Cherokees eject slave descendants

BBC ^ | Sunday, March 4, 2007

[ARE SOLE]

Brotherhood walks, it's all about the cashish.


Regards.

[metmom]

Supporters said only the Cherokees had the right to determine tribal members.

OK. So why should anyone object to that?

Opponents said the amendment was racist and aimed at preventing those with African-American heritage from gaining tribal revenue and government funding.

Ah, the crux of the matter.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

When we decided to allow two classes of citizens (one can own casinos, the other cannot) it was only a matter of time before this happened. Next, the percentage of Indian blood will become the test for receiving casino money. They'll start with those who aren't at least 50 percent...

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

It does seem to be about money--for both sides.

More Cherokees voted over this than for their constitution, according to the article.

[mainepatsfan]

The tribe I'm descended from only considers those who can trace tribal lineage back to 1800 to be members today.

[AD from SpringBay]

Are the Cherokee being niggardly in their approach to tribal membershp? Are they throwing another faggot in the fires of racism?

[Clara Lou]

Descendants of Cherokee slaves received a form of reparation. Reparations are terminated.

[mainepatsfan]

So are the libs capable of accusing the Cherokees of being racist?

[muawiyah]

The "blood quanta" is a common determinant in Canada. In the United States the most critical issue has always been the political side of the "tribe" ~ it's existence as a functioning, governing body over a period of time.

It's pretty clear that the "slaves" were part of the Cherokee polity, and this is the United States, not Canada.

This ain't over ~

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Guessing that the majority of Americans have some Amerindian blood--though usually in small amounts only.

[narby]

The Cherokee tribe was forced by the feds to move to Oklahoma from Ga. in the 1800's, but some stayed behind and fought the government about the move. They were later forcefully removed, which led to the "trail of tears", and many died during the difficult trip.

The main tribe, already in Oklahoma, decided that "real" cherokees were the ones who had gotten there first, and cut the "trail of tears" Cherokees out of tribal membership. When the communal tribal lands in Oklahoma were divided up among the members (late 1800's), the trail of tears Cherokees didn't get land (all Cherokee land is now private - no "reservations" exist in Okla.) To this day the trail of tears Cherokees don't get tribal health care and other federal goodies, even if they are 100% "Indian".

(I'm going from 30 year old memory on the history, so no whining if I've got a couple things wrong here)

[montag813]

Indian "blood" is the ultimate get-into-Ivy-League-school-with-mediocre-grades-free card.

[Migraine]

Are the Cherokee being niggardly in their approach to tribal membershp? Are they throwing another faggot in the fires of racism?

Why don't we just call a spade a spade? There will be no more monkey-business with tribal funds. To all hangers-on who hoped for a gravy-train: the jig is up. Anyway, these disparate factions haven't had anything to do with each other in a coon's age.

[senorita]

Apparently you don't understand tribal sovereignty status. The founders of the United States considered the Indian nations as another nation. This is documented by the fact that they signed treaties with them.

The US government can only sign treaties with another government. This was long before any Indian casinos were proposed.

And by the way, each tribe constructs it's own constitution.

[at bay]

Don't know what this is all about? Can you say CASINO REVENUE? At a casino near Fresno only the few hundred tribal members first agreeing to the casino keep the yearly, per member jackpots (Indian profit-sharing)of close to half a million each. Excluded tribal members regularly picket the place trying to join, to no avail.

A group of nameless tribal leaders adorn the casino walls. It might as well say "no new members welcome", even if you can prove blood lineage. What a sham.

The new caption on the old Indian ad could be "First they exclude me from the tribe, then they throw french fries, wrapper and all at me in the street. Man have I been trashed."

Or "You want something to cry about? We'll give you something to cry about. We'll call it sovereignity, but it will really mean, most of you are left out in the cold."

[atomicpossum]

I thought slavery was a White Man thing, and that 'Native' Americans had a PC culture... (ha).

[mainepatsfan]

It's an interesting dilemma...the more tribal members the less money for each individual member.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

In Prior Lake, Minnesota, the local tribe that developed Mystic Lake Casino peeled off several hundred "members" who didn't politicaly support the tribal chief in office at that time. This was no small deal. Each and every tribe member cleared over $1 million from Mystic Lake.
The ex-tribals were < 50 percent Indian in most cases. Some were more than 50 percent but didn't care for the chief's leadership.

[BeAllYouCanBe]

I have read accounts of African slaves escaping and being caught by Indians in the Ohio Valley. It wasn't a good life to be an African Indian slave.

1. Were these slaves part of the tribe? I suspect they were and participated in the tribal life and should be members.

2. If the "War of Northern Aggression" had not been fought then would these Africans be part of the tribe still? They would have been become members in future generations -- at least I speculate that would happen.

3. With only 8,700 votes this is a very small minority of the tribe - but this is the system.