Emotions Flare During NAJA Panel
By CHARLY EDSITTY
The UNITY News Online
Conversation got heated Friday afternoon when the floor was opened to audience members at the Native American Journalist Association’s “Who is an Indian?” panel.
For nearly two hours, panelists fielded questions, giving insight into the complexities of American Indian culture.
Debate over American Indian citizenship dominated the conversation. The Cherokee Freedmen controversy that called into question the tribal citizenships of 2,867 people drew the most debate.
“There are different concepts of history at play here,” said Kenneth J. Cooper, a Pulitzer Prize-winning independent journalist from Boston. “The Cherokees don’t know their own history.”
Cooper directed his comments toward panelist and current Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, Chad Smith in a debate that lasted several minutes. Cooper argued that race was a major issue in deciding the Freedmen dispute and that a certain group of people who shared mixed Cherokee heritage were wrongly denied tribal membership because they were black.
Ancestors on Cooper’s mother’s side are descendents from slaves who were owned by Cherokees in northeastern Oklahoma. He said he is of Cherokee blood and joins other people whose Cherokee citizenship has been called into question, revoked and then reinstated through a mess of treaties, court cases and tribal elections.
“The first columns said we kicked all blacks out of the Cherokee Nation,” Smith said of media coverage surrounding the controversy. “That’s absolutely false.”
“If you look at the records, tribal membership is not based upon color or appearance,” Smith said. “You just have to have one Cherokee ancestor and it doesn’t matter what you look like or what your other ethnicities are.”
Because a solution has yet to be found, Congress is considering cutting funding to the Cherokee Nation through legislation called HR 2824. Smith played a nine-minute video explaining that the funding cut would negatively affect the oldest, poorest and neediest Cherokees in the nation.
Other panelists included Suzanne Jasper, director of First Peoples Human Rights Coalition; Joe Garcia, president of the National Congress of American Indians; T.W. Shannon, Oklahoma state representative and moderator Karen Briggs, president of Red Hummingbird Media Corporation.
“The issue of who is an Indian must be viewed through the prism of tribal government,” said Shannon, a member of the Chickasaw Nation.
He said issues of citizenship handled by the federal government have been “catastrophic” and said he thinks it’s best if it is left up to the Cherokees to determine citizenship.
“Congress should be very careful trying to determine citizenship for someone else when they have their own issues trying to deal with American citizenship,” Shannon said.
Garcia objected to federal interference with tribal citizenship and regulations on dual tribal enrollment, which limits citizenship to only two tribes, even if someone is a member of more than two by blood.
“Who set that policy?” Garica asked in reference to the federal government. “That’s what gets to me. It takes the right away from my grandchildren to be members of tribes to which they belong.”
Garcia’s granddaughter is a member of several tribes by blood, but does not have citizenship to all of them.
Defining citizenship has proven to be a very emotional issue for American Indians. Smith explained that the fundamental definition of an Indian is a citizen of a tribal nation, but said there are other definitions.
Smith offered up his own definition that didn’t include papers or documentation, but a strong emphasis on community and relationships.
“Are you a member of an Indian community? That’s a relationship,” Smith said. “It doesn’t matter what you look like or where you come from, but if you are accepted by an Indian community, I think you are.”
![[del.icio.us]](http://unitynews.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://unitynews.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://unitynews.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://unitynews.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Newsvine]](http://unitynews.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/newsvine.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://unitynews.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
July 26th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
My direct quotes are accurate, but the second appears broader than I meant because my remarks preceding it were omitted. Before saying, “The Cherokees don’t know their own history,” I paraphrased a comment Cherokee Principal Chief Chad Smith made to the Washington Post last year. It was something like, “Cherokees don’t even know who the Freedmen are.” I then cited history that shows the tribe’s wealth before the Civil War was largely derived from the labor of slaves owned by mixed white Cherokees who were prominent tribal leaders.
I am also indirectly quoted as asserting I have Cherokee blood. I did not say that. My family’s oral history says it so, but I can not at this point document that as a fact. I said my great-grandmother indicated at one point in testimony before a congressional commission about the turn of the 20th century that she wished to enroll in the Cherokee Nation by blood. Then she changed her mind and enrolled as a Freedman. The rest of the testimony is not detailed enough to document her asserted Cherokee lineage, though there are some questions and answers about her mother’s parents.
One last clarification. I said I have maternal ancestors who were slaves of Cherokees and free blacks who lived among the Cherokee, not just slaves. Both categories of individuals fit the definition of Cherokee Freedmen.
July 27th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Mr. Smith knows that he is wrong in his pushing the freedmen out of the tribe. He is a lawyer, and ejected the Freedmen due to internal political reasons. It is also blatantly racist.
I am a Cherokee Citizen, and the few who did vote them outm are mainly teh Thinblooded white cherokee. Smith pushed his legislation through as quickly as he could before significant numbers of freedmen were allowed to enroll and vote.
Smith knew that the Seminole tribe was unrecognized for the same thing, but did the thing anyway.
Citizenship is up to the tribem but the Freedmen are protected by treaty language. Smith would need to get congressional approval to change a treaty, but he failed to do this. the cherokee nation was re-recognized due to the presidents executive recognition in 1975. If the Cherokee Nation wins in court, it will set a terrible precident that an executive decision can trump a treaty. This would allow any president to unilaterally abrogate treaty’s of ANY and EVERY tribe, not just the cherokee.
July 27th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Well Mr Kurux,
You have it exactly right, Smith knows better, just simply does not care about the Cherokee People or their rights as descendants of Cherokee Citizens…
Everything you have said can be verified at this one linkhttp://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/59414…Though this article is by me, there are many links to material for corroboration of what I said!
And if folks have a desire to learn about the Cherokee go to http://www.cornsilks.com or you can simply GOOGLE “John Cornsilk”!!
John “The Elder” Cornsilk
Cherokee Descendant and Member of CNO!
July 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am
UNITY
What gathers people, nations, and cultures together-shared views, blended life experiences, or the desire to have an understanding of the other, insight…
Each of us could bring elements and ideas, adding definition of what unity means to them.
As the grandmother and mother of Afro-American and Cherokee by blood children, and citizens of Cherokee Nation, our families are defined by those relationships we build into our lives and communities. Tribal citizenship starts with blood-ties, then you build the culture.
The media and public has neglected to see and hear from those of us who are Black-Cherokee by blood citizens in Cherokee Nation. Thereby failing to recognize that we exhisted before and will continue to long after this ‘issue’ has settled.
Some will walk away and find another task to attach themselves to and wage war, again. But many of us will walk throughout our life time and our descendents’ in the footsteps of being a blended family of both Afro and Cherokee by blood.
I am not aware of our journalists of color seeking out the diverse communities within Cherokee Nation beyond a PR spin, yet are quick to proclaim what is happening within our neighborhoods, homes, governments, and thinking in regards to how we live. I’d like to see and acknowledge how the Black politicians (CBC), representatives, and speakers have come into our nation and homes, to spend time with our familes to see the exchange of relationships that better represent those portrayed as being “kicked out and purged” from the rolls and nation, in the mis-informed words of Congresswoman Diane Watson, who has refused multiples invitations to come visit our homelands and people.
We are still here as Black-Cherokee citizens before and after the March 3, 2007 vote, which defined and further embraced our rich cultures, diversity, and acknowledged the unity which can exist between people.
My children, and theirs, can return to the communtites of their ancestors in eastern Oklahoma and still be at home with their relatives. That’s unity! tp
Twila Pennington
Cherokee Nation citizen, Blue Clan.
Grandmother and mother of Black and Cherokee by blood citizens.
Tahlequah, Oklahoma.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:17 am
The naysayers who claim that the attack on the Freedmen by Chad Smith and his followers had nothing to do with race are just not listening to themselves. They make the best arguments for expulsion being based on race.
First they point out that the vote was to homogonize the Cherokee Nation citizenry so that everyone left with enrollment would be Indian. Last time I checked, Indian is a race.
Second, they claim, with great flourish, that the remnant of the Nation still enrolled, is comprised of white, black and Asian Cherokees with one thing in common, they are all Cherokees by blood. Interestingly, the Cherokee Nation, prior to the Allen ruling which removed the enrollment bar against the freedmen, had never kept any records of “other blood”. Yet almost immediately following the expulsion vote in March of 07, the CNO propoganda machine began pointing out that there were 1,500 blacks with Cherokee blood left in the tribe. My question is, why are they keeping such records? And the fact remains that despite whatever “other blood” a person may have, if that person has Cherokee blood, he/she is Cherokee by blood according to our laws, customs and traditions. That means a person who has black ancestry, once proven to be Cherokee Indian, is no longer black. He/she is Cherokee once proven to be Cherokee by blood the same as any other by blood member.
third, Chad Smith and his supporters are claiming that the amendment to expell the freedmen makes the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma an “all Indian tribe.” That claim is patently false. The amendment does not require Cherokee blood. It only requires an ancestor on the “By Blood” section of the roll. There are over 50 adopted whites who possessed “by blood rights” in the Cherokee Nation listed on the By Blood section. Their descendants, though having NO Cherokee blood, remain eligible for enrollment.
Fourth, Smith has claimed that the Treaty of 1866 was not violated by the recent vote to oust the freedmen. However, our own tribal supreme court ruled that in order to abrogate the treaty or remove even one citizen from the tribe, the wording of any constitutional amendment must clearly state that. There is no mention of the Treaty of 1866 in the amendment. There is no mention that freedmen or anyone else will be losing their membership. The amendment violates the order of the court.
Fifth, Smith keeps whining to let the courts decide. If he could be trusted to abide by the courts decision, that might make some sense. But he has shown himself incapable of doing anything but that which suits his own political agenda. And the cases now pending before the tribal and federal courts do not address the issue of whether or not the Treaty of 1866 remains good law and is enforceable. The tribal court case only questions the validity of the 2007 vote based on interpretations of the Cherokee constitution. The court case now pending in the DC federal circuit only addresses the question of whether the Freedmen, based on the fact that they should have been members of the CNO, were unlawfully denied their right to vote. Their right to CNO membership, as determined by the Allen Court, is rooted in the words of the 1976 Cherokee constitution and whether the BIA erred in recognizing the elected officials of the CNO in 2003 and the vote to adopt the socalled 2003 Cherokee constitution. That case does not address the validity of the 1866 Treaty either.
Sixth, the Smith propoganda machine continues to claim that the 1902 FCT Act and the 1906 FCT Act both somehow abbrogate the Treaty of 1866 and destroyed the citizenship of the Freedmen. Yet, they do not explain how the general language of those acts, which does not specifically address freedmen citizenship, could do anything relative to this issue. The only thing Smith is doing is making the argument I have made over the past 20 years and that is Congress closed our tribal citizenship rolls and there have been NO NEW Cherokee citizens since 1906. We who are members of the CNO today, are not citizens of the Cherokee Nation. And when the last citizen (Dawes enrollee) dies, the Cherokee Nation will become extinct.
As it stands, the only party addressing the validity of the 1866 Treaty is Congress. That, as it should be in accordance with the terms my Cherokee ancestors placed there, is being considered as we speak in the halls of Congress. If Congress does something to harm the Cherokee Nation, it would be then incumbant upon the leadership of the CNO to take THAT matter to court.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Hello David, very good points.
If you substitute the words “Indian Sovereignty” with the following words “States Rights”, you will have the very same arguement the states used to beat the crap at of black folk. What a shame that a Cherokee leader will be written in the history pages with the likes of Governor Ross R. Barnett of Mississippi, Governor George Wallace of Alabama and Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, who said (”We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states.”)
And just a little reminder to Twila Pennington, Cherokee is not a race of people. Its a political group of people. You are indeed negro by race with some North American Indian ancestry. You are Cherokee because its a political group that granted you citizenship. Don’t confuse race and nationality, two complete different things. And on a larger note, your negro ancestors did not get a visa or a work permit and board for America. They arrived on a SLAVE SHIP. Though your African ancestors may not have been owned by a Cherokee national, somebody did, most likely a British colonist and later an American, but you can bet that your first African ancestor to step foot on these soils was in slave shackles. Which reminds me of how and why you have American citizenship, a Civil War that freed one or more of your African ancestors and paved the way for your American citizenship. Its funny, no actually sad would be a better word for how your leadership have found a way to marganilized its national slave policy of owning and trading Africans (human beings) with no moral consequences or obligation to do the right thing. SHAME!
July 28th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Very Good Eli,
Yes, David got it all quite right didn’t he? And on your response to Twillap, it was good but I think if you knew Twillap, it may have been a bit different, she is one of the very close supporters and hawkers of the racist rhetoric of the Smith Junta! And as they are all very good at, she twists up the facts for a percieved implication the she is something she is not!
Shes is one of the many white Cherokee, on the membership rolls of the CNO, she does meet the criteria of the CNO membership requirement of a Cherokee ancestor on the Dawes Rolls. And Her Story is true, that she does have at least one black child, a son that I have seen, an you may have seen him as well, now whether she is married to his black father I am not aware of, at the Town hall meeting held by Congresswoman Watson Aug 20 2007,if you recall one White Cherokee woman, was ask to stop her racist rant, she refused and continued, she was escorted from the building by security, her son spoke next, he knew the results if he acted like his mom, so his racist rant was short, and to the point. There was news Coverage of the incident, or meeting if you prefer! and in the archives of KOTV Chan.6 http://www.kotv.com/e-clips/?id=7950 you can see the news clip, and in the remote reporters segment, about the 12th frame in you will see three faces left to right, first about half the face of a black man, that is Twillap’s Son, in the middle is TwillaP and the 3rd is gayle Ross, another devout Smith White Cherokee, Tanned up really well flunky, she was called on to end her rant two or three times before she would sit down and shutup, just as the security was headed her way!! There was a good showing of Freedmen support, I am there along with my son, and a cousin in the second row! I think that is where I first met you in person Eli! If people wnat to learn the truthful history of the Cherokee Freedmen check out my article @ http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/59414
John “The Elder” Cornsilk
A Brown Cherokee member of CNO!
July 28th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I get easily bored reading the rantings of the Cornsilks, so I stopped reading very quickly, HOWEVER… David Cornsilk has one fact very wrong. The Cherokee Nation does NOT point out that there are 1,500 mixed black and Cherokee citizens. There are 1,500 FREEDMEN descendants who also have ancestors listed as BY-BLOOD Cherokees. That simply means there are 1,500 individuals who have ancestors on both rolls– the Freedmen and Cherokee by-bloold rolls. This proves that even if you are a Freedmen descendant, as long as you have Cherokee ancestors also, you are still a Cherokee citizen.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
C.A., enough already with the blood propaganda….the issue is not about the ‘freedmen racial mix’. The issue is a promise and treaty made to African slaves and their descendants. People please don’t buy into the blood lie. NO WHERE in the treaty of 1866 between the US and the Cherokee Nation is freedom and equality given just to mix race Negroes and Indians…..The Cherokee leadership plan of termination for Freedmen is also to make them extinct. The Cherokee leadership have offered the public something politicians call ‘funny math’. At the close of Dawes rolls there were nearly 5,000 Cherokee freedmen listed on the rolls. For some reason these particular black folks chose not to pro-create and their numbers have fallen sharply over the last hundred years…that’s if you believe the propaganda. The reality people is that the Cherokee leadership stop enrolling freedmen descendants and put out this phony number of how many freedmen are in the nation……Enough already with the lies.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Kurux is very wrong-the Cherokee that voted out the Freedmen weren’t the thinbloods, in all reality, they were the more than half bloods in the Tahlequah area. Ask anyone with a blood quantum of over 1/100th and they will tell you. It is the thinblood that need to be taken out and anyone with a decent BQ will agree. Mark my words, the thinbloods are next. Real Cherokees agree. There is a massive difference in the cultural issues….no one who is really a Cherokee will deny that the thinbloods need to go, regardless of whatever the Chief may say. A drop of blood, my foot.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I have considered this issue over and over and I would like to add my own thoughts and beliefs on this.
Firstly I do not believe that the US Govt. should have any right to tell people who they belong to or not. If you are a specific nationality by blood and were raised up as such then you are that nationality and you belong to your people. If this is such an issue with the US govt. then why is it that our offspring have to “enroll” in order to be recognized as who they really are?
Either a person is or is not Tsalagi. It is that simple and no one would know better who is or who is not than the people of a tribe.
There are many individuals who are of true Native American Indian blood who cannot be traced to their people due to forced adoptions. My full blooded CHerokee Great GrandMother/elisi is one prime example. She was born in a sanitarium and was adopted prior to Oklahoma becoming a state and her adoption papers are missing. Her also adopted Sister’s paperwork was found and was able to find her by blood family. My Great GrandMother was also raised up in Oklahoma with her own people since her adopted Mother passed when she was young and her Adopted Father who was mixed Choctaw wanted her raised up right. Is she enrolled? No. She couldn’t be enrolled because of US politics. Who are they (the US) to say anything about my Great GrandMother? Who were they to take her from her biological family?…Grrr as you can see that makes me angry.
Finally, I would like to add a personal experience that I had which decided for me that my people are right to decide who is or who is not Cherokee. Less than two years ago I attended a meeting of the Southern California Cherokees held in Riverside, California. Principal Chief Chad Smith spoke there that day about language preservation and the monies being allocated for that and directly to my right was a family of newly enrolled Freedmen that included a mother and several teenage children. When Principal Chief Chad Smith spoke about that money going towards language preservation I heard the Mother clearly say, “Oh that is B%^* S*(#”.
This woman could care less about the language of my people. She had no concern that we value our language, traditions, etc…
There was no common bond.
How can I be on the side of people who could care less if the language of my people die?
And…what did she think was a beter plan for that money?
She mentioned the Soboba tribe.
I am glad that my people decided to use the money we have for education, medical research, hospitals and education etc…
I really really am.
That is all I have to say.
Wado/Thank you
Patricia
July 28th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
PS My family are enrolled members of the Western Band Cherokee Nation via matrilian ancestors listed on the Dawes.
Wado
July 28th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I can empathize with most people on this board, from the Cherokee Nationalists to the Freedmen. Here is my opinion: The Cherokee Nation does not exist today to signify a “race” of people. Nor does it exist to be a purely political entity that wants to exert jurisdiction over the descendents who were once citizens of an actual NATION. The Cherokee Nation as an entity exists, in my opinion, to preserve and acknowledge the cultural and ancestral links we have in common to those ancient peoples who inhabited a large part of the Southeastern United States long before European “explorers” found the continent. Citizenship into the Cherokee Nation today is different than citizenship into an actual state or a nation, and is not citizenship into an Indian race. It is merely recognition that your ancestors were descendents of the ancient people who called themselves Aniyunwiya.
Many people can or will claim this heritage, whether it is true or not. In order for an entity to be able to verify claims to the heritage, they select objective citizenship criteria that is proveable. This is a criteria that every tribe has the inherent right to choose for themselves. For the Cherokee Nation headquartered in Tahlequah (that is refered to as other posters as CNO or CNOT), the people of that nation democratically elected to base that proof on the “By Blood” list in the Cherokee section of the Dawes Rolls. It does not matter what you look like, how many times your family tree has forked into a different race, or if your last full-blood Cherokee relative lived back in the 1600’s.
I can see fighting against the current Cherokee Nation alongside the Freedmen if I believed they were “kicked out” of the tribe simply because they were black. That, of course, would be wrong. But there is ZERO evidence to suggest that. Claiming someone is a racist because they think citizenship in an Indian entity should be based on proveable Indian ancestry is seriously misleading.
And to the Nationalists….you should probably tell the Freedmen why you are actually fighting for their inclusion in the tribe, and then tell them who you’ll be fighting to include next.
July 28th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Careful to not mislead, David. I know you know your history because I’ve read your other posts online. But you are being misleading to other readers here, whether intentionally or not. I “argue” with you here only for the purpose of other readers. If you want to continue the conversation online, I would be happy to engage you personally via email.
David said: First they point out that the vote was to homogonize the Cherokee Nation citizenry so that everyone left with enrollment would be Indian. Last time I checked, Indian is a race.
I say: Indian is not a race. Race is a concept that is based on the mistaken notion that enough genetic differences can classify people into separate groups. Isn’t this how humanity gets itself into trouble over and over?
David said: Second, they claim, with great flourish, that the remnant of the Nation still enrolled, is comprised of white, black and Asian Cherokees with one thing in common, they are all Cherokees by blood. Interestingly, the Cherokee Nation, prior to the Allen ruling which removed the enrollment bar against the freedmen, had never kept any records of “other blood”. Yet almost immediately following the expulsion vote in March of 07, the CNO propoganda machine began pointing out that there were 1,500 blacks with Cherokee blood left in the tribe. My question is, why are they keeping such records? And the fact remains that despite whatever “other blood” a person may have, if that person has Cherokee blood, he/she is Cherokee by blood according to our laws, customs and traditions. That means a person who has black ancestry, once proven to be Cherokee Indian, is no longer black. He/she is Cherokee once proven to be Cherokee by blood the same as any other by blood member.
I say: You are misquoting the propaganda machine. They have stated that there are “1,500 descendants of former slaves” that are currently enrolled in the tribe because they ALSO have at least one ancestor listed on the Dawes rolls, By Blood section. The descendants of former slaves may not necessarily be black, as their ancestors could have intermarried into any variety of other “races.” How do they know that 1,500 descendants of former slaves are in their tribe because they also have an ancestor on the by blood rolls? Because this information is easily found by looking at the documents that one must submit in order to receive Cherokee Nation citizenship. Didn’t this used to be your job? So I think you are quite familiar with the process and how much you can know of a person’s lineage based on the documents they present to enroll.
David says: third, Chad Smith and his supporters are claiming that the amendment to expell the freedmen makes the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma an “all Indian tribe.” That claim is patently false. The amendment does not require Cherokee blood. It only requires an ancestor on the “By Blood” section of the roll. There are over 50 adopted whites who possessed “by blood rights” in the Cherokee Nation listed on the By Blood section. Their descendants, though having NO Cherokee blood, remain eligible for enrollment.
I say: Chad and his supporters have asserted that it makes the Cherokee Nation an all Indian tribe AS PROVEABLE VIA THE DAWES ROLLS BY BLOOD SECTION. Obviously the Dawes Rolls are not perfect. But it is the most logical basis for determining Indian ancestry. The Cherokee Nation bases citizenship off of the By Blood roll, period. If they start going through the By Blood roll and picking off people that they say really AREN’T Indians by blood because of some other type of documents that exist, then that really would be a double standard and ethnic cleansing. But that is NOT what they are doing.
David says: Fourth, Smith has claimed that the Treaty of 1866 was not violated by the recent vote to oust the freedmen. However, our own tribal supreme court ruled that in order to abrogate the treaty or remove even one citizen from the tribe, the wording of any constitutional amendment must clearly state that. There is no mention of the Treaty of 1866 in the amendment. There is no mention that freedmen or anyone else will be losing their membership. The amendment violates the order of the court.
I say: Here is a direct quote from the 2006 Allen Case Court Ruling: “The Constitution could be amended to require that all tribal members possess Cherokee blood. The people could also choose to set a minimum Cherokee blood quantum. 3 However, if the Cherokee people wish to limit tribal citizenship, and such limitation would terminate the pre-existing citizenship of even one Cherokee citizen, then it must be done in the open. It cannot be accomplished through silence.” None of that mentions the Treaty of 1866, and I would assume you’d know that since you were directly involved in this case.
David says: Smith keeps whining to let the courts decide. If he could be trusted to abide by the courts decision, that might make some sense. But he has shown himself incapable of doing anything but that which suits his own political agenda.
I say: This is entirely your opinion, to which you are entitled. But in order to assert it as fact, you would have to present more than your spin and opinion showing on several occasions how Chad Smith has been accused of willfully going against the courts decisions.
David says: And the cases now pending before the tribal and federal courts do not address the issue of whether or not the Treaty of 1866 remains good law and is enforceable.
I say: It’s unlikely that the Treaty of 1866 will be argued in court now that it is over 140 years old. There have been scores of congressional acts and court cases since that render this treaty’s status as “good law” less important than we’d all like to believe.
David says: The tribal court case only questions the validity of the 2007 vote based on interpretations of the Cherokee constitution.
I say: That is exactly why this court exists; to decide if the constitution is being violated.
David says: The court case now pending in the DC federal circuit only addresses the question of whether the Freedmen, based on the fact that they should have been members of the CNO, were unlawfully denied their right to vote. Their right to CNO membership, as determined by the Allen Court, is rooted in the words of the 1976 Cherokee constitution and whether the BIA erred in recognizing the elected officials of the CNO in 2003 and the vote to adopt the socalled 2003 Cherokee constitution. That case does not address the validity of the 1866 Treaty either.
I say: The freedmen’s right to citizenship is not so much rooted in the words of the 1976 constitution as it is just not addressed. The 1976 stated: “All members of the Cherokee Nation must be citizens as proven by references to the Dawes Commission Rolls, including the Delaware Cherokees of Article II of the Delaware Agreement dated the 8th day of May, 1867, and the Shawnee Cherokees as of Article III of the Shawnee Agreement dated the 9th day of June, 1869, and/or their descendants.” Nowhere are the Freedmen mentioned. And that was exactly what led to the 2006 Allen case ruling that more specific language would have to be added to the constitution in order for it to be perfectly clear what membership should be based on. You know that.
David says: Smith propoganda machine continues to claim that the 1902 FCT Act and the 1906 FCT Act both somehow abbrogate the Treaty of 1866 and destroyed the citizenship of the Freedmen.
I say: According to the Cherokee Nation, these acts destroyed Freedmen citizenship AND the citizenship for EVERYONE in the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee Nation as it was then CEASED TO EXIST because of these acts.
David says: Yet, they do not explain how the general language of those acts, which does not specifically address freedmen citizenship, could do anything relative to this issue.
I say: Your statement about the 1902 Act not specifically addressing freedment citizenship is, how you say, “patently false.” Section 28 reads: No person whose name appears upon the roll made by the Dawes Commission as a citizen or freedman of any other tribe shall be enrolled as a citizen of the Cherokee Nation.
David says: The only thing Smith is doing is making the argument I have made over the past 20 years and that is Congress closed our tribal citizenship rolls and there have been NO NEW Cherokee citizens since 1906. We who are members of the CNO today, are not citizens of the Cherokee Nation. And when the last citizen (Dawes enrollee) dies, the Cherokee Nation will become extinct.
I say: Good point. And if the Cherokee Nation is extinct, there will be no Cherokee Nation to uphold the Treaty of 1866 giving Freedmen citizenship. In fact, once there is no Cherokee Nation, there is not a nation for the Freedmen descendents to be a part of, and then certainly no need for congress to make decisions about something that doesn’t even exist.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
In response to your obviously heated rant Mr. John “The Elder” Cornsilk I have a few questions…
How often do you find yourself angrily spitting into the faces of Brothers and Sisters, our Ancestors and also the history of our people by willingly and quite disrespectfully disregarding the American Indian Religious Freedom act?
Has it no meaning to or for you?
Does the blood sweat and tears that it took to get such a protection have any significance in your well educated thinking?
Whom exactly do you think that this law protects?
And if say… the US Govt. is trying to force a people of a different nationality and religion to “live as” Cherokee people, one must assume that “living as” Cherokee would also mean that it would have entitled these people of a different nationality and religion specific religious protections as well being that they are in legal terms being recognized by the US as living “As Cherokee” being afforded all rights, honors and entitlements of a true blood Cherokee. No limitations to bind them from any traditional acts or behaviours etc…
It is my personal opinion that the United States Govt. themselves had violated the treaty in question by doing the right thing by both honoring and respecting all of the true Native American Indian people(s) by enacting the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.
My people have done no wrong by both acknowledging and accepting that honor and respect of the US Govt. by correcting our position on the issue of the Freedmen who are not Cherokee by measurable terms as set forth by the Dawes act and accepted by the Cherokee Nation.
I have read your rantings before John “The Elder” Cornsilk
and you are obviously a very angry person, one might even go so far as to say that you are quite mad.
I have learned to give people the benefit of the doubt regardless.
Have a nice evening.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Well Good morning to you “John “The Elder” Cornsilk
Brown Cherokee Member of CNOT!!”,
From what I understand after reading your final response is that you are quite upset that I have not been taken in by your angry rantings of pure “babble” and “bovine excrement” filled with “tension” ally misspelled words. You are also curiously defending your sanity although my own words to you never directly indicated that I had considered your sanity a point to argue I am at this point beginning to wonder…There again, how mad is mad?
You seem to be waving your website links around quite often and it reminds me of a woman who I had met once who for a long period of time had insisted to me that she was Cherokee. I had the notion to believe her in all her consistent effort, you know and I had never once even asked her if she was or was not who she was professing to be. Her consistent efforts were a red flag to begin with but she did eventually slip up and reveal that she had only heard through family members that someone believed that they were Cherokee. Bottom line it came down to the reality of the fact that there was no evidence to back up such a claim.
You have twice in your rant brought question of my Cherokee heritage and bloodline and I will say to you sir that I am indeed Cherokee and the fact that you questioned my legitimacy makes me then in retutrn question yours.
Tit for tat.
My thoughts are my own and yes I stand firmly on my loyalty to my people regardless of whether you like it or not. My position regarding the action of my people will not change. The truth is incontrovertible.
Have a nice day.
July 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Say what you will to divert your responsibility of proof of error. That’s what people usually do when they have empty rhetorical accusations.
I wish that I could say that your reaction was unexpected.
No matter what it is that you are trying to say here or elsewhere the fact of the matter is that your underlying messages are drowning in your own emotions.
That fact speaks for itself.
Why would anyone who was 100% certain that their debate and argument were solid and true resort to emotional rantings?
I have never seen anyone win a debate that way and I never will.
As I said earlier, the truth is incontrovertible.
Have a nice day.
July 29th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
[...] 29, 2008 · No Comments UNITY http://unitynews.org/2008/07/25/emotions-flare-during-naja-panel/#comment-112 What gathers people, nations, and cultures together-shared views, blended life experiences, or the [...]
July 29th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
“BTW, have you heard the latest, the Freedmen had a major win in the DC case, the Weezle Smith http://www.jalagi.org/weez.gif and cohorts can now be sued!”
Once again you use emotional words that drown out your underlying message.
Hmmm.
Griffith wrote: “The District Court must determine whether ‘in equity and good conscience’ the suit can proceed with the Cherokee Nation’s officers but without the Cherokee Nation itself.”
Oddly enough what you have hugely neglected to add (and this is hugely significant)is that the Federal Goverment has not only rightfully acknowledged they have also upheld that not just the Cherokee Nation, but all tribes continue to have inherent rights as sovereign Nations, including tribal sovereign immunity.
As I said before I have developed a level of intolerance for the back and forth squabbelings over the internet.
In order to conitnue this conversation with you without being a hipocrit there must be a two sided debate that would consist of at least some mutual degree of credible argument.
I will to a fault admit that this “debate” is one sided at best and I am certain without argument that you will claim that one side as your own.
~ganolusga nv woti~
July 30th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Patricia: You are a true woman after my own heart! Please keep up the well-grammared, well-spelled postings. Makes John Cornsilk look very, very sad and pathetic in his rantings.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I find it interesting that Mr Cooper faults the UNITY article by claiming his quote was “taken out of context” because the writer failed to include his criticism of Chief Smith for a quote he read in an earlier newspaper article. I don’t suppose it occurred to Mr Cooper that the Chief’s quote ALSO might have been taken out of context. Instead of asking the Chief if the quote meant what the paper said it did, he made the sweeping arrogant statement that Cherokees don’t know their own history and then proceeded to make several totally inaccurate statements himself proving once again that propenents of non-Indian enrollment are willing to resort to fallacies, fictions and outright lies to promote their supposedly noble cause.
Above, he goes on to protest the lack of balance on the panel?? It was a panel sponsored by Indians about an Indian issue. What a shock, there were mostly Indians on the panel. I didn’t notice Mr. Cooper objecting to the lack of Indian representation on his next panel, What Is Race, despite the fact that the description in the program promised Native American representation. Mr Shannon, a black Chickasaw, agreed to join the panel but he did not address the Freedmen issue. In fact, neither did Mr. Cooper.
The bottom line is this. Slavery was racist and wrong and some Cherokees and thousands of free blacks participated in it. The obliteration of the our country and the near destruction of our Nation was also racist and wrong and freedmen lobbied for and enthusiastically embraced it. Today, both groups should support one another but the fact is that attempting to forcibly integrate an indigenous nation is considered by international humnan rights law to be an act of cultural genocide and is a grave violation of the Cherokee Nation’s human rights. Many newspaper editorials have accused the Cherokee of acting “white” by denying citizenship to non-Indian descendants of freedmen. But the fact is that legal entitlements to enrollment created by treaty were abolished by Congress over a hundred years ago, as I said, with the aid and approval of the original freedmen. From an Indian POV, the freedmen are participating in the oldest form of racial discrimination on the continent…if the Indians have something you want, find a way to portray them as being in the wrong, and take it.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:47 pm
DT, please explain your statement,
“Slavery was racist and wrong and some Cherokees and thousands of free blacks participated in it.”
Thousand of free blacks participated how?
You said,
“The obliteration of the our country and the near destruction of our Nation was also racist and wrong and freedmen lobbied for and enthusiastically embraced it.”
Hum…I would love the share with the senate hearings on the subject and one group in Indian Territory more than any of the others against statehood was the Freedmen. Again and again in the archive records the freedmen testified to members of the US Senate that they are against statehood and allotments. They feared becoming Americans. Hick man, the first laws went on the books were Jim Crow laws against black people. At least as tribal members they were treated somewhat equal…the state’s blacks had nothing.
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 am
Since making the first post in this thread, to clarify inaccuracies in the original article, I have stayed out this online debate. One reason is some posts, in my opinion, depart from the path of civil discourse. Another reason is I have been quite busy with unrelated work.
I now rejoin this thread only because “DT” has raised my name and made direct comments about my statements. I will grant “DT,” whoever he or she may be, that it would have prudent for me to have asked Chief Smith if the quote I cited was accurate and in context. In a less passionate moment, I would have done so. That said, there is no comparison between Unity News, a training newspaper for college students guided by professionals, and the Washington Post, which I know from working there a dozen years reflects the highest level of professionalism. It is much less likely a Washington Post reporter would have taken Chief Smith’s remark out of context.
I did not assume Chief Smith’s assertion that Cherokees “don’t know who the Freedmen are” was an accurate reflection of their grasp of historical knowledge. I said, “if that’s true,” before I said “then they did not know their history.” You can check the videotape, as they say. DT may call my qualified statement arrogant; I call it accurate.
DT also asserts I made “totally inaccurate statements.” NAME ONE.
In fact, DT then proceeds to misquote me, refering to what I thought was a private email to the moderator of the “Who Is an Indian?” panel. I objected to an organization of Native American JOURNALISTS assembling a group of panelists with a single point of view on a controversial subject. I said in that email, and I say again now, that is bad journalistic practice. Furthermore, as this thread has demonstrated, there are Native Americans, “by blood” if that is your sole standard, who disagree with the panel’s single viewpoint. I was calling for a diversity of opinion, not a diversity of racial representation. Journalists are supposed to seek out “the other side of the story.”
The second panel on “What is Race?,” sponsored by the National Association of Black Journalists, listed me as a representative of Cherokee Freedmen. My great grandmother is on the Dawes Roll as a Cherokee Freedmen. DT, do you now want to sever me from my own family history? How could you possibly do that?
Also, that panel did not offer a single viewpoint; each panelist talked about a different aspect of race as a social construct. I talked about exactly what I planned to talk about: How early in the 20th century the various children of my great-great grandfather, who was born and buried in the Cherokee Nation and had four wives of different racial backgrounds, took on different racial identities as black or white. At least one set of his grandchildren became Native American after their “black” then “white” mother married a Shawnee.