Is Tribal Enrollment Viable?
Thu, 28 Dec 2006
What an interesting question!!! Is
tribal enrollment viable, or even necessary?
Are the tribes primarily a social
service agency for their poor members, and a place where mostly white people
with a drop of Indian blood reign over a so-called nation, raking in millions of
dollars pretending to help native people?
With the Freedmen---there is a question
of justice pure and simple----somehow after decades of slavery you would think
that they would be citizens in the land of their birth. That is not a hard
concept.
However, there are also some dangers, that I see emerging:
1) EXCLUSION----
The talk is about Indian blood
exclusively. What about the majority of Freedmen who toiled as slaves? Was their
labor, their living in the nation, speaking the language and living according to
the tribal laws mean anything?
Do they mean anything to the current
Freedmen leader?
Is the Freedmen president's quest ONLY for enrollment and recognition of her 3% Indian blood? 97% of her is African!!!!! What happened to her African genes when she got her card? They evaporated? They turned Cherokee? Who believes that?
2) MISREPRESENTATION---
Have people been contributing to the
organization thinking they were assisting in Freedmen issues?
Dollars have been given in the spirit of
helping the Freedmen cause.
How can this be when the ONLY talk one
hears now from the organization is about blood---the sacred holy
blood is what matters? Does it?
And do all of the Freedmen have that
sacred holy blood? The few records I have seen, don't state that. Some do and
many don't but so what?
Don't the leaders of the very Freedmen's
association see the danger of what they are doing?
The question must be asked----are they
now trying to dismiss their African forefathers and mothers?
Is this over-emphasis on Indian blood an
act of shame and embarrassment for having slaves as ancestors?
If this is so---then a sad day has come indeed----Freedmen were the survivors of decades of enslavement and to descend from them is an honor indeed. You never even hear a word about slaves. Some are talking about the slave owner’s side and pretending there was no slavery in the tribes. There WAS!!!!
3) IDENTITY EXCHANGE---Are the
blood-issue people trying now to toss aside their African ancestry? Some are now
describing themselves as Indians with some black blood. Two years ago they were
black with some Indian blood. Will the continued focus on the precious Indian
blood point out the biggest hoax-----that not only Freedmen but especially the
thousands of WHITE card carriers of those tribes as big as the Cherokees----are
basically white or black and have marginal Indian blood.
The western tribes have 1/4 blood
quantum requirements. They remove people from their active rolls regularly. But
what is this 1/1000th, or 1/5000th nonsense? They rule over
"governments?" Of who, of Indians? Or of pretend-Indians who have now
come to believe that they really are Indians with their droplets of blood?
This I-got-blood thirst might be
the very thing that destroys the tribe. Several hundred thousand basically
white people---are members of the Five Tribes today. The Freedmen leader
wants a few dozen blacks who can prove blood ties to join the mostly white
folks. But something is wrong----these five tribes and their structure as
recognized sovereign entities---- is a sham and some of these tribal structures
might require reconsideration and analysis, and dissolution. And it just might
be the Freedman I-got-blood thing that could do it.
Where is the concept of basic rights for
all citizens?
Something is missing.
WR
Fri,
29 Dec 2006
Hopefully
the issue of justice, long denied to the Freedmen, will be exposed through the
many issues that are being exposed in recent months in the state of
Thank
you for posing this question.
Strangely,
somehow the act of acknowledging one's ties to the nations especially in
History
teaches us so much, and many Freedmen sought vehemently for recognition not only
as human beings, after slavery ended, but also as full citizens in the land of
their birth, and they hoped to be able to contribute to their nation. In
the Creek and Seminole nations, Freedmen were indeed a part of the tribal
structure throughout the 19th century. In the Cherokee Nation, the
Cherokee historian Emmett Starr even pointed out that there were some former
slaves who were also contributors to their nation as leaders---Stick Ross, Ned
Irons, Frank Vann and others. These former slaves rose to become leaders within
their own nation.
In
the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations the struggles were more complex. Richard
Brashears, Nathan Cochran, Watson Brown and others were needed as interpreters,
yet, when they had the chance to work within the tribal structure, their
participation was blocked. What resulted was that they became activists and
established a number of organizations devoted to their own uplift and progress.
The Choctaw Freedmen had some successes especially after their official
adoption by the tribe in 1885. But the Chickasaw Freedmen who faced the
continual problem of being completely without support of their nation, found
themselves in complete isolation and their struggle ended only when statehood
came. They then had the new issues emerge when statehood brought about the
status of being second class citizens in the new Jim Crow state of
As
we fast forward to 2007---after 100 years, is citizenship a viable option?
The
question should be asked, if membership in a nation is a real concept at all
beyond the greater country in which we live. Separate nations have certain
characteristics----a separate economy, their own currency, a government
structure recognized in the international body of nations, and the incorporation
of all of the people(s) that make up that nation. Are these
characteristics in existence right now in those tribes to which the Freedmen
have historical affiliation? Progress is being made, but at present, the answer
is no---these characteristics do not exist.
Is
citizenship a viable option in the light of those characteristics? Is this
where energies should be placed? It is at best a personal issue for
individuals.
There
is the ongoing struggle of the Cherokee Freedmen. Their citizenship is at
stake in the upcoming election. Their struggle is real and the upcoming election
is critical.
The Creek
Nation has had recent legal issues, but the case pending in that nation is
not a case on behalf of the Freedmen---it is a case of proving Creek
blood ties. Regardless of the arguments saying that it is a Freedmen
case----it is NOT. Already, there are enrolled members of the Creek Nation who
have African blood. Those members have proven blood ties to the nation. The
current case is for two individuals hoping to prove their blood ties but
who are not allowed to enroll at present. If the case was about the
Freedmen, then all Freedmen would be eligible for enrollment when/if the case is
settled in the favor of the two plaintiffs.
So,
the Creek Freedmen, Choctaw Freedmen and Chickasaw Freedmen all with unique
histories, are not at this time eligible for citizenship in their nations.
Should
they pursue justice? Hopefully injustice is always seen as something to be
addressed. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Angela
Y. Walton-Raji
WR,
I think your points and the question begs for another view, that being what are
the expectations of freedmen descendants if they should obtain “citizenship”
in the tribes?
From
the outset when the 1866 Treaties were ratified, the most they could have
expected was “second class” citizenship under the terms of the agreements.
This was done in the case of the Chickasaw Nation explicitly to prevent the
freedmen from EVER gaining control of the tribal government.
If there are clauses in the tribal constitutions that limited their
participation in government leadership then citizenship is illusory.
Much
of these actions by the leadership of the freedmen organizations seem to
continue the division among oppressed communities. You are correct, citizenship
should have never depended on the construct of race, and it was this construct
that allowed for the marginalization of both groups.
As
we see from the historical record, it has been the so called mixed bloods in
tribal leadership with the complicity of the U. S. government that have pitted
people with a shared history at odds with one another in the attempt to prove
one has privileges the other covets.
When
we look at the issue of how those classified as freedmen but possessed the much
coveted “Indian blood” and were denied because of the legacy of slavery and
miscegenation, we still see the remnants of “racial superiority” as a means
to separate people by superficial tests of legitimacy.
Though
both groups of freedmen have legitimate claims of citizenship, another question
arises when it comes to what the effects of placing all freedmen into one class
of rejected people.
Because
the tribes chose to place “mixed blood” freedmen in the same class of
people, they were in effect barred from a sizable share in the land wealth
created by the dissolution of tribal lands. Who benefited from this?
In
the case of the Chickasaw and Choctaw Freedmen it can be argued they have claims
against the tribes that could amount to millions of dollars based on the racist
theory that the African blood of their mother’s designated them as people of
African descent and ignored the convention of lineal descent from two people
which would have amounted to an additional 280 acres of land. Who benefited from
this?
The
question of citizenship for these descendants may imply a separate course of
action IF their cause is to resolve that issue. But it does not and should not
preclude them from the larger issue of citizenship for both classes of people,
if citizenship is something they seek.
These
are complex questions and to date we don’t see them being articulated in a
reasonable manner by freedmen leadership. I imagine they could respond by saying
their actions are tactical, and are attempting to get those people “more
acceptable” to nation inside where they can advocate for the other group for
inclusion. This could be problematic if not handled properly. One thing for
sure, giving people false hopes and misinformation about their purpose tends to
harm all.
Terry
Ligon
Fri,
29 Dec 2006
Terry,
Well,
for the sake of discussion, you have stirred up some additional issues. You
said: In the case of the Chickasaw and Choctaw Freedmen it can be
argued they have claims against the tribes that could amount to millions of
dollars based on the racist theory that the African blood of their mothers
designated them as people of African descent and ignored the convention of
lineal descent from two people which would have amounted to an additional 280
acres of land. Who benefited from this?
Well,
the recent ruling that Cherokee Freedmen can sue their tribe, and your
statement above stimulate the question that needs to be discussed-----there was
the issue of $300, 000 that was set aside for the Freedmen in the Choctaw and
Chickasaw Nations---- to their adjustments to life as slavery ended.
The Freedmen never got it!!
Should
Choctaw-Chickasaw Freedmen Descendants request to have those funds made
available to them ---funds set aside and at one time believed to have been
delivered to the tribes----What was the resolution of those funds and cannot the
Freedmen descendants request to have compensation? If not
financially---then how so? The compiled interest on $300,000 after 140
years, should be substantial.
A
most interesting issue to consider!!!
-Angela
Walton-Raji-