their own tribes. It really has nothing to do with the issue at hand as it doesn't change that both groups were victims.


> I was thinking sold by their own people. As a whole. Yes I tend to lump people together. I know there are differences.. sometimes major ones... but in that context I was speaking of other black Africans.

Most of the white settlers didn't sail to Africa either. It was no more thrust on the Cherokee than on white settlers. They chose to own people. Both groups did. Both groups were wrong. The fact that the people buying these people had the same skin color as one of those groups is really irrelevant.


> An argument rarely heard there.. I'm sure. Actually I didn't even know the Cherokee had slaves until this thread. I still don't blame them entirely for that. But I have to wonder why this wasn't taught in school. But a lot of things aren't.

/off topic I do remember though, a conversation some older men were having, when I was much younger, about slavery and the indians .. Young as I was.. I asked why didn't you just make the indians slaves.. he said the indians wouldn't 'break' and they'd rather die than be a slave. They seemed to repsect them for that. I know that's harsh. :eek:


Agree with pretty much everthing else you said.

Thanks.

Technically, they aren't a minority. They're a majority. Remember the whole look-at-us-we're-a-fucking-sovereign-nation-so-we-can-have-casinos-and-be-racist
thing?

And all I really have are opinions. You all should know better.

Hey, I know they aren't but I was speaking of black africans.. they were black from africa were they not.. how would you like me to lable them.. and yes i might lump people together sometimes.. dont play like you dont.. you more than likely do and don't realize it.

Now.. I'm trying to post my reply to Joc.. but im having jolt troubles.

You do realize that much like natives many African tribes were not exactly friendly or even remotely similar to one another. What you're talking about is like the English selling Romanians and calling it "their own kind".

You do realize that much like natives many African tribes were not exactly friendly or even remotely similar to one another. What you're talking about is like the English selling Romanians and calling it "their own kind".

Indeed. People like to clump all Native Americans together, passing them off as "One-and-the-same", so to speak. But really, each tribe was vastly different from one another, with very different customs and beliefs, and very different ways of life. The Cherokee and the Sioux(Actually Dakota, but Sioux tends to be the more common name-which is actually quite a derogatory term), for example, should never be clumped together as being "of the same people" in that sense. They are entirely different.

Sioux tends to be the more common name-which is actually quite a derogatory term

Uh oh, has anyone broken the news to Siouxsie Sioux yet?

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/amg/pop_artists/P16422WU38V.JPG

Uh oh, has anyone broken the news to Siouxsie Sioux yet?

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/amg/pop_artists/P16422WU38V.JPG

Them Siouxsie's are good eating. :D

Them Siouxsie's are good eating. :D

...you're not wrong, there. Pass the marmalade.