Cherokee Freedmen Discussion

[Paul123]

@BW,
Isn't it true that the CN has given every Freeman that was on the rolls A free certified genealogist?
And put them back on until the courts rule on this?

Absolutely  Paul.  

Isn't it also true that if a potentially disenfranchised Freeman can prove that they have any NDN blood that they will stay enrolled? as opposed to someone like me that must prove that their ancestor was not just NDN but must be one listed on the Dawes rolls and ONLY the Dawes rolls. ?

Sounds to me that the Freeman ARE getting special preference. I'm not complaining, that's Tribal Sovereignty.

[BlackWolf]

Isn't it also true that if a potentially disenfranchised Freeman can prove that they have any NDN blood that they will stay enrolled? as opposed to someone like me that must prove that their ancestor was not just NDN but must be one listed on the Dawes rolls and ONLY the Dawes rolls. ?

Sounds to me that the Freeman ARE getting special preference. I'm not complaining, that's Tribal Sovereignty.

No.  The point was to see how many of these claims have any truth to them.   Meaning, in regards to Cherokee Freedmen who had Cherokee blood not being put on the by blood rolls.  The enrollment procedure is pretty clear.  You have to have an ancestor on Dawes.  Even if you have a direct link to other Cherokee Rolls you wouldn't be able to enroll with the CN.

[Paul123]

Isn't it also true that if a potentially disenfranchised Freeman can prove that they have any NDN blood that they will stay enrolled? as opposed to someone like me that must prove that their ancestor was not just NDN but must be one listed on the Dawes rolls and ONLY the Dawes rolls. ?

Sounds to me that the Freeman ARE getting special preference. I'm not complaining, that's Tribal Sovereignty.

No.  The point was to see how many of these claims have any truth to them.   Meaning, in regards to Cherokee Freedmen who had Cherokee blood not being put on the by blood rolls.  The enrollment procedure is pretty clear.  You have to have an ancestor on Dawes.  Even if you have a direct link to other Cherokee Rolls you wouldn't be able to enroll with the CN.

OK my bad, I thought that was an exception for the Freeman.

[Rattlebone]

 I don't recall anyone in this thread saying they thought the expulsion of the Freedmen was a just or right thing to do.

 Most of the discussion has centered around the tribes right to do it based on sovereignty, and dispelling the charges of racism because of it.

I for one have never said I was in favor of it, or even liked the idea. Most on here would agree that I have argued against the actions of tribes doing similar things based on BQ, corruption etc.

 However my argument in this thread does center around the a tribes right to chose it's own membership, just like the tribes have done since before the coming of the Europeans.

 The basis of a lot of my argument is that people like the CBC, Watson, and Don are all for stepping into internal tribal business, and doing so with the desire to see the tribe dissolved if they do not adhere to the wishes of these  people such as Watson, the CBC etc, when they do not even mention other tribes doing the same thing across the country.
 
 If these people wish to use plenary power, or wish to see it used in the case over a dis enrollment issue of the Freedmen, then by all means be fair and look into or step into the same issue going on all over the country.

 There are real Indians in this country who are undeniably Indian losing the right to be who they are, and it takes no research to see who they are; it's clear when you look upon them and see they are undeniable Indian.

 So to me  in this argument is the hypocrisy of only tackling such an issue by the CBC, who of course are black people themselves, wailing for justice while ignoring the fact that this is not an issue only found in the CNO.

 Would men like Don Naconna be up in arms like they are now, if some group in congress of mostly white men, wanted to terminate the Cherokee Nation for dis enrolling the white looking people who had no proof they were Cherokee but were some how members?

I certainly think not.

 Until the larger issue of dis enrollment in other tribes is discussed by Watson and their supporters, that I say that is the true racism and hypocrisy in this issue.

[earthw7]

Frist i want to say do care about the cherokee it just that
so many people have problems with them,
When I listen to this racist named Don I get upset because
he talks just like your aveage anglo/saxon/christian refusing to
understand history, make up his own history to fullfill his agenda.
I know he is mixed so he don't have a culture or way of life.
Then on top of it can't see his own racist statement as being
racist. 
He makes statement about being a canadian citzen forgetting
about all our tribal relatives who live in their homelands in canada.
They fight each day to keep their ways.

He spread lies and misinformation

[Paul123]

Just My 2 cents worth:

If within the first 3 mins. (or 3 paragraphs as in this case) someone says something like:
Well those damn,,,
White people,
Black people,
Irish people,
Mexican people,
Thin bloods,
NDNs,
Freeman,

Are to blame for all of my peoples problems.

Or if (also as in this case)
no matter who's talking about what, one of the above mentioned peoples keep coming back up as the villain. 

Well you might be a raciest, but it all depends on the conversation.

Now don't get me wrong, each of those above mentioned peoples have their place in conversations but, I see a pattern here. It's that pattern that I'm talking about.

To much of anything can be a bad thing.

[BlackWolf]

That’s a good point that Rattlbone makes.  I think Rattle has shown by supporting the CN in this that he is a fair and balanced person that can see both sides of the issue.  As opposed to Don who seems to be blinded by hate and resentment.  The Cherokee people voted in 2007 on this issue.  Although I voted to keep the CN a tribe of Indians ( Indian by blood ), if the vote would have went the other way, then I wouldn’t have questioned it ( even though I wouldn't have agreed with it.  But, yes it is a sovereignly issue. 

Earth, I know you do care about other tribes such as the Cherokees.  I guess what you said was said at the spur of the moment and could be taking out of context by someone if they didn’t know you or at least have come to know you from your other posts.

[Unegv Waya]

Correct me if I have misunderstood something about the Freedmen issue over these past couple of years  and am wrong about this but didn't the vote only affect those Freedmen who could not be traced back to the rolls?  I have understood that not all the Freedmen were affected regardless of linage.

[BlackWolf]

Correct me if I have misunderstood something about the Freedmen issue over these past couple of years  and am wrong about this but didn't the vote only affect those Freedmen who could not be traced back to the rolls?  I have understood that not all the Freedmen were affected regardless of linage.

All Cherokee Freedmen can be traced back to the Dawes Rolls.  The issue is that they ( the Freedmen ) are not "Cherokee/Indian by blood" and are not listed as such.  Also, about 9 or 10 descendants of Intermarried Whites on the Dawes Roll who were not also descended from a Cherokee by blood were also deemed not to be eligible for Cherokee Citizenship.  The only exception of not being descended of someone Cherokee by blood but eligible for Cherokee Citizenship are the descendants of Delaware and Shawnee Indians by blood listed on the Dawes Roll.  So the Cherokee Nation wants to keep the Cherokee Nation a tribe of Indians.  And I agree with that.  That’s what was reaffirmed in 2007 when the issue was voted on by the Cherokee people.  A lot of people are trying to make it look like the Cherokee Nation is racist for that.  Its funny that these very same people who believe this that I have confronted, are so ignorant about the whole issue.  Some like Don will argue that a great number of Freedmen were, because of their skin color, not put on the Cherokee by blood rolls.  No evidence of this has ever been given neither by him nor anyone else.  I only know of a few cases that seem to have any merit.  People have quoted these few isolated cases on the Internet and in Newspapers to make it appear like it was widespread and that many or most Freedmen had Cherokee blood.  This was far from the case.  With that said there are over 1500 Cherokee Citizens by blood who also are descended from Cherokee Freedmen.  For me and most Cherokees, its not about if they are black skin or white skin, but that they are “Cherokee/Indian by blood”.

But even most Freedmen supporters aren’t really relying on that argument for their case.  They say that the Treaty of 1866 was broken, and that because of that Treaty, the Freedmen descendants have the right to Cherokee citizenship regardless of not having Cherokee/Indian blood.  It all comes down to Tribal Sovereignty.  The Cherokee Nation decides who its citizens are. Not the Federal Government, not the Congressional Black Caucus, nor anyone else.  This is an Intertribal matter and everyone else needs to keep their noses out of our business.  That goes for everyone.  Including certain Canadian Citizens on this site that feel they have the right to preach to us.  Where in the world were all these Civil Rights Activist at when Indian People needed them the most??  They were nowhere to be seen!

[LittleOldMan]

BlackWolf/Rattlebone:  Cure my ignorance please.  I am attempting to get this old brain wrapped around this matter.   Fact: In order to be a citizen of the CNO one must be able to trace a direct descent to a listed person on the Dawes roll.  The Dawes roll was made up of people who were recognized as Cherokee at the time the roll was made.  I also suppose that people who were legally adopted by one of these people were also considered to be citizens regardless of BQ.  If I am correct on this would their citizenship status descend to their offspring or would it stop with the adopted person.  As I also understand the original treaty granted to certain former slaves(Freedmen) citizenship in the CNO.  Was this citizenship supposed under the treaty to be passed on to the Freedman's offspring?  Now to the question.  What happened to cause the CNO to take up this whole matter in the first place.  It is to be understood that as a sovereign entity the CNO has the inherent right to set it's own criteria for citizenship just as the US, UK,France, or Canada.  Clear this up for me please. Degadageyusesdi with respect I am "LittleOldMan"

[BlackWolf]

Fact: In order to be a citizen of the CNO one must be able to trace a direct descent to a listed person on the Dawes roll.

Yeah, but the key is that one must have a BQ.  Not a minimum BQ, just a BQ.  Even though Freedmen were on the Dawes Roll, they weren’t Cherokee by blood.  Same goes for Intermarried Whites.  Both Freedman and Intermarried Whites were both legal citizens of the Cherokee Nation at one time.  This is a fact.  After the 1866 Treaty they would have considered them both Cherokee Citizens.  So in that aspect, back then, white folks married to Cherokee citizens and the Freedman who met certain criteria and lived within the boundaries of the CN yes your right would have been citizens of the CN. 

If I am correct on this would their citizenship status descend to their offspring or would it stop with the adopted person.

Stop at the adopted person.

[BlackWolf]

Was this citizenship supposed under the treaty to be passed on to the Freedman's offspring?

No, but Freedmen supporters will argue otherwise and this is part of the whole controversy.  Well, for the majority of Cherokees its not a controversy.  Its not something I could explain in a few paragraphs.  I’ll give you a link to read. 

What happened to cause the CNO to take up this whole matter in the first place.

LOM, this isn't an issue that just popped up a few years ago or 5 or 10 years ago.  This has been an issue off an on since 1866. 
I think this has to do with the core belief about what makes up an Indian Tribe, and in this case the CN.  A tribe of Indians.  Even today, if non Cherokee Citizens marry a Cherokee citizen, they do not have to right to ask for citizenship.  Although it was like that in the 1700's, and 1800's.  What were talking about here is the blood issue.  Haven’t it or not.  This is the only think in my opinion that binds Indian Tribes together.  Without that, what do we have?  Now of course there is culture and traditions, which is of course very important.  But our blood is what holds our Tribe together.

[LittleOldMan]

Thanks.  There must be an unbroken descent biased on Blood no matter how diluted correct. That is, to be a CNO citizen.  I very much agree each nation has the right to determine it's own criteria.  If I am correct the CNO is only speaking to citizenship not whether a person is Cherokee 4/4 or 1/256. Then to restate, a person must be able to have a direct tie back to a Cherokee by Blood who is also listed on the Dawes roll.  On a slightly different note what does the future hold for Tribal entities who would like to keep their Identities both of culture and BQ.  Won't this be impossible.  Seems that in order to avoid the inbreeding the BQ will decrease to the point that the race has gone out of existence  genocide then will be complete.  Large Tribes like the Dene that have a "Born For" and a Born To" system may last longer but the dilution will come to them also in time.  Does it then yield that Culture may eventually be the key in tying the the Tribe together.  Are the Elders thinking of this and planning for the future?  Just some questions that come to me a 4 AM.  Comments please.  Thanks again with respect "LOM"

[Unegv Waya]

That much I did understand, Black Wolf.  I know there are Freedmen who trace to the final rolls but not by blood.  I understand also that there are some Freedmen who do trace back to native blood lines and that they were not affected by the vote.  Is that not the case?

[BlackWolf]

Thanks.  There must be an unbroken descent biased on Blood no matter how diluted correct.

If I am correct the CNO is only speaking to citizenship not whether a person is Cherokee 4/4 or 1/256.

Correct on both accounts. 

On a slightly different note what does the future hold for Tribal entities who would like to keep their Identities both of culture and BQ. Won't this be impossible. Seems that in order to avoid the inbreeding the BQ will decrease to the point that the race has gone out of existence genocide then will be complete.

The CN has a vibrant full blood and traditional community.  There will still always be full bloods and traditional people.  I believe there are about 8,000 full bloods in the CN or close to that number.  But then again you have light skin Cherokees who would be considered full blood by culture.  Some have green and blue eyes put participate in ceremonial life and speak the language.  Many people use this concept of BQ because they are filtering it through their own non Cherokee belief system.  But you also have the UKB of around I think 12,000 or so. They cap their BQ at 1/4.