The almighty dollar has spoken. :)

BTW: "Indian Giver" is not a very nice term, even though what they did is not so nice. It's ok to criticize, but no name calling.

I know it was a play on words, but just saying.

I think the most telling line in the article is mentioning that the Cherokee fought for the South in the Civil War...

@Jahmekan: "Indian Giver" What is wrong with this term? It's accurate.

You must be a citizen of the United States of the Offended. You need to call a spade a spade.

Guess who won't be getting any more donations. Many black people are proud of their Native American heritage and I don't think this will go over well in the community.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Yata Hey!

The Cherokee nation is righteous to assert their autonomy from Uncle sam but at the same time they are accepting very large amounts of US taxpayers money? Cant really have it both ways with federal money also comes influence, also not very fair to tell people that have been citizens for 130+years they are no longer citizens. So this should be easily remedied no freedmen as citizens no federal money.

I'm with you, Steve. I recently (20 years ago) found out about my Cherokee heritage from here on Kennesaw Mountain. Now, I live spittin distance from the start of the Trail of Tears - Villa Rica, Georgia. A lot more research will be done before I'm proud of my first nation roots. Granted it's a little drop of blood mixed in with Scots/Irish and Russian Jew, but I was proud. Gee, what would they do with a mutt like me?

The BIA is using a blood part count system in order to determine who is an Indian, in order to reduce the number of Indians - the same reason US military was sending Indians smallpox infected blankets. Let the Indians decide who is an Indian.

I think the most telling line in the article is mentioning that the Cherokee fought for the South in the Civil War...

Exactly, which means they lost the war and had to accept the terms of the government. Just like Germany and Japan had to after WWII - I'm sure they didn't like everything in the peace terms either.

@Hilly Billy: I guess you didn't comprehend my statement. There are certain terms that I choose not to use and that is one of them. If my children uses any of the terms I deem inappropriate then it will be dealt with swiftly (once they are out of my house, so be it), hence I stated...just saying. Am I offended by the term, yes. Did I say that it could not be used, no. I just politely stated that you can criticize, but no name calling. Do I think the Cherokee nation decision is just, no? Do they have a right to do it, yes. So, before you start you assumption pull back a bit. BTW: Your handle is also a term that is off limits to my children. They say, they will be corrected. Again, just saying.

Have a nice day.

One can chew the fat all day as to whether these indians can or can not oust blacks as their citizens and/or if a prior treaty is enforceable. The bottom line is that if the indians don't toe the line and comply with the treaty, the US cuts off the money. Push come to shove, the indians will lose again.

Unless you can prove bloodline in ANY TRIBE. you do not belong. Cherokee Tribal Citizen.

Oh, I can prove it - bio-dad's line is clearly marked from the Mayflower on. Bio-mom's is pretty easy, too, from Ellis Island on. So, I'm DAR material, Cherokee nation material and I've never bothered with it at all".

the same reason US military was sending Indians smallpox infected blankets

Myth, not one documented case available. Read "Pox Americana"....

History; before the civil war; thousands of slaves escaped from their captivity and fled to the Indian Territory's; the Indian nations took them in and protected them from the slave hunters; all throughout the south all the Indian nations did the same; what this Nation is doing is, if you are not part Cherokee by blood, then you can not claim tribal membership, those that are Black and Indian may claim membership, those that are not may not; the Cherokee nation membership is spread out throughout the entire 50 States, they have a right to determine who is a member of their tribes .

The Indians were here long before us. And our government again wants to dictate what was theirs in the beginning? Our government and corporations break their contracts all the time. So why should it be any different for the Indians? They don't really have to take the governments money to survive. All they have to do is open casinos. Problem solved.

How many of the people trumpeting the right of the Cherokee to arbitrarily change the citizenship definitions of their nation would similarly stick up for the rights of the U.S. as a whole to do the same thing?

If the U.S. decided to revoke the citizenship of the Native American nations, or African Americans -- or other ethnic groups the U.S. themselves had oppressed -- for the exact same reasons: namely, "it costs too much to keep supporting these (blacks|Natives|Jews|whatever)", would you all just tell the "whatever"s to suck it up and take one for the team?

If the answer is no, you're hypocrites.

Saxon, the Freedmen here were descendants of slaves of indians, not escaped slaves.

My first thought after reading the first comment was - gee this is just like Israel. 2000 years of non-existence and then poof it's there. In that case it wasn't a treaty it was a world body saying yep you didn't exist yesterday and here you are today.

I totally agree with the commentator that said - you can't have it both ways. If you want US funding you have to accept what they say. You always have the choice to tell the US to stuff it just like many other companies and groups around the world do. You just happen to be a nation within a nation.

skeptic-409...; yes some of the Indian tribes practiced slavery, including other Indians taken in battle, and some black slaves that fled to the Indian nations or were purchased from the slave traders; however, what they are saying is , unless you are part Indian blood, you may not claim tribal membership, I may be wrong however I see nothing wrong with any ethnic group deciding who is a member of their group, the Muslims do it, the Catholics do it, the Mormons do it, the Masons dot it, why should not the Native Americans not be allowed to do it .

As a soverign nation they have the right to govern themselves. We can object but we have no right to tell them how to make their own tribal decisions.

Guess who won't be getting any more donations. Many black people are proud of their Native American heritage and I don't think this will go over well in the community.

This has nothing to do with black people who HAVE Native American heritage. The ones in question DO NOT. If they have the blood line, whether they are black, white or purple, they are still citizens.

, I may be wrong however I see nothing wrong with any ethnic group deciding who is a member of their group, the Muslims do it, the Catholics do it, the Mormons do it, the Masons dot it, why should not the Native Americans not be allowed to do it.

Well, none of the groups you listed are "ethnic" groups ... they are all things you can either be free to join or free not to join as you please, so I don't see how that backs up your point.

Having said all that, I think it's petty on the part of the Cherokee ... but I also think it's their business. They can certainly point to the precedent of numerous treaties broken by the U.S. government!

The Buffalo Soldiers shouldn't have let those bastard off the hook... not A one. Then the soldiers went down to Cuba and made another big mistake. They let Teddy Roosevelt come out the hero and they let the Cuban people live.

How can you take back a part of our DNA make-up? If your grandparents on one side is Native American and the other part African American. WTF?

Anyone who can't prove Cherokee blood is out of the Nation. I see nothing wrong with that.

I guess that the US government should revoke US citizenship for any citizens of the Cherokee Nation. Afterall, they feel that they should be able to kick out whoever they do not like.

Chris, you didn't do your homework and it shows.

Read up on Fort Pitt, Jeffery Amherst, Henry Bouquet, et. al.

Of course there's the the tricky question : documented by whom?

@chris-335678 Dueling authorities: Check out http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1088/did-whites-ever-give-native-americans-blankets-infected-with-smallpox

While there may not be conclusive proof regarding the smallpox blankets, there is strong evidence that is was at least seriously contemplated. Notice that the above concerns a time before that covered in Pox Americana. And it was the British military, not the US military.

Personally I think they should be able to do whatever they want as we gave them the authority to govern themselves.....well, unless we disagree.

However, it is funny to me the comments here on this topic of 1 "nation (or tribe)" deciding that there is criteria to be a citizen. Yet when certain govt officials with the USA want to hold to criteria to be a US citizen, we get all these bleeding hearts crying about anyone should have the right to be a citizen. Where are all of you on this topic?

It's a ridiculous issue. Georgia threw out the Native Americans who died in a forced march, but the survivors fought for the south in the civil war? Huh??? All slaves were freed after the Civil War, including on reservations. If the Native lands are independent countries (they are), then that's fine; no support is needed from the Federal government, so this should be a non-issue. And these rulings are tribe to tribe: some tribes WANT all related AND adopted members, at least to keep in touch with tribal members, and try to keep traditions (including everything from knowledge to varietal seeds for important plants), others only by certain inheritance rules (some must be through father, not mother, for example). So my mother's family, which was Swedish but adopted into Navajo, might be more "Native" than my husband's family, which is genetically Mohawk. And the BIA generally is the "bad guy" trying to keep African Americans and others away from membership in tribes, sometimes to protect interests in casino gambling, land rights, and repayments for land use. Tribes can acknowledge membership; it is very strange though to find a tribe that wants to limit membership, unless they are trying to keep certain funding or profits.

Maybe we should cut off the money. Maybe it's time for them to be self sufficient and get with the program and stop holding out a hand, right?

Poof! It's 150 years later and nobody cares.

I would think African Americans are proud enough of their own heritage, my guess is they could care less about being Cherokee "citizens" unless they are actually part Cherokee, which is exactly what the tribe is saying. You don't see anyone holding any value to "caucasian heritage" just because their ancestors were slaves on white-owned plantations, in fact probably the opposite.

Let the Cherokees decide for themselves. Native Americans have had to endure a second-class status that endures to this day. Nobody would dream of calling a sports team the Washington n-words, but Washington r-words? Why, that's fine! Years from now, people will be astounded at our degree of hypocrisy; we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Bottom line the Cherokee don't want to share the profits from their gambling operations with their Black members.It's shameful and wrong. I've certainly lost all respect for the tribe and now consider them a non entity.

Sounds to me like THEY are breaking the treaty, which means they lose the rights to the Federal money that was tied to the treaty.

I also think that should also mean they lose the right to have casino's or any other special privileges they have that other American citizen don't.

First of all the funding you are talking about is money owed through treaties that the US government never honored and still don't honor. As for all the gambling places do you really think that they get to keep all the monies well think again, yes they do keep some but the government gets most of it. As for having to prove the blood line well let me tell it is hard, it took me years and the government, they have 99% of the records, is almost no help, it takes years to get answers from them and it makes not difference what Nation you are from. There are law suits that have been going on for years to get monies released and yes some have been released a small amount but only a drop in the bucket. I am hoping to get my Cherokee name in the near future and all the research to prove that my Dad's family has Cherokee in their line. I have met allot of the relatives and listened to their stories and even walked part of the Trail of Tears. The government still treats the Native Americans as third class citizens and it makes no difference that they are independent Nations. So get over it.

Sounds like the Cherokee were pressured into the 1866 treaty and now they want out. Why not? They're sovereign. It isn't their responsibility to please the U.S. government. If the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development doesn't like it, let them withhold funds. The Cherokee Nation can decide if their sovereignty is more important than those funds or not. The BIA should stay out of it.

How can you take back a part of our DNA make-up? If your grandparents on one side is Native American and the other part African American. WTF?

They are not. If you have Cherokee as part of your background, you are a tribal member. This ONLY applies to people who do NOT have Cherokee ancestors. Cherokee's come in all sizes, shapes, and yes ... colors.

Read the article ... (emphasis mine)

The change meant that Cherokee Freedmen who could not prove they have a Cherokee blood relation were no longer citizens, making them ineligible to vote in tribal elections or receive benefits.

What the authors of this article dont' tell you, is that the "Cherokees" who made this decision classify/function as white and only claim their "native American ancestry" when convenient. They even look down on the "purer" native Americans. You don't see the Cherokees trying to boot out the many, many, people who look white, now do you? We had an interview with the President of the Freedmen's association who revealed this information.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/vickissv3/2011/09/09/reckless-20-w-ms-marilyn-vann

The article says the treaty gave the "freed Slaves" citizenship. I am positive that ALL the SLAVES are now dead. The treaty didnt say AND decedents.

Want to follow the treaty? Then follow it. It no longer applies , the Slaves are all dead.

last i checked the cherokee nation was a sovereign nation as per the treaties. only congress and congrees alone has the authority to overturn any decision made by the cherokee nation. not local government and not courts either.

these decendants of slaves will lose this fight no matter what they do when any representitive waves a copy of the treaty in front of the court. the cherokee nation can however sue the ousted decendants for wasting their time.

Not Cherokee = not part of the Cherokee nation and not allowed to vote in its elections or feed on its citizens.

Not American Citizens = not part of the U.S.A. and not allowed to vote in its elections or feed on its citizens.

How blindly power-hungry and tyrannical does an administration have to be in order to actually attempt to persuade the public that these facts are not facts?

I wasn't aware of being a citizen of any nation on this planet had blood quantum requirements.

"Fact is, on at least one occasion a high-ranking European considered infecting the Indians with smallpox as a tactic of war. I'm talking about Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63). Amherst and a subordinate discussed, apparently seriously, sending infected blankets to hostile tribes. What's more, we've got the documents to prove it, thanks to the enterprising research of Peter d'Errico, legal studies professor at the University of Massachusetts at (fittingly) Amherst. D'Errico slogged through hundreds of reels of microfilmed correspondence looking for the smoking gun, and he found it."

US military officers were familiar with that idea AND THEY PUT IT IN PRACTICE MANY TIMES. US government treatment of Indians in those days would have put Nazis to shame.

learning from the Republicans. This is called voter caging, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_(voter_suppression)

I wasn't aware of being a citizen of any nation on this planet had blood quantum requirements.

It depends upon the way you define "nation". If you are referring to a "nation state" you are most likely correct. If you are referring to a nation of peoples, especially tribal peoples, you are incorrect.

saxon - Seriously?!? The "masons do it"!?! You sounded like you were on a reasoned roll there and then the wheels came off. With the possible exception of Judaism no religion does a blood test to determine whether or not you are "one of them". And when it comes to freemasonry well then you're just treading on very, very exaggerated conspiracy theory loony stuff.

I find it to be the pinnacle of hypocrisy that the Cherokee Nation owned the ancestors of these people as slaves, lost a war fighting for the 'Slavery Yes' side, and signed a treaty granting their ex-slaves citizenship then when they start getting some money to split up the tribal council decides...."hey...we can all get a bit more money if we get rid of some people". Cherokee Nation will ring the last bit of blood and tears out of the dried rag of what their ancestors went through to get a bit of sympathy, but apparently are first in line to get a chance to screw someone themselves.

I watched a blooding happen at the Pechanga tribe in SoCal a few years ago when they nearly cut their rolls in half. No one care for literally decades then all of a sudden they get a shiny new casino and they call up the blood question to reduce rolls and get more of the percentage for the remaining members. It's disgusting to see and just more evidence that these tribe's behavior is just as petty and money-grabbing as the people who grabbed their land in the first place.

Been on the teat way, way, way too long.

"The U.S. government said that the 1866 treaty between the Cherokee tribe and the U.S. government guaranteed that the slaves were tribal citizens, whether or not they had a Cherokee blood relation."

That statement is at the very least laughable. And obviously hypocritical. Let's go back and enforce EVERY treaty ever signed between Native Americans and the U.S. government. At least half the country would have to pack up and move since the Europeans invaded and illegally displaced the vast majority of Native Americans.

Then you get into the resources illegally extracted from illegally seized lands. There isn't enough money on the planet to pay them for what was stolen.

It Is None Of OUR F*CKING BUSINESS!!!!!!

Jack-2510943 - Every tribe in every place in the world conquered someone before someone conquered them. It's always the last conqueror that has to listen this "oh my my can you believe what they did to us" stuff. American Indian tribes weren't just all living peacefully with each other when Europeans arrived you know.

I suggest you read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. An example that he uses is the Maori in NZ. They are a classic example of a people that can't seem to stop complaining about what Europeans did to them, but they are always happy to leave out the fact of the genocide of the Moriori people that they committed themselves.

Conquering is history brother. Like some comedian said...We always hear about the great native american civilizations that Europeans conquered when they came to America...great?! great?! Not a single native american tribe had invented the wheel by the time we got here. They were still dragging things around on heavy sleds!!

We are all Americans,

American should come first before your Nationality,

If we dont consider our self as American first we are lost

I don't think Id be going down this road lest the Cherokee dredge up all those treaties the US Gov. reneged on. I'm pretty sure they got the short end of the stick more than once and there's a good chance the Gov would lose big time in that exchange.

stmiller; yep, I did stretch it a little, I was just saying, that any group has a right to determine membership to that group; I should have stopped there, as for as Masonry is concerned both grandfathers 33 degree, father 32, (Scottish rites) no conspiracy intended .

saxon - Thanks for the clarification.

Perhaps it is time to get rid of the BIA. There are no bureaus of caucasian affairs or negro affairs or japanese affairs. Of course, there goes the government money. But then, when we have a government that is granting rights to illegal 'immigrants,' perhaps a long and serious look at what the government is doing and saying here bears consideration.

As to the issue of slavery, what do you think the tribes raided one another for? They stole the women and the kids and they intermarried or not, but they definitely had slaves and it wasn't just the Cherokees, it was most of them and it happened long before there was a South or a Civil War. Slavery has been happening since people figured out they could. The Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Arabs hell, all of them practiced slavery and some still do.

Meant to say all groups of people, not just the one's mentioned.

The U.S. government said that the 1866 treaty between the Cherokee tribe and the U.S. government guaranteed that the slaves were tribal citizens, whether or not they had a Cherokee blood relation.

Wow! An Indian treaty that the government actually wants to support and hasn't broken themselves.

As we all know, the US Government has such a great record concerning treaties with the Native American population. (yes folks, that's called sarcasm).

Why did the Cherokee Freedman choose to stay with the Cherokee? Because they were treated better by the Cherokee than they were by the plantation owners.

Wajiw - That is complete speculation. It's more likely they stayed because they had to real choice.

Raised 1.13. "I've never bothered with it at all". Then keep your insignificant thoughts to yourself. Those of us that are TRIBAL CITIZENS could care less about what YOU COULD BE.

Ok for you factless people some facts:

1. The Cherokee tribe has thousands of black (and other color) members.
2. Thousands of slaves joined the tribe as free members.
3. The only pre 1899 membership requirement was to be accepted in a clan by the matriarch.
4. I know a family that had 6 slaves, none were black.
5. Cherokee slaves were treated as equals and were more the equivalent of endentured servants. The were not beat or mistreated like slaves of whites or they could demand tribal interdiction.
6. The only requirement for modern (post 1899) membership is to be on the Dawes List which the US Government created to document all citizens AND FREEDMEN residing in the Indian Lands (NE Oklahoma) between 1899 - 1906. The US Government stated that was the official list.
7. The Dawes List included all Freedmen living with the tribe 30 yrs after the 1866 treaty and the reason these Modern Freedmen are not on it is because their ancestor decided not to be Cherokee.
8. Cherokees Not on the Dawes list are also in a battle for membership but they are at least considered Cherokee.
9. Check your history. Chief Ross and 2/3rds of the Cherokee tribe supported the North and he insisted they stay neutral. The South sent a regiment from TEXAS which caused Principal Cheif Ross to flee with his family until Union Troops from KANSAS could return them home. The "Replacement" Chief Stand Waite was also a Conferate Coronel and only had minority support from the Tribe. The tribes surrounding them sided with the confederacy forcing them to comply even though the majority of the ones fighting were serving in the Union Army. It is easy for the Freedmen to lie about this for sympathy but it is documented.

The overall picture here is pretty simple.. all politics aside. In 1866, the Cherokee Nation were forced to sign that treaty as a matter of self-preservation. Anyone remember a little thing called the "Trail of Tears". Indians were literally being exterminated across this nation, by our so-called "White, Christian, Government , US Military and Pioneer Militia".

However, all of that is academic. Each Indian Nation is Constitutionally a Sovereign Nation, separate from the United States. Yes, these nations are managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs; which is an outdated government agency sticking its' nose in where it doesn't belong in the 21st century.

Bottom line, any Indian Nation has the right to ask its membership roles to validate their lineage. Too many are trying to ride the "Native American" gravy train... Tax Free Indian Money, Free College Education, Free Housing, Indian Land, etc.

Bottom line, once the Civil War was over, all slaves were freed to make their way in the world. If these freed slaves voluntarily chose to live with the Cherokee Nation, why should their descendants have a claim to Indian Blood today, when there is none. Does this mean freed slaves that decided to stay and work for Amish farms, are now Amish? Or freed slaves that decided to stay and work on Irish potato farms, now their descendants are now Irish? Or Freed Slaves that decided to work on Hacienda's in Texas, now their descendants are now Mexican? Of Course Not.... That would be Ludicrous.. So, why should it be any different for the Cherokee tribes.

When does the free ride end, folks? Why should these Indian tribes be forced to maintain Non Indian Freedmen descendents on their roles, that have absolutely no Indian heritage, 150 years later? No, the US Government and our Courts have no jurisdiction over this area and we need to butt out, mind our own business and let the Indian Tribes run their own nations and citizen's.... Plain and Simple....

ThereseInNevada - Because that's what the treaty says and no you can't say...well they broke them too. Remember we aren't children and two wrongs don't make a right.

You're right though about one thing...it is the gravy train that's causing the problem, and the problem is that the native americans are proving themselves just as greedy as anyone else. OH my...you mean they would have to share their "tax free indian money" with a few more people. Will the injustices never end!

Voting for minority civil rights, it's all the rage. Gays, black Cherokee's - who's next, gingers? Union members? Teachers? Who do we want to trample & discriminate against next?

Naysayer_001, Your post is completely illogical. If our screwed up government decided that only those who were here first could stay, they would have to leave because only the Indians could stay!

If they decided those who still claim they are owed something because their antique relatives were slaves, then we should give them something. I think the legal term is something like returning them to their previous state. OK, we'll take them back to Africa. We could even buy some land and build them a village so they would be returned to their state of existance of their ancient relatives before the slave traders took the ancient relatives away.,

If the Black so-called Cherokees don't have any Cherokee blood, how can they be Cherokee? It all made sense what the squabble was about when I read the phrase "No Benefits". Always trying to get something for nothing is the way I see it.

Jahmekan....I honestly have no problem with your posts...except for the phrase "just sayin"" That is one I categorically despise right up there with "my bad".

Don't mean to offend....lol

MagicalMystery - You're 100% correct. People use "Just sayin" as if it makes it ok to say anything they want. "WOW!!! You're so fat! Just saying". Oh! I was going to be offended for a second there but I see you're "just sayin".

MagicalMystery: I know, I did it as a lil ribbing. Trying to keep it light. :)

btw: the saying "my bad" drives me crazy too. So, I do apologize to everyone on the vine.

Remember, it's only racist if white people do it.

Is anybody who is commenting here actually a Freedman? Anybody here a Cherokee? I am Native American, but I still haven't really formed an opinion about the Freedman issue. I did post on the Trail of Tears issue. I do know some Freedman who danced at powwows right alongside me. Does anybody actually know a Freedman. I want to hear from them. Can anybody hear me out without going racist on me as I try to get the inside story.

StMiller, that was not speculation but knowledge passed on to me by a Freedman I met a few years ago.

right.... use the reverse racism card... geez. No wonder Fact Checking registered at best 50% TRUTH during GOP debate. That would be Mitt... scarry thoughts about how far they will go to buy your votes.

Just have some fire water and relax.

They appear to be acting the same way as the hate the Mexicans, hate the gays, hate the Muslims, hate the blacks hate the poor hate the unions,hate the president Tea Party pushers of intolerance.

Proof that Stupidity is contagious.

Proof that Stupidity is contagious.

Andy, seems like your statement is confirmation as well.

As the Native Americans have their own "country" they can do what they want. I don't necessarily agree with them, but so be it.

Really, what does the Tea Party have to do with this? Next we will hear that the Tea Party invented the AIDS virus and the Bubonic Plague?

Really, what does the Tea Party have to do with this? Next we will hear that the Tea Party invented the AIDS virus and the Bubonic Plague?

The Tea Party turned me into a newt!

...

...

...

...

...

...

It got better.

Monty Python LIVES!

I am building my cow and chicken catapult right now so I will be ready.

"Merely a flesh wound".

Nee!

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries."

"I fart in your general direction"

Run away!!!!!

What? A swallow carrying a coconut?

Yes.

Blacksmith: Apparently !!!

No, if you are a sovereign nation autonomous from the US you can be a bigot. And the US has the right to withhold funds to them too. Which we should.

Blacksmith, if you are a US citizen your right to be a bigot is guarunteed by our constitution.

You can be a bigot whether you're white or not. But only if you're nonwhite will you get a crowd of supporters falling all over themselves to defend you for it.

This isn't bigotted behavior. In no indian nation are you recognized unless you can prove you are related by blood to that nation. They shouldn't be forced to recognize anyone.

@FWalsh: Bigotry is bigotry, whether it's sanctioned by years of tradition or not. The bottom line here is that they decided "Hey, we're short of money. I know, let's kick out the blacks!"

That there is seemingly widespread support for this behavior appalls me, when I know damn well that had any actual nation worthy of the name done the same there would be screaming fits of rage.

From the same people.

I can't join the Boy Scouts because I'm not a boy.

I can't join the NAACP because I'm not black.

I can't join the AMA because I'm not a doctor.

So why should a person without a drop of Cherokee blood be able to be counted as a Cherokee?

Albert Einstein was a member of the NAACP, your free to join!

This instance of bigotry doesn't concern most of you when it comes to this entire subject so stop being the typical Moral Police that America loves to be and butt out. If they want to do this, they can do this. Then we can choose to hold back the funds that we send them. Very simple, next issue.

Many of you have a problem with the decision made by the Cherokee Supreme Court - what you fail to realize or consider is that the Cherokee Nation did this EXACT same thing in the 1980's and no one cared, including the Freemen. Now that the tribes have money (and lawyers) this is being made into a huge deal.

The Cherokee interpretation of the 1866 treaty was that Freedmen would be "granted civil and political rights to Cherokee Freedmen, but not the right to share in tribal assets." Part of their reasoning was that many Freedman did not comply with the 1866 treaty in terms of "as well as all free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months,..." In country, meaning the Cherokee Nation - hence, if you were a freed Cherokee slave, you were part of the nation ONLY if you remained with the nation on reservations. Not many Freemen did, only a few learned the ways of the Nation - yet now their non-blood descendants want money (but not in 1980)? Why should bloodline Cherokee (including bloodline Freemen) not get their "ration" from the BIA? If you are not Black you cannot get a Black scholarship, etc.... If a white person was asking for a Black scholarship they would be ridiculed to death.... yet persons who have NO bloodline to the Cherokee Nation and do not live on reservations should be called Cherokee and get BIA "help." If the Freemen would have been "hurt" by this same decision by the Nation in 1980, I'd buy their dedication to the tribe, but dedication because the tribe has money - does not make you a member!

Lizzie, you're free to join the NAACP. Here's the application: https://donate.naacp.org/page/contribute/adultmembership

They want to be considered a fraction Cherokee so that they can get 'entitlements' - a check every month!

Maybe we should cut the funds off entirely and let this 'sovereign nation' deal with its own issues and get with the program!

Bigots come in all races and colors. Stop trying to play the victim role. It won't work. There's too much history proving otherwise.

So what "Black Kettle and Sand Creek"? My family has a "Winter Count" and a promise of adoption from a tribe that we have always cherished, but to you the one moment in time, in 1980, is the indelible marker showing eternal dedication? If it's about money, I agree: don't disburse it, but don't expect it either. Everybody else in America decides who is a member of the family, but even within families, there is no guarantee that we will inherit anything. The rest of us pay taxes on inheritance, not get hand-outs from the Federal government for it.

It seems to me that when they had nothing and needed every hand they could get in order to survive, they pulled together and lived as one family. Now that money is involved, all the little family squabbles have risen up and this is the result.

Technically, yes, they're a sovereign nation (with the United States' ongoing permission and consent) and can decide who is a citizen and who isn't, but don't believe for a moment that that makes what they're doing okay. Their decision is just as shabby, short-sighted and petty as anything the United States did to them.

It's obvious that money has blinded them to the irony of their situation; they've become the thing they despise.

Most of the "Cherokees" making these decision function as white people. The darker of these people are tucked away on reservations and don't make any decisions.

D200911

Lizzie, you're free to join the NAACP. Here's the application: https://donate.naacp.org/page/contribute/adultmembership

Oh sure, you can join, and pay member ship dues, but watch a white show up at one of the MEETINGS and see what happens. Theres a big difference between Membership and actually belonging.

Radical 1 ... are you familiar with the term "Hogwash" it fits your writings!!!

Does this mean that if you're not white, you can engage in bigoted behavior?

All I know is, somewhere out there, there's a racial grievance-obsessed Leftist who has applied all the duct tape at his local hardware store to his head to keep it from exploding.

This is why I hate the concept of racialism. It just divides people needlessly and gives them an excuse to hate people for their differences. It's a poison.

Having said that, since the Cherokee Nation is sovereign, they can do whatever they want within the limits of whatever treaties they signed. Regardless of history, a treaty is a treaty.

If I were they, I'd be putting a higher priority on reducing regulation on business, and try to turn their reservation into the next Hong Kong, Singapore, or Dubai and bring in more revenue for the tribe.

Thanks for the NAACP membership info, but if I want to be murdered in a hate crime that won't be called a hate crime, I'll just go to Philadelphia or Reading and walk the streets at night.

So, you believe that all members of the NAACP are murderers? You believe by virtue of your "whiteness" you will be accosted and killed if you walk into a non-white neighborhood?

Why do bigots even bother trying to disguise their true feelings? You guys aren't very good at it.

Elizabeth - "one moment in time" is one example. You have tribe adoption - that means that to some extent you respect the tribe, want the culture and heritage to live on through traditional art, food, language, etc - If you were a non-blood Freemen, you may be able to retain your citizenship if you participated in the culture, but if you live in NYC and can't even say hello in Cherokee, why would you have to be kept? - I believe they are cleaning house to those who do not care to learn, appreciate and keep alive the Nation's heritage. That is my opinion, it does not make me right. However, I do not agree that the BIA gives generous "handouts." It is a dysfunctional agency at best which has never had Natives in charge - it's handouts keep the tribes down more than lift them up but the treaties are signed and I think enough Native blood was shed, land destroyed, etc that the US gov't owes them at least the paltry treaty amount no matter how rich a tribe becomes.

You are calling Cherokee bigots because our government is attempting to force non-Cherokees to be made members of their tribe?

Why don't we tell Brazil that Jewish-Americans are now citizens of Brazil and therfore have Brazilian rights and see if there is any objection?

You are calling Cherokee bigots because our government is attempting to force non-Cherokees to be made members of their tribe?

Why don't we tell Brazil that Jewish-Americans are now citizens of Brazil and therfore have Brazilian rights and see if there is any objection?

If they applied that standard for the white people among their ranks who aren't really functioning members of the tribe as well, there would be no problem.

But for people who did the Bulk of the work for you on the Trail of Tears...that is really trifling behavior to boot these folks out. No other "Nation" on earth has blood quantum as a requirement of citizenship, and most of these folks most likely DO have "Cherokee Blood".

Who cares? This is like getting thrown out of one ghetto and into another. But on the other hand, doesn't this set a precedent for deciding that Indians are not US citizens?

I am not calling the Cherokee bigots in any way shape or form. I do believe that they have the right to release non-blood related people, no matter what their color.

22,000 Cherokee started on the Trail of Tears, with them were 1,600 Freemen - at least get your history correct TekKnowledge

Fact 1: http://www.cherokeebyblood.com/blackindians.htm

Fact 2: http://www.cherokeebyblood.com/trailtears.htm

"I saw the helpless Cherokees arrested and dragged from their homes, and driven at the bayonet point into the stockades. And in the chill of a drizzling rain on an October morning I saw them loaded like cattle or sheep into six hundred and forty-five wagons and started toward the west....On the morning of November the 17th we encountered a terrific sleet and snow storm with freezing temperatures and from that day until we reached the end of the fateful journey on March the 26th 1839, the sufferings of the Cherokees were awful. The trail of the exiles was a trail of death. They had to sleep in the wagons and on the ground without fire. And I have known as many as twenty-two of them to die in one night of pneumonia due to ill treatment, cold and exposure..."

Private John G. Burnett, Captain Abraham McClellan's Company, 2nd Regiment, 2nd Brigade, Mounted Infantry, Cherokee Indian Removal, 1838-39

You will probably sign anything once you've been through all that.

Marine Doc

You believe by virtue of your "whiteness" you will be accosted and killed if you walk into a non-white neighborhood?

Come on down to Houston, Ill give you pretty good odds if youre white and willing to walk through some of the non-white neighborhoods we have here.

Steve,

You are being absurd, and accusing an entire group of people based on the amount of melanin in their skin of criminal activity.

There's a word for that. I'll let you figure it out...but you only have 3 guesses.

Lizzie63

I can't join the Boy Scouts because I'm not a boy.

I can't join the NAACP because I'm not black.

I can't join the AMA because I'm not a doctor.

So why should a person without a drop of Cherokee blood be able to be counted as a Cherokee?

#2.9 - Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:40 AM EDT

Actually Lizzy63 you can join the Boy Scouts. There are many leadership positions and Women are always encouraged to participate and Explorers, Crews and Teams accept female members.

TekKnowledge

You are calling Cherokee bigots because our government is attempting to force non-Cherokees to be made members of their tribe?

Why don't we tell Brazil that Jewish-Americans are now citizens of Brazil and therfore have Brazilian rights and see if there is any objection?

If they applied that standard for the white people among their ranks who aren't really functioning members of the tribe as well, there would be no problem.

But for people who did the Bulk of the work for you on the Trail of Tears...that is really trifling behavior to boot these folks out. No other "Nation" on earth has blood quantum as a requirement of citizenship, and most of these folks most likely DO have "Cherokee Blood".

#2.26 - Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:01 PM EDT

TekNoledge you are very bigoted from you statements since you don't have the facts. Many of the Freedmen were NOT BLACK. Nobody did anyone elses work on the trail of tears (tsa-la-gi) as many people froze to death, starved or were beaten and left to die by troops. The only family I know that had slaves has 6, some were indian and some white but none were black. My Great-grandparents died on tsa-la-gi and fortunately my grandfather as a baby was adopted by a family that raised him. His sister chose to wed as a teenager (I think 13 yr old) because she had no family to support her. The people classified as slaves were treated as equals and had the ability to bring grievances to the tribal elders if they felt mistreated. Most of them were purchased but some were self endentured or endentured as punishment for offences since indians didn't have prisons or death penalties. The indians did not have plantations and worked on family farms along side and lived with their "slaves". Once their term of servitude was up if they wanted to join the tribe all they had to do is be accepted by the clan matriarch which most of them were.

As for color, I know oriental Cherokee and have worked with several black cherokees that are proud of their heritage. Color is not a requirement nor will you find cherokee discriminate for membership by color. You will find them dicriminate against people wanting "Right and entitlements" but not Heritage. I am Cherokee but I do not get any entitlements unless I become unemployed or live on the reservation so why should people who's ancestors left when given the chance to join the tribe and never joined.

You also do not seem to know that in 1760 it was legal in North Carolina to capture Cherokees and force them to be slaves. Throughout American history there were two options, be a slave and abused or be slaughtered and abused. Usually the US government chose the second.

This is not bigoted behavior. The rules are the same for all. You can be white, black, red, yellow, any other color but unless you have the required amount of Cherokee blood you cannot be a member of the tribe. Simple and applied equally to all. No special favors for those wannaabees that happen to be black.
I'm white and I do have some Cherokee blood but not enough I don't think and I don't feel descriminated against.
But then I consider myself responsible for my life not someone who may or may not have affected the life of my ancestors.

blacksmith-271984

Does this mean that if you're not white, you can engage in bigoted behavior?

Hell Yes!!! Just watch the Def Comedy Jam. Or that racist ass George Lopez and his stupid ass anti-white show. @!$%# Man!!! Non-whites are the biggest bigots out there!

This isn't bigotted behavior

So if the US called a press conference to say that they were stripping citizenship from all black Americans, that you'd fail to see the bigotry in it?

So why should a person without a drop of Cherokee blood be able to be counted as a Cherokee?

That has nothing to do with the topic. How can a born Cherokee not have a drop of Cherokee blood when every drop of their blood is Cherokee?

Marine Doc

Thats not what I said, I said Ill show you some neighborhoods you cant walk through if youre white. You can come to your own conclusions as to why.

@I'm Ringo

So if the US called a press conference to say that they were stripping citizenship from all black Americans, that you'd fail to see the bigotry in it?

It is not a color issue. The decision and action ousted a handful of white people, as well. Plus, there are many, many black Cherokee who were not affected by the decision. What the tribe is doing is revoking membership from people who have no documented Cherokee ancestry, regardless of the color of the skin.

• Blacks who have documented Cherokee ancestry still have full membership and rights within the tribe.
• Blacks AND whites who have no documented Cherokee ancestry ARE being kicked out.

The action is applied equally to all colors. The only determining factor is whether or not a person has documented Cherokee ancestry

From what I've read, they're are being kicked out for lack of first people's ancestry, not lack of Cherokee ancestry.

From what I've read, they're are being kicked out for lack of first people's ancestry, not lack of Cherokee ancestry.

First Peoples are American Indians, which includes the Cherokee tribes. To be a member of the Cherokee Nation, a person must have Cherokee ancestry. Some Freedmen might have First Peoples ancestry, but if it's not specifically Cherokee, then they simply cannot join. It's simple.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but those are the facts

To be a member of the Cherokee Nation, a person must have Cherokee ancestry.

But that Cherokee ancestry need not be first people's ancestry.

But that Cherokee ancestry need not be first people's ancestry.

I don't even know what point you're trying to make any more, haha. Cherokee ancestry IS First Peoples ancestry. All Native Americans are First Peoples.

Cherokee are First Peoples. First Peoples can be, but are not always Cherokee. They can be Navajo, Choctaw, Lakota, or any other Native American tribe

Exactly, JustMe. The whole point to the Cherokee's decision to exclude the Freedmen is that those particular individuals lack any demonstrable Cherokee ancestry. Consequently, the Freedmen have no First People ancestry unless it came from an ancestor who belonged to a tribe other than the Cherokees.

Ringo is just another example of someone who has just enough cash to buy a cheap computer so he can parade his ignorance on the internet for the entire world to see.

Well done.

Cherokee ancestry IS First Peoples ancestry

No, most Cherokee ancestors were among the first peoples, but the freedmen certainly were not.

Cherokees are First Peoples

Most of them are, not ALL of them.

Ringo is just another example

Of someone here trying to discuss the topic instead of pathetically trolling like Sailcat.

That's funny. I thought you were the troll, Ringworm. Are you prone to delusions or hallucinations? You might want to get that checked out.

Still nothing of value from Sailcat, just lame junior-high level insults.

When you get tired of trolling and are ready to discuss the topic, then come on back.

I'm also including facts and truthful statements, things about which you have no experience, Ringworm.

No, you're just trolling and spouting childish insults. Looks like you're still not ready to grow up and discuss the topic. Come on back when you are ready.

@I'm Ringo... You seem to be making two conflicting points at once. I'm not sure you fully understand what is being discussed.

ALL Cherokees ARE First Peoples. There can't be any other way around it. You're either Native American or not. It's not possible to be Cherokee without being Native American. It just can't happen!

The Freedmen who have no Cherokee ancestry are the ones who had their Cherokee citizenships revoked. The Freedmen who have both Freedmen AND Cherokee ancestry remain, because they have documented Cherokee ancestry.

You seem to be making two conflicting points at once

No, I'm making one point. I'm not sure that you fully understand the discussion.

ALL Cherokees ARE First Peoples

No, the freedmen Cherokee were the descendants of people brought from Africa as slaves, so they certainly were NOT first peoples.

All Cherokees are First people. Not all Freedmen are Cherokees, however. Therefore, not all Freedmen are First People. That is what this issue hinges on and it is why those particular Freedmen are being excluded from the tribe.

All Cherokees are First people

No, some of them were freedmen without any first peoples ancestry.

That is why the Cherokees are defining what it takes to be a Cherokee. They are excluding those people who have no demonstrable Cherokee ancestry. Under their new definition, no one who cannot prove Cherokee ancestry is allowed to be considered Cherokee, including those Freedmen who have no Cherokee ancestors.

Your previous statement, under the new rules, is incorrect.

They're busy kicking people with no first peoples ancestry out, not looking to see whether they have Cherokee ancestry or not.

Some Cherokee are just trying to strip being Cherokee from some other Cherokee somehow.

The reason? Likely to concentrate those health care and housing dollars in their own hands.

"Some Cherokee are just trying to strip being Cherokee from some other Cherokee somehow.:

Inaccurate because, as I showed previously, if the individuals cannot produce evidence they have Cherokee ancestry, they are not going to be accepted as Cherokee. The Cherokee are doing this to establish the definition of what it means to be Cherokee just as other tribes have done, and they are doing it to preserve their heritage.

"The reason? Likely to concentrate those health care and housing dollars in their own hands."

You cannot back up your claims with facts. You are merely speculating.

Inaccurate because, as I showed previously

Wrong, you've shown no such thing. You've also failed to explain how having Cherokee parents does not count as evidence of Cherokee ancestry.

You cannot back up your claims with facts. You are merely speculating.

Wow, so you just figured out that when someone offers their opinion of what they think is likely, that they are speculating. You sound excited about your new insight.

and they are doing it to preserve their heritage

Look, you can even do the same thing.

"You've also failed to explain how having Cherokee parents does not count as evidence of Cherokee ancestry."

I get the feeling we're having two different conversations. When you are able to gather your wits about you, let me know.

I get the feeling we're having two different conversations.

Yes, I'm discussing the subject of the article. I'm sorry if you are not so inclined, but I have no interest in leaving it to join your alternate discussion.

Let's cut off BIA funds and every other federal dollar to these clowns while we are breaking treaties.

They should honor the treaty that was imposed on them because the South lost the Civil War. Losing a war has consequences and for the Cherokees, abiding by the Constitution and Civil Rights Laws is one of them.

Let's cut off BIA funds and every other federal dollar to these clowns while we are breaking treaties.

Let's give them all of their land back and we can all go back to where we came from...

Smart Cherokees. Dumb Government.

These remarks are being made to the native Americans. The government took everything they owned and put them on reservations. Now for years they have been trying to take those away.
Read your history, they were treated rotten in Indiana, and elsewhere, Even the ones who did not harm anyone. They don't owe the government a dime but this will be how the government gets
back some of the money that we owe for all their free spending. There must be something more they want to take from the Indians . I am not blaming the the black people who where slaves, and
I feel that they are being treated unfairly; Use DNA and find out if they have Indian blood. If so, then they should be allowed to remain.

Let's give them all of their land back and we can all go back to where we came from

Keep in mind that the original Americans came from Asia via a natural land bridge. So the going back to where anyone came from is getting thin as an argument. But if the CN is going to suddenly oust people that have been there for their entire lives, they need to assist with relocation efforts.

Just about every country has been invaded, and if the natives lost they were either done away with or they were absorbed into the victorious people who took over the country. It's done, get over it because it will never be the way it was again. The whining for yet another hand-out isn't working anymore.

Let's give them all of their land back and we can all go back to where we came from...

Perhaps they should have fought harder to KEEP "their" land; With that said, since they lost through NO fault of mine personally, why should MY tax dollars subsidize anything that benefits them? Why don't they accept the fact their ancestors lost the land fair and square and move on.....

ABCDE. Actually the Clovis people are the first carbon dated people to arrive in America and are of Asian descent. Indians I believe are descendants of Asian and French European Nomads before Asia broke off from the north American continent.

If they didn't want to abide by the treaty, maybe they should've joined the winning side of the war.

lost the land fair and square

You obviously flunked history. Unless you think a government that lies on purpose, breaks all treaties that they wrote themselves, and kills innocent women and children is a "fair and square" government.

Awesome!

So if I go back to the land I came from, which land is that if it isn't America? I was born here, my parents were born here, their parents were born here and their parents were born here. Hate to say it to all of you that think land belongs to someone else but this land is MY land, just like its yours too.

All the rest of this jibberish is from hundreds of years ago and it made no difference for you or your parents or most likely their parents. Time to move on and understand that this is what it is.

Jenny... Asia never "broke off" of the American continent. After Russia stopped being communist, some Native Alaskans went to visit their first cousins in Siberia, the same way they have continuously done it most years for thousands and thousands of years: by sled over the ice that freezes solid in the winter over the Bering Strait.
The "ancient" land bridge is a myth, not because it did not exist, but because only occasionally were there years (such as during the Soviet Union) when that bridge wasn't there.

Perhaps they should have fought harder to KEEP "their" land; With that said, since they lost through NO fault of mine personally, why should MY tax dollars subsidize anything that benefits them? Why don't they accept the fact their ancestors lost the land fair and square and move on.....

Depends on what you call "fair and square." Europeans had guns, germs and steel. (Yes, I am alluding to Jared Diamond's Nobel prize-winning book of the same name, which explored the question of why certain civilizations are victorious over others. Every encounter is predictable.)

Elizabeth (#3.15), the Bering Strait does not freeze solid - ever. It's very deep. The land bridge was actually much farther south. If you look at a topographic map of the ocean floor, you can see that a land bridge would have appeared south of the Bering Sea when sea levels were lower, but that the Bering Strait itself would have remained underwater much longer. The original Clovis hunters did not cross from the Siberian arctic to the Alaskan arctic, but instead crossed at a more southern point.

If you're only looking at a land map, it's tempting to assume the Bering Strait is the point of crossing because it's the shortest-looking distance today. But a modern land map does not take into account past sea levels, which would have made that area look very different.

JLM

He who has the best weapons will always prevail. If you had an F-22 and I had a single engine Cessna, if I had better radar and missiles, Id win every time.

Exactly. But an F-22 against a single engine Cessna wouldn't really be considered a fair fight. So the question is, did we have equal access to these tools? Why did one of us use an F-22 and the other a single engine Cessna? And historically, the reason for better technology is... more innovation, precipitated by higher populations, precipitated by food production (agriculture), precipitated by a combination of domesticable local plants/animals and domesticated imports. Or at least, Jared Diamond argued the latter phrase.

Europeans obtained their food package of wheat and barley from Mesopotamia, but that was arguably a better package than what the Native Americans had available (corn, squash, beans) in terms of calories per unit of effort and protein content. And they also enjoyed the imports of a huge expanse of latitudinally similar Eurasia, whereas Native Americans had to trade mostly along a north-south axis, in which crops from one region simply weren't adapted to the regions north or south of it.

So "fair and square" becomes pretty complicated over thousands of years of human history and its advances.

Yeah! It's like rain on your wedding day! Or 10,000 spoons, when all you need is a knife!

Anyone remember this song??

They took the whole Cherokee nation
Put us on this reservation
Took away our ways of life
The tomahawk and the bow and knife
Took away our native tongue
And taught their English to our young
And all the beads we made by hand
Are nowadays made in Japan

Cherokee people, Cherokee tribe
So proud to live, so proud to die

They took the whole Indian nation
Locked us on this reservation
Though I wear a shirt and tie
I’m still part redman deep inside

Cherokee people, Cherokee tribe
So proud to live, so proud to die

But maybe someday when they learn
Cherokee nation will return, will return, will return, will return,
will return

Paul Revere and the Raiders

Double

Good song, I actually saw Paul Revere and the Raiders way back when.

Like I always tell my Nez Perce family in Idaho, "If we woulda just been cut-throat enough to initiate a Many-Nations Border Control Policy as soon as the first suyapo (N.P. for white person) hit the eastern shores..." You know that saying, "Fool my once, shame on you. Fool me a bzillion times - DANG!"

Just sayin' ...

I have both Cherokee Indian and Black blood running through my veins but, I don't think enough of this subject to provide a lop-sided response.
We must understand that out of darkness comes light.
So in order to make things better for all we must go through hardships in order to make things better in the future.
By our ancestors living out their downfalls, it allows for us to learn from their mistakes. It's very hard to accept the tragedies that our ancestors have gone through but, we must let them go. Once we have we can then focus on those same downfalls that they had that continue on in societies today.
It's nothing wrong with fighting the ones going on today!!!

Peel-Layer,

What a statesman. Let me know when you are running for a government office - you'll be on the top of my list.

Probably one of the most uplifting posts I've ever read - and it's about a tough subject.

ITs sad that so many of you feel the need to support a clear wrong. If Blacks where good enough to work your fields, watch your kids, Cook your food and whatever else that went on back then and even now, Then why shouldnt they be considered a member of the tribe. Yet another step in the wrong direction..

And you would say the same for a resident alien, right?

Those are good points, Scrilla and fstwarrior. Illegal immigration has become a backdoor form of slavery, with the threat of deportation serving as enforcement (especially when ties to one's original country are weak or lost). What we should do about it, I don't know. But the question of who gets to be a citizen is certainly a good one, and the Cherokee aren't the only ones facing it.

This is a fight over money, nothing else. Whe Great Uncle So and So dies and leaves 10 billion dollars, youd be suprised to find out about all the relatives you never knew you had.

Prove it! Your statement is like saying someone should feed their neighbor's kid before they feed their own. Quit being such a Kumbaya PC lip servicer for once in your life already will you and just try employing a little simple logic for a change. The world will be a better place for it.

Than is racism tribal too?

At its roots, I'd say "yes". Again, we must remember that President Lincoln was adamant that a house divided could not stand. Old white farts use the division all the time: Blacks vs. Latinos; whites vs. well anyone else; now First Nations vs. Blacks. Anything to keep us from voting and governing for the general welfare of all Americans.

By that flawed logic, so are gangs.

so for HOW LONG were they considered Cherokee? And NOW the "non-black cherokee" want to change the RULES? So until a couple of years ago, where was the dislike of the "non-native American" tribal members?

It's ALL about $$ so let revert to a "purer" tribe (and let them fund themselves, too).

Actually, the word you're looking for is Prima facie.

You beat me to it, JLM.

These are not legitimate descendants of the Cherokee nation. Since they are a nation unto themselves technically, then they have a right to determine who is a tribal member and who is not.

So the slaves of the Cherokee Nation were not part of that nation? I get the blood quantum thing, but these are descendants of the very group that marched on the Trail of Tears and helped to re-build after the removals. I could not imagine turning my back on these people.

Just because they can do it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

How about the government just give back to the Cherokee the lands that were stolen from them which would be much of the Southeast.

"Lands given to them" what you really mean is the lands that they were told would be theirs or else they would face the wrath of American troops and certain annihilation if they refused to accept the treaty.

By the way the treaty of 1866 also ceded all the lands West of the Mississippi to the native Americans '...for as long as the sun shall rise and the grasses grow on the plains...' just one of a long, long, long list of broken treaties and yet the government has the audacity to use 'treaties' as a dictate to the Cherokees.

I would laugh my butt off if it weren't so tragically sad.

What gives them the right if they have NO BLOOD LINE???

Well, the first Gold Rush happened here in Villa Rica - Cherokee land. Do you really think the US government was gong to give that back then? Now? Mammon rules all.

The land "given" to them was at the time considered worthless after they were forced to leave their land. The BIA is in the business of destroying anything that has any cultural significance to native americans.

Isn't the real question here the motivation behind this? Are they kicking them out because they're black, or are they kicking them out because they aren't Cherokee? If race isn't the deciding factor then it isn't discriminatory, and should really be none of our business, whether we agree or not.

Let's face it, we gave these people the shaft. Their rules/customs had been followed for millenia, that is until we came and screwed it up for them. They have the right to rule themselves the way they would have if we hadn't interfered.

Terriels,

Just because it's the right thing to do, doesn't mean we can make them.

I agree Sarah that we can't make them, and I never said anything to the contrary of that statement. I simply said just because they have the right to kick them out, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

I'd love to see a Cherokee Congressman try to get into the black Congressional caucus. LOL

They would welcome him/her.Not everyone is as bigoted or ignorant as you.

These are not legitimate descendants of the Cherokee nation. Since they are a nation unto themselves technically, then they have a right to determine who is a tribal member and who is not.

Just google some pictures of prominent Cherokees and tell me whether they look like "Native Americans" or just regular old white people to you. This is just another blatant act of racism/white supremacy. I don't see Cherokees booting white people who claim they are "Indian" out of their tribe, so why should they boot out black descendents of Cherokees?

I can personally tell you that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. White, yellow, tan, black, etc. are denied citizenship to Indian nations every day of every year. This is done by the various indian nations as well as the US Government! You don't get in just because you say you want to or you say you are Indian.

Let's take all this logic from people who say the 2800 blacks should not be eliminated as citizen of the Cherokee Nation. If that is the case than ANYONE should be able to apply to the US government for benefits as a minority (in this case Native American)and receive those benefits. The US government requires all minorities to prove their status including Native Americans. In fact the US government requires indians to prove a certain percentage of indian blood to be approved for US benefits (it doesn't require this of black people by the way). That is more than most tribal nations require. Most only require proof of blood not a minimum.

Also before you start comparing elderly indians to "regular old white people" try actually visiting an Indian reservation. There are differences.

They would welcome him/her.Not everyone is as bigoted or ignorant as you.

Actually, Chris...

Over the years, the question has arisen, "Does the caucus allow only black members?" Pete Stark, D-CA., who is white, tried and failed to join in 1975. In January 2007, Josephine Hearn reported in Politico that white members of Congress were not welcome to join the CBC.^[8] Freshman Representative Steve Cohen, D-TN., who is white, pledged to apply for membership during his election campaign to represent his constituency, which is 60% African American. Hearn further reported that although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the caucus agreed that the group should remain "exclusively black." Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-MO., the son of Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-MO., a co-founder of the caucus, is quoted as saying, "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood." In response to the decision, Rep. Cohen stated, "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in."

Let's take all this logic from people who say the 2800 blacks should not be eliminated as citizen of the Cherokee Nation. If that is the case than ANYONE should be able to apply to the US government for benefits as a minority (in this case Native American)and receive those benefits.

Did these "anybodies" do the bulk of the work on the trail of tears for the Cherokee???

Also before you start comparing elderly indians to "regular old white people" try actually visiting an Indian reservation. There are differences.

I don't think the dark skinned folks back on the reservation are MOST responsible for this decision. I strongly suspect the people who are making this decision most likely are white people who claim Cherokee for benefits and don't preserve the culture either. I spent 2 hours talking to the President of the Freedmen's Association on Live Radio, what do you know of this situation? In fact, the person I interviewed informed me, that "purer" Cherokees are looked down upon just as black folks are, and even called the n-word, by other so-called "Cherokees".

I think his point is that, unless you're Cherokee, you don't get a say in what's going on whether you agree or not. And you shouldn't. Have your opinion all you want, but it's not our nation. Deal with it.

So have all the Cherokee who signed the treaty - the object of a treaty is not to protect just the assignees, but also to be in full force and effect for the duration of the two countries.

I agree with RaiseByWolves. By that your logic the US goverment could just ignore the treaty now and all the Cherokee nation would just vanish in the eyes of the government. Even with that being said casting out members on the basis of race if the very definition of racism.....

Well actually, other than the descendants of the black slaves others of bloodlines mixed with Cherokee blood even very slight amounts have been afforded the same rights and privileges as those who are of 100% Cherokee blood (of which there are virtually none left). Plus when you consider that for about 145 years now the Cherokee nation has treated those who are descendants in accordance with the treaty of 1866 there is considerable precedent which certainly blows a hole in your assertion that the treaty has no bearing on this matter.

Given that statement, Ron, It would appear that the treaty is in full force and effect and to delete the African American progeny is impossible. Seriously, how many people are we talking about? And shouldn't the Cherokee Nation be "bigger" than the US and abide by a treaty when the US is so laissez faire about abiding by any law?

To RaiseByWolves, I believe that if you re-read my remark which though it might not be entirely clear at first glance, it was in response to another poster who had said: "Okay, so they were tribal citizens, but those former slaves died a long time ago! The blacks they're talking about today have nothing to do with the treaty."

So my remark actually supports the notion that the treaty is in force and that among not only the Cherokee but among many native tribes there is recognition that even those carrying very small amounts of ancesteral blood are welcomed as members of the tribe.

I'm all about honoring treaties and certainly the native American tribes have shown a much stronger commitment to the treaties they have made with our government than visa versa and I respect and honor that.

In fact I've spent a number of years working hand in hand with the Western Shoshone Nation of Tribes in their efforts to reclaim lands in Nevada granted them by the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863. Significantly a fair portion of those lands stolen from them were converted into the Nevada Nuclear Test Site in the mid-forties and I'm sure I don't need to explain to you the deep connection they as well as other tribes have with the Earth and the great pain and anguish that they feel about the way these lands have been abused.

That's completely ignorant. By the way the Blacks have been in the Cherokee Nation for over 100+ years you can best believe that most if not all have Native American ancestry.

Fez - "casting out members on the basis of race if the very definition of racism"

Treating someone differently based on race is the definition of racism... oddly enough it is the same as the definition of Affirmative Action.

Then all they have to do is prove their bloodline and they remain Cherokee Nation citizens. Non-issue then.

Oh well good news then - the smog is blocking the sun and global warming killed all the grass in that region.

The Shoshone and the Lakota (and Oglala and Blackfeet and Brule etc). They were promised the Dakotas and then were ousted and our ancestral holy ground was defiled by people searching for gold.

Shoot ... let's honor ALL the treaties with ALL the tribes. By the act of making treaties with the Native American tribes, they were treated as SOVEREIGN NATIONS by the Federal government. This means those treaties are as valid as every treaty this nation has with England, Germany, Japan etc.

That might have been true when they could sustain themselves. I bet chief whatever would be scrambling through his desk drawers looking for the treaty that guaranteed the US military for defense if those blacks suddenly took up arms and tried to defend the land their ancestors were forcefully brought to.

Their land was not stolen. The were a conquered people.

Conquered by whom? (the word is they, not the)

They were conquered by the Union Forces in the Civil War. The treaties were in place so that the Federal Government could reduce their responsibilities to the freedmen who were previously slaves of the Cherokee nation on their assigned reservation.

Sorry I missed a "y"

Try reading "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee" - your story will change. On this subject, the SCOTUS said the tribes make membership decisions, not the U. S. government. The Blacks don't have the blood, they're not Cherokee - simple.

One book cannot change the facts of history but if I get a chance I will read it...thanks for the recommendation.

The Cherokee Supreme Court said the tribe makes membership decisions. That is not the SCOTUS which is the Supreme Court of the United States. The problem with any Indian Nation is that it is only a quasi-sovereign state because it was created by the US Government, supported by the US Government, and dependent upon that support. If you fight the BIA on this they'll just take their money and go and let the tribe be "autonomous." That will just lead to the nation falling apart. I guess win the battle on racism but lose the war to preserve heritage.

You really do not understand the status of tribes at all, do you?

DRWHO1234 be an eighth Cherokee himself

Did the Trail of Tears run through Gallifrey? ;)

@deadbabies -- DRWHO1234's post is 10 times smarter than yours.

@Gaysayer_001 Obviously you know nothing about Cherokee Nation.

How exactly do you measure the amount of times smarter a comment is than another? I'm sure you have a complex algorithm to solve that one? I'd really like to know.

@deadbabies: Lol. I use the "pull a number out of my rear end" algorithm. It's the quick and dirty approach... :)

@deadbabies

Naysayer might not know a lot about the Cherokee nation but I do. I'm an eighth, my mom was quarter, grandfather half, and great-grandfather full. I know enough to know that my family was forced off lands into Oklahoma, then forced off of those lands as well by whites.

Not that all whites are bad. Incedentally, my Scots-Irish fathers' side of the family didn't arrive in America until the 1880's, and so while they never got to participate in the great American experiment of slavery, my Cherokee ancestors owned slaves imported from Africa that they took with them to Oklahoma. I guess that me knowing that the poor little innocent Indian ancestors of mine were actually ruthless inhuman slaveholders while at the same time my evil haggis, and later potato, eating white evil despicable whitey white mcwhiterskin ancestors were actually oppressed most of our history doesn't fit the narrative here, though.

Regardless, if you take away something from my diatribe, please let it be the rampant corruption that is commonplace at BIA. Check it out. Indian Casinos haul three times the take of Vegas. Jack Abramoff and the Bush White house knows what I'm talking about.

Oh, and a special P.S. my post was WAAAAAAYYYYY smarter than yours. Sometimes I be talkin' in therd purson yo soze I can fits in wit da braindead fake progressive readership of MSNBC, the network brought to you by the fascist committee to re-elect Barack Obama.

@ Jack in TX

I'll forgive you for making light of the genocidal massacre of sovereign peoples since you mentioned a little inside knowledge of the greatest television series to ever air.

I'll forgive you for making light of the genocidal massacre of sovereign peoples since you mentioned a little inside knowledge of the greatest television series to ever air.

That's a relief. I'd hate for a police box to materialize in my office.

Our government would be extremely stupid to perscute the Cherokee by saying the treaty must be honored, unless of course they have a judge corrupt enough and willing enough to actually rule that only the section of the treaty our government disagrees with needs to be enforced. Enforcing the entire treaty would result in giving half the country back to Native Americans.

Just so you are more confused Wylldsarge, actually they are complying with the treaty. As part of the treaty, the US Government Created the Dawes list in 1899 to document all of the Cherokee Citizens and Freedmen which was the "Official" membership roll. That is still the official roll to apply for membership and these "Freedmen" do not have ancestors on that roll because they all moved out of indian lands chose not be be members of the tribe. So anyone that says they are breaking the treaty is wrong.

Well for one....the Freedmen descendants are receiving the same benefits that actual Cherokee people are receiving. So they've decided that....since they're not really Cherokee (and probably NEVER participate in the tribe) they're cutting them off.

There seems to be a lot of information missing from this story. At first glance, it appears to be a bigoted response on the part of the Cherokee, but at the same time, these are NOT Cherokee people. I'm not sure why these 2,800 people were ever considered Cherokee if they're not. What is at stake if the Cherokee do this besides the US government withholding funds? What benefits exist for being included as a Cherokee vs being an American? Why would it matter to the Cherokee that they have an additional 2,800 people on their rolls who aren't Cherokee? Why would the American government care that they want to expel them, besides the odd circumstance that an Indian tribe may break a treaty with the US.

I would guess, like most blacks, they're useless and using benefits of being part of the Cherokee tribe. They probably don't actually participate or help out or are useful in anyway. They probably stink, steal, and look like excrement. If they don't actually have Cherokee blood, then kick them out, I think that is perfectly fair, and kick them out anyways for being black.

The benefits they get are an unemployment check, food stamps and housing subsidies if below the poverty level. Low interest housing loans if they buy a house. The tribe did not amend its constitution and is abiding by the Treaty by excluding them. The original decision in 1980 was to abide by the Dawes List and exclude them and only recently did they decide they wanted to tap into benefits which takes funds from actual tribal families that need it. The funds come from oil and mineral rights the U.S. government "leases" from them and taxes on tribal income and gamblin.

If we are being politically correct they would be "African Cherokee" not "African Americans" as to this point they have been citizens of the Cherokee nation.

So where will these "refugee's" go if they have no citizenship?

So where will these "refugee's" go if they have no citizenship?

Texas???

Probably.

Maybe the "Slave descendents" should petition the tribe for a land grant and create a nation of their own.

I thought the Indians were rich from oil, gold, and Casinos? And selling pottery, fetishes and baskets, kachinas, awesome art?

The only thing the Native American is rich is their Heritage, the government has control over everything else.

486 treaties were ratified by Congress of which the U. S. has honored none.

Damn right!

What a moron you are still believing that old lie about deliberately giving the Indians infected blankets!!!!The germ theory of infection was elementary at best in the period before and right after the civil war!!!!They had no idea that those blankets were causing the Indians to die.Read history before making "blanket"statements you can't back up!!!

Yes, Harry... maybe they did not know about germs but they knew the disease was spread by contact and that is why the bedding of the sick people was burned afterward. US government treatment of Indians back then would have put Nazis to shame. If I'm a moron, here is the link for you Mr. Genius: www.nativeweb.org/pages/l egal/amherst/lord_jeff.html.

"Fact is, on at least one occasion a high-ranking European considered infecting the Indians with smallpox as a tactic of war. I'm talking about Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63). Amherst and a subordinate discussed, apparently seriously, sending infected blankets to hostile tribes. What's more, we've got the documents to prove it, thanks to the enterprising research of Peter d'Errico, legal studies professor at the University of Massachusetts at (fittingly) Amherst. D'Errico slogged through hundreds of reels of microfilmed correspondence looking for the smoking gun, and he found it."

US military officers were familiar with that idea AND THEY PUT IT IN PRACTICE MANY TIMES.

Harry, you are so wrong. They knew exactly what they were doing when they gave the Indians those infected blankets. They may not have known much about "germs", but they knew to torch anything smallpox victims had touched if they wanted to stop the spread of the disease.

damn harry you got served (as the kids say)

you are no longer an ignorant dude....dude

hoped you learned a lesson

yeah it's racism.even the Indians don't like blacks.

They aren't ousting them because they BELIEVE they aren't of indian blood. They are telling them they must prove their indian blood to remain. Once that is proven they remain citizens of the nation.

It has nothing to do with the color of their skin. It is amazing how people read the article title and don't actually absorb what is written into the article. It says 2800 blacks. There are more than 2800 people within the Cherokee nation that have black skin. This group of 2800 are the ones that don't actually have indian blood. All the others possess indian blood and are therefore citizens of the Cherokee nation.

It is hysterical that people read this and think the WHOLE Cherokee nation only has 2800 black people in it. Let's all just jump on the racism wagon shall we, don't worry about taxing our feeble minds to actually look at facts and realize this isn't all the "black" skin people in the Cherokee nation. Unbelievable how a few words can stir enough controversy that rational intelligent people just assume this is racism on the part of a people that have been discriminated against throughout the history of the US nation.

As far as their comments in the casino about other people, that isn't any different than other races who make inappropriate comments about people outside their race.

think'n harry hates the red man

@ Allforjustice,

Not for nothing, but they want those with black skin to prove they are of Cherokee decent. Therefore, they suspect or believe that they are not Cherokee to begin with. Have they also demanded any others who's appearance is different to prove they are Cherokee? Perhaps the issue truly is about the color of the skin.

You are correct in the area that racism is wide spread.

My reference to the working environment is due to the vast differences in labor laws. Because it is their land they are permitted to make up their own rules in this area and the US labor laws do not apply. Any who wishes to work there are notified of this prior to hiring. For instance, if they decide to promote someone based on their heritage and not the quality or history of work performed, discrimination does not apply.

Yep.

Even their job opening announcements say that "Native American Preference Applies" - and THEY get away with it.

I've been there. Hired and fired more than one. The incompetent "professionals" who are are hired (not by me) just because they happen to 1/126th Indian is a disgrace. You'd think they would have striven for excellence by now instead of this "you owe me" mentality.

Now, who's racist?

~(Ä)~

you should move away from those savage lands and make your own homestead, or you could just TAKE more of their stuff, or their jobs.

1/126 th is retarded, more like 1/4 and more then your in, depends on the tribe

us labor laws apply, different laws for different tribes

Damn right!

Yep ! Your correct !

I was wondering how many full blooded cherokees are really left. To us in az that's what you hear from most people "I'm part cherokee". At least here we still have are real culture not some movie inspired BS. The greed runs deep these days for my tribe as well. I can't get my kids enrolled , which i'm a member and still live here. If your families not on the tribal council good luck getting opportunities promised by any government. Especially Native country we learned from the best Government. How to deal with the unwanted. Get a clue cherokee people not very many of you full bloods left anyway.!