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.

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.

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.

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~

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.

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.

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.

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.