Author Topic: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion  (Read 121659 times)

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 503
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #135 on: January 24, 2010, 04:32:15 pm »
And also Don, I’m starting to get the sense that you’re a mentally unstable man.  I’ve already agreed with you numerous times that there were elements of racism in the CN in the 1800's, especially during the Civil War.  You need to take a vacation or something.  The argument is not whether there was racism ( THERE WAS ), the argument is whether the Cherokee Nation has the right as a sovereign people to determine who is and is not entitled to Cherokee citizenship. The bottom line is we want our Tribe a Tribe of Indians.  People who can PROVE this on the Dawes Roll are entitled to enrollment. As Moma_porcupine pointed out, the Cherokee Nation is one of the most open Tribes in the country in regards to enrollment.  While a lot of Tribes cap their BQ’s at 1/4 or an 1/8,etc, the Cherokee Nation only ask for PROVEN LINEAL descent of someone Indian “by blood” on the Dawes Rolls.  As I pointed out before, there are over 1,500 Cherokee Citizens who are also the descendants of Freedmen and many of these people are of predominantly African American ancestry.

A fact that always gets overlooked is that the Freedmen DID get citizenship after the Civil War and were freed in 1963.  But to think that because they were former slaves of a small minority of Cherokees, that that gives their DESCENDANTS the RIGHT forever into the future, Citizenship in the Cherokee Nation is absurd.  I’ve looked at the stories of Marilyn Vann and others with similar claims.  It’s a shame that their ancestors didn’t get on the Dawes Rolls, but its also a shame that there are a lot of other people who can prove that they are Cherokee and also didn’t have ancestors on the Rolls either.

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 503
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #136 on: January 24, 2010, 04:34:54 pm »
Quote
A fact that always gets overlooked is that the Freedmen DID get citizenship after the Civil War and were freed in 1963.

1863 not 1963

Offline Defend the Sacred

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3290
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #137 on: January 24, 2010, 06:23:39 pm »

Don Naconna, you are sounding like a broken record. It was never Rattle's intent to say those black on black crime statistics had anything to do with the Freedmen. He has explained that to you and everyone else over and over again. Let it go.

What was your reason for saying American Indians are some of the most violent people you've ever known? What was your reason for talking about crime rates on the reservations? That's damn racist of you. Doesn't have a thing to do with the Freedmen.

Don, I'm seconding this. You're just repeating yourself to the point of surrealism, and grossly misrepresenting what Rattle said. You are also saying some damn racist things about NDNs, and you seem to think you have some sort of free pass to treat others with disrespect.

People point out your racist statements about NDNs, and instead of engaging respectfully, you engage in psychological projection and insults, accusing them of racism and acting like it's beneath you to even discuss your behaviour and how it affects the community. You have been warned multiple times now about this, and you're not doing yourself any favors by continuing this behaviour. 

You claim to be an anti-racist activist. But the first step in being anti-racist is to acknowledge that, having been raised in a racist culture, we have all internalized some of those bad messages about ourselves, and about others. We are all capable of making mistakes out of ignorance, or out of deep-rooted prejudices or privileges we didn't even know we had until they're triggered. So we must make an ongoing commitment to rooting these things out when we find them - not just in others but also in ourselves. We need to not only be open to feedback from others, but if we are truly dedicated to fighting racism, we need to be able to discuss it calmly and humbly, without attacking people for trying to help us.

You are instead doing the kneejerk thing of just getting pissed off instead of listening to NDNs with respect. You have POC here telling you you've said some racist stuff. I suggest you back up and listen to them for a change.

Perhaps the thing that bothers me the most about these broken-record posts of yours is that you keep framing things almost solely in terms of Black vs White. NDNs and NDN cultures are virtually invisible in your words, except when you make generalized, racist statements about them. This invisibility is racist and insulting, even before you start in with the crude insults. What on earth would make you think that is appropriate behaviour if you want to participate here?

Racism against Black people is a serious, endemic problem in both the US and Canada. We all know that. No one has disagreed with you on that. But Black people are not the only POC who are subjected to racist oppression. Being the member of one oppressed group does not give you the right to insult other oppressed people. We're not here to play Oppression Olympics.

The bottom line is respect. Are you capable of that, Don?

Offline bls926

  • Posts: 655
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #138 on: January 24, 2010, 09:58:20 pm »
^5 Kathryn!! Thank you.

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #139 on: January 24, 2010, 10:23:43 pm »
I have no problem with any ethnic group. I am NOT a bigot, why would anyone assume that I am, because I refuse to accept that black on black crime statitsics have a damned thing to do with the Cherokee Freedmen. Its sounds like what white racist claim when they say why they want to keep black people out of their neighbourhoods.
What is so difficult to understand, people whose ancestors owned slaves are more likely to be racists towards the people who their ancestors. Therefore racial intolerance is higher where slavery existed, i.e. Vermont didn't have segregated schools did they, but every state that had slavery did. Why because the people who lived there were more likely to be white supremacists. Racism is taught an if you are taught that everything your ancestors id was right including slavery and racism, then you defend your ancestors, correct.
Racism is learned, and what really makes you all so angry with me is that I was never taught racism and always taught the opposite.
If the Cherokee freedmen issue why use a stereotype to reinforce a weak very weak legal argument. Would any lawyer go into a federal court and argue that because black people are violent they should be excluded from the CNO, I would love to run that by Cherokee whoi sit on the bench. Its a decision based entirely on race, just like slavery and segregation and the gov't of the US is not going to allow taxpayers dollars to support a racially motivated decision by a small minority.
If folks were in denial about history and racism, and could accept the past has a price and now the descendants of slaveholders have to pay it and pay in full. Please tell me and the freedmens descendants what black on black crime statistics have to do with the expulsion from the CNO. Black folks all across the US and particularly members of the black caucas want to know. Believe me I am in regular communications with my former congressman Chaka Fattah, a member of the CBC and family friend. So please tell me are the freedmen violent like the rest of black Americans. Do they fill the prisons because they're black. We all want to know...

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 256
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #140 on: January 24, 2010, 10:51:16 pm »
Okay Don I went through my inbox here and found what you said to me, and what I said in return that included my usage of the crime statistics. From here, it will be plain to see that what you are acussing me of  are things I never said.

  After you read this AGAIN, please explain to me and everyone else how you are coming up with all this other stuff, because I never said or even implied any of it.




Don Naconna said:
Quote
Were those poor Cherokee enslaved, raped, beaten even lynched, after slavery forced to live separate towns and live in Jim Crow?


 Rattlebone said:
Quote
You act as if Jim Crow laws only effected black people. My grandfather was not allowed to go into certain stores as a child, and was routinely beaten and attacked for having dark skin as a child.

 Today is 2010, and the majority of those Freedmen Descendants you speak of most likely have never gone through any of this, and I would assume if they did, the vast majority of them were just children.

 Ironically today even being 2010, states with high native populations have this bizarre issue of racists and hate groups ignoring blacks and other minorities and focusing on Natives.

 Native women are raped, beaten, and killed at a higher rate then any other women in the United States.  Most often times this is coming from the hands of NON Indian perpetrators.

 Crimes committed against blacks however, are most often results of black on black crime.



Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #141 on: January 24, 2010, 10:56:54 pm »
Who was doing all this violence? Its pretty clear from this that Indian people of the 5 "Civilized" Nations were just as violent against freedmen and black citizens as their white neighbours.
Isn't time to end the denial? The fact is that the so called civilised tribes were just as racist as their neighbours. Its like the myth of the "kind Cherokee master" its a myth.

LYNCHING
Lynching is the killing (by hanging, burning, or torturing) of an individual or individuals, by a group of three or more persons operating outside the legal system in the belief that they have the right to serve justice or to reinforce a tradition or social custom. Motivated by anger, hatred, or outrage, mob members act spontaneously on the basis of presumed guilt, without the due process of law. Lynching could exist because law enforcement officials tacitly approved or could not prevent it.

Lynching or mob violence is usually, but not exclusively, associated with racism. However, much regional variation existed across the United States. In the South the system of slavery maintained a strong tradition of summary justice, with white owners exercising total control over black "property" and dispensing any kind of "justice" any time, for any "offense." After the Civil War, when slaves became free men and women, whites perpetuated a caste system by creating an atmosphere of fear. In the South, the lynch mob institutionalized social control with enforcement by hanging and burning. In the same period, in the western states, where there was a shortage of courts and law enforcement officials, lynching was acceptable punishment for livestock rustlers, stagecoach robbers, gamblers, and other miscreants.

Nationally, lynching grew each year from 1866 through the 1880s, peaked in 1892, and gradually declined, except for an upsurge during the Red Scare of 1919-20. By 1900 the punishment was reserved almost exclusively for blacks. From 1889 through 1918 mobs lynched 129 persons in the Midwest, 9 in New England, and 2,915 in the South and Border South. The nation reached a total of 3,587 by 1930.

In Oklahoma lynching generally followed the national trend. Surveys by the Tuskegee Institute, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and various scholars identify approximately 147 recorded lynching deaths from 1885 to1930 (dozens more probably went unrecorded). These numbered 77 white, 50 black, 14 American Indian, 1 Chinese, and 5 of unknown race. In Oklahoma, hanging was the most common form; with a few exceptions, burning was not used.

In the first phase of lynching in Oklahoma, 1885 through 1907, most victims were whites, punished primarily as rustlers, "highwaymen," or robbers. In those years, 106 individuals were lynched for suspected criminal activities. While 1892 was the peak year nationally, 1893-95 were the peak in the Twin Territories, with cattle/horse theft and robbery the main offenses. The 106 victims included 71 whites, 17 blacks, 14 Indians, 1 Chinese, and 3 of unknown race.

After 1907 statehood, however, lynching entered a more racist phase. While the numbers actually declined, the victims were almost exclusively black. In this period lynching reinforced an existing social order that deprived blacks of political and economic rights and segregated them. The state constitution enshrined Jim Crow, and forty-one persons were lynched by 1930. Most of these incidents occurred from 1908 to 1916. Murder, complicity in murder, rape, and attempted rape became the main offenses, attributed primarily to black males accused of assaulting whites. During World War I two blacks were lynched for rape and attempted rape. A resurgence came during the Red Scare of 1919-1923, when seven victims (one white) expired. In 1930 Oklahoma's last recorded lynching occurred in Chickasha. At the end of the lynching era, Oklahoma ranked number thirteen in total number of dead, surpassed only by Deep South and Border South states and Texas.

Mapping lynching's geographical distribution in Oklahoma from 1889 through 1930 draws out general patterns. Through the 1890s most episodes punished rustlers and robbers, predominantly whites, and occurred northwest of a line drawn from present Miami to present Altus. In this part of Oklahoma, ranch and farm land of the Panhandle (No Man's Land) had been settled in the 1880s, and land runs had opened the Cherokee Strip and the Cheyenne-Arapaho reservation in 1892 and 1893. Here livestock raising was an important economic pattern, and rustling brought death by rope. Kingfisher County, partly in the Unassigned Lands and partly in the Cheyenne-Arapaho lands, was the "lynching capital of Oklahoma," with fifteen (two Indians and thirteen whites) cattle/horse thieves summarily dispatched between 1893 and 1895. Beaver, Woodward, Woods, Ellis, Grant, and Washita also recorded incidents. As the region became more populated and law enforcement more sophisticated, rustling decreased, and so did lynching.

The 1900 census revealed that about 46 percent of settlers north and west of the Miami-Altus line hailed from midwestern states or had European parentage. They brought with them no firm tradition of racially motivated lynching. Thus, despite the fact that in the 1890s a large migration of African Americans established dozens of All-Black towns in Blaine, Kingfisher, and Logan counties, racial violence remained minimal there in the 1885-1930 period. Southwestern Oklahoma, a sparsely populated ranching region with relatively few black residents, saw the fewest lynchings. Between 1885 and 1930 two blacks (one each in Comanche and Caddo) paid with their lives for alleged crimes.

In central Oklahoma, including the counties created from the Unassigned Lands opened in 1889, lynching was also less common. In this region thousands of people--black, native-born white, European immigrants, and even a few Asians--hustled for economic, political, and social opportunities. There, people of midwestern, southern, and foreign backgrounds came into contact, each bringing his or her beliefs, prejudices, and experiences to bear on everyday life. Oklahoma County recorded six lynchings (five blacks) in the 1892-1907 period and two (both black) in the 1919-1930 period. Logan, Lincoln, Pottawatomie, and Cleveland counties each recorded incidents. Oklahoma's most notorious lynching, the burning of two Seminole Indian men by a mob of white tenant farmers, occurred in 1898 in present Seminole County.

If, as many scholars suggest, lynchings more often occurred where slave culture had prevailed, then portions of the state settled by southerners should exhibit a higher proportion. Plotted on a map, almost all of the lynchings from 1908 through 1916 occurred south and east of the Miami-Altus line, an area where southerners predominated. There, the southern Indians' traditional attitudes toward black slaves was reinforced by white migration from southern states into the Indian Nations before and after the Civil War. By 1900 whites, more than two-thirds southern in origin, outnumbered Indians. Complicating the situation, after allotment freedmen and African American immigrants from other states congregated in the region, creating numerous All-Black towns. The high visibility and relative prosperity of the freedmen's towns in Indian Territory, blacks' demands for political rights, a mass migration of blacks to Oklahoma Territory, and the suggestion that Oklahoma might become an All-Black state apparently posed a social, economic,and political threat, stimulating a time-honored method of social control mob violence.

The Creek Nation and counties created from it exhibited the highest number of lynchings. There, many All-Black towns existed, especially along the mutual borders of the Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations. Not surprisingly, the 1885-1930 period recorded twenty-four episodes, despite a low black-to-white ratio and a declining black population. From 1892 to 1907 eleven (six whites, one black, two Indians, and two of unknown race) were hanged. After 1907 statehood and before World War I came a frightening spate of overtly racist lynchings. Of nine victims reportedly dispatched by mobs in 1908-16, only one was white. During and after the war, two whites and two blacks met their death at the hands of mobs.

The southeastern counties of Little Dixie, formerly the Choctaw Nation and settled by southern whites after allotment, also endured mob violence. In the allotment of lands, the Choctaw had attempted to exclude freedmen, and many fled the region. Overall, fifteen lynchings (two whites, seven blacks, five Indians, and one of unknown race) occurred there between 1885 and 1930. Of the fifteen, nine (two blacks, two whites, and five Indians) died in the 1892-1907 period, and five (four blacks and one of unknown race) in 1908-1916. These incidents occurred despite the low ratio of black to white and despite a decline in black population.

A similar situation existed in the Chickasaw Nation area, where eighteen lynchings were recorded from 1885 through 1930. Of these, three (one black, one Indian, one Chinese) occurred in the 1892-1907 era and fifteen (eight black, four white, three Indian) in the 1908-1930 period. Here, too, the black-white ratio and the black population declined after statehood.

The social dynamics that led to lynching in Oklahoma no doubt sprang from the stresses of rapidly changing social composition and growing population. Between 1885 and 1930 Oklahoma changed from a land where Indian peoples prevailed, to a land dominated by whites from midwestern and southern states and also inhabited by freed blacks, black immigrants from other states, and immigrants of various other ethnicities. In the interracial, intercultural competition for social status and economic resources, it is not surprising that violence occurred.

Lynching cannot be understood outside of the general climate of racial violence that existed in early twentieth-century Oklahoma. In addition to lynching, racial violence had other manifestations. One was the "whipping party," in which a large group of whites whipped or beat a black who was suspected of an offense of some kind. In 1922 alone, according to Oklahoma Gov. Jack Walton, 2,500 whippings took place. Another manifestation was the "race riot." Occurring in nearly a dozen Oklahoma communities around the turn of the century, a riot's usual purpose was to run the blacks out of town. Interracial violence occurred in Berwyn in 1895, Lawton in 1902, and Boynton in 1904. In Henryetta in 1907 whites burned the black residential district and established a "sundowner" law, and in Dewey in 1917 a similar incident occurred. This activity reached its lowest point in the Tulsa Race Riot, when in July 1921 a foiled lynch mob, enraged when confronted by angry, armed black Tulsans, marched to the Greenwood District and destroyed most of it and many of its residents.

Why did the violence end after 1930, or at least go underground, so far as no longer to be recorded? Historians have offered a number of explanations. First, black newspaper editors of the 1900-30 era continually encouraged their readers to confront and stop lynch mobs. Some, like Tulsa's A. J. Smitherman, even suggested armed resistance. Returning black veterans of World War I were inclined to follow his advice. Second, the NAACP began to publish lynching statistics in order to embarrass state officials. Third, a national movement created a Commission on Interracial Cooperation, in Oklahoma called the Oklahoma Interracial Committee, with prominent black and white citizens as members. Fourth, the Oklahoma branch of the Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching worked diligently to publicize the accomplishments of blacks and to discourage men from participating in violence. In combination, black and white men and women worked successfully together to stop the madness.

SEE ALSO: AFRICAN AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, AFRICAN AMERICANS, ANTI-HORSE THIEF ASSOCIATION, ROSCOE DUNJEE, IMMIGRATION AND ETHNICITY, KU KLUX KLAN, LAW ENFORCEMENT, NAACP, OUTLAWS, SEGREGATION, ANDREW J. SMITHERMAN, TULSA RACE RIOT, WILLIAM H. TWINE

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lowell L. Blaisdell, "Anatomy of an Oklahoma Lynching: Bryan County, August 12-13, 1911," The Chronicles of Oklahoma 79 (Fall 2001). Charles N. Clark, Lynchings in Oklahoma: A Story of Vigilantism, 1830-1930 (Oklahoma City: N. p., 2000). Mary Elizabeth Estes, "An Historical Survey of Lynchings in Oklahoma and Texas" (M.A. thesis, University of Oklahoma, 1942). Ralph Ginzburg, 100 Years of Lynchings (Baltimore, Md.: Black Classic Press, 1988). Daniel Littlefield, Seminole Burning: A Story of Racial Vengeance (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1996). Stewart E. Tolnay and E. M. Beck, A Festival of Violence: An Analysis of Southern Lynchings, 1882-1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992). Murray R. Wickett, Contested Territory: Native Americans and African Americans in Oklahoma, 1865-1907 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2000). Robert L. Zangrando, The NAACP Crusade Against Lynching, 1909-1950 (Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press, 1980).

Dianna Everett

© Oklahoma Historical Society

Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #142 on: January 24, 2010, 11:13:26 pm »
Don.  The crime statistics has nothing to do with anything, EXCEPT by you. 

Rattlebone.  I think we all pretty much understand that the statistics were merely in response to Don,  but I don't think Don will ever understand this.

I give up on trying to explain.  Either you are simply doing this on purpose to keep up this rant, or you truly have some sort of reading comprehension problem. 
press the little black on silver arrow Music, 1) Bob Pietkivitch Buddha Feet http://www.4shared.com/file/114179563/3697e436/BuddhaFeet.html

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Jerry Monroe & the Binay "Tribe"
« Reply #143 on: January 24, 2010, 11:14:55 pm »
Certainly most black people who ar familiar with my work would disagree with you. It has nothing to do with race it has to do with justice.
I'll send you a copy of Trickle to Torrent, my book on the African slave trade which which blames the African rulers and white traders equally. You simply cannot understand that anyone has no biases, can you. That only shows how shallow and isolated you must be. Do you believe that only people who look like you think like you and that a black president is only supporting black people? That's what many white people, like you believe. Yes I called you white because you ideas are more like a southern white racist than anything else.
Racism has declined all over the US because education, ending isolation and exposure to different ethnicities has increased. Apparently that is not true in your community, but it is in many. That's how Obama was elected because people, white, black and Latino moved past race and voted for change. You and Mike Graham obviously are not ready to join the rest of the nation. At least Mike Graham is honest, he calls black people "Niggers" and posts racist photoshopped pictures of Obama.
I have no animosity against any group except racists in denial. Because you assume everyone thinks like you you assume I must be pro black whatever the hell that means. Wrong, I'm pro justice, and I know what that means.

Why can a white person with 1/264 Cherokee blood be enrolled and a black person with 1/16 blood cannot, as is the case with many freedmen.

 Do you have one shred of proof this is true?

I have to agree with Blackwolf about you. I do believe you are an advocate of blacks with no Indian blood staying on the rolls, and though claiming to be non racist; you are racist against mixed bloods with white blood and not against mixed bloods with mostly African blood since you say nothing about them.

 In several threads in which this topic has came up, I have questioned you about disenrollments going on in other tribes, and much much more.

 On each and every occasion, you ignore my questions and give no answers.

 Maybe this is because in all due fairness, you know if you answer them it will hurt your arguments in favor of the Freedmen.

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #144 on: January 24, 2010, 11:16:29 pm »
Why do you use the past tense? Its obvious that there still is and always has been!

And also Don, I’m starting to get the sense that you’re a mentally unstable man.  I’ve already agreed with you numerous times that there were elements of racism in the CN in the 1800's, especially during the Civil War.  You need to take a vacation or something.  The argument is not whether there was racism ( THERE WAS ), the argument is whether the Cherokee Nation has the right as a sovereign people to determine who is and is not entitled to Cherokee citizenship. The bottom line is we want our Tribe a Tribe of Indians.  People who can PROVE this on the Dawes Roll are entitled to enrollment. As Moma_porcupine pointed out, the Cherokee Nation is one of the most open Tribes in the country in regards to enrollment.  While a lot of Tribes cap their BQ’s at 1/4 or an 1/8,etc, the Cherokee Nation only ask for PROVEN LINEAL descent of someone Indian “by blood” on the Dawes Rolls.  As I pointed out before, there are over 1,500 Cherokee Citizens who are also the descendants of Freedmen and many of these people are of predominantly African American ancestry.

A fact that always gets overlooked is that the Freedmen DID get citizenship after the Civil War and were freed in 1963.  But to think that because they were former slaves of a small minority of Cherokees, that that gives their DESCENDANTS the RIGHT forever into the future, Citizenship in the Cherokee Nation is absurd.  I’ve looked at the stories of Marilyn Vann and others with similar claims.  It’s a shame that their ancestors didn’t get on the Dawes Rolls, but its also a shame that there are a lot of other people who can prove that they are Cherokee and also didn’t have ancestors on the Rolls either.

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #145 on: January 24, 2010, 11:54:43 pm »
The fact is that many Indian nations have condemned the Cherokee including the Keetowuh. I work with Amnesty International, the New Democratic Party of Canada, Human Rights Watch and several NGO on human rights issues globally. You seem to think that anyone who disagrees is a racist. Hey my wife is French Canadian and I know all about the racism that her family an nation faced here in Canada for 4 centuries.
Everyone judges based in their prejudices, and they can't understand people who don't have any. When I see what I have recently simply confirms that southern tribes have more in common with white people than with anyone else. Look at history, I posted an article on lynchings in IT and Oklahoma. Sorry the history of racism is pretty evident after slavery.
To expect black voters not to be pissed at what is clearly racially motivated is crazy. If every white suburb could vote to expell black people because they were afraid of them, how many would?
Folks need to accept why the white slave holders called the Cherokee civilised, because they were more like white people than Indians and in many ways they still are more like white southerners defending the indefensible, slavery and racism.
BTH I sent that statistic to show just how racist propaganda is spread. It is no different than the crap that rattlebone sent me. It was to show him that "lies and damn lies and statistics". I countered his racist propaganda with some more.
I didn't do it to make some racist point, I did it to show how stupid his point was. What is surrealistic is fact that after racial slavery, Jim Crow and expelling the freedmen, these people refuse to accept that like many other white Americans they are racists. An that their vote was motivated by race not justice.


Don Naconna, you are sounding like a broken record. It was never Rattle's intent to say those black on black crime statistics had anything to do with the Freedmen. He has explained that to you and everyone else over and over again. Let it go.

What was your reason for saying American Indians are some of the most violent people you've ever known? What was your reason for talking about crime rates on the reservations? That's damn racist of you. Doesn't have a thing to do with the Freedmen.

Don, I'm seconding this. You're just repeating yourself to the point of surrealism, and grossly misrepresenting what Rattle said. You are also saying some damn racist things about NDNs, and you seem to think you have some sort of free pass to treat others with disrespect.

People point out your racist statements about NDNs, and instead of engaging respectfully, you engage in psychological projection and insults, accusing them of racism and acting like it's beneath you to even discuss your behaviour and how it affects the community. You have been warned multiple times now about this, and you're not doing yourself any favors by continuing this behaviour. 

You claim to be an anti-racist activist. But the first step in being anti-racist is to acknowledge that, having been raised in a racist culture, we have all internalized some of those bad messages about ourselves, and about others. We are all capable of making mistakes out of ignorance, or out of deep-rooted prejudices or privileges we didn't even know we had until they're triggered. So we must make an ongoing commitment to rooting these things out when we find them - not just in others but also in ourselves. We need to not only be open to feedback from others, but if we are truly dedicated to fighting racism, we need to be able to discuss it calmly and humbly, without attacking people for trying to help us.

You are instead doing the kneejerk thing of just getting pissed off instead of listening to NDNs with respect. You have POC here telling you you've said some racist stuff. I suggest you back up and listen to them for a change.

Perhaps the thing that bothers me the most about these broken-record posts of yours is that you keep framing things almost solely in terms of Black vs White. NDNs and NDN cultures are virtually invisible in your words, except when you make generalized, racist statements about them. This invisibility is racist and insulting, even before you start in with the crude insults. What on earth would make you think that is appropriate behaviour if you want to participate here?

Racism against Black people is a serious, endemic problem in both the US and Canada. We all know that. No one has disagreed with you on that. But Black people are not the only POC who are subjected to racist oppression. Being the member of one oppressed group does not give you the right to insult other oppressed people. We're not here to play Oppression Olympics.

The bottom line is respect. Are you capable of that, Don?
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 01:10:51 am by Kathryn »

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 503
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #146 on: January 25, 2010, 01:04:16 am »
Quote
The fact is that many Indian nations have condemned the Cherokee including the Keetowuh.

What Nations might that be?  If your going to keep running your mouth Don, then you need to start citing some evidence.  What Nations are you talkling about, and what are your sources?



https://www.ncai.org/News-View.19.0.html?&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5BpS%5D=1263178769&tx_ttnews%5Bpointer%5D=12&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=311&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=18&cHash=f4e26106d0

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #147 on: January 25, 2010, 04:24:24 am »

I'm sorry but I believe that anyone who is a racist is mentally ill.
I'm not a racist and perfectly sane. Check your sources I'm a pro I always check mine. If Cherokee, real Cherokee and folks like John Cornsilk a non racist Cherokee support the freedmen's cause and everyone accepts that the vote was racist, what the hell is your problem! BTW I know John Lewis from SNCC and I can tell you that he will support the CBC.

"The Only Independent Cherokee Newspaper"

"The Original On-line Independent Cherokee Newspaper"

Copyright(c)1992-2009 All Worldwide Rights Reserved

The Cherokee Observer, Inc.

http://www.cherokeeobserver.org

January 24, 2010
For your continued support -

Webboard
On-Line Issues - New!

CNO Historical Society concerns on Troy Poteete- New!



 

HEADLINE

Congressman John Lewis Betrays Black Cherokee Freedmen

(For publication the week of September 21, 2009)
I visited You Tube the other day and was absolutely stunned to see the venerable Congressman John Lewis addressing the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma as the Keynote Speaker for their National Holiday gathering in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. There stood Congressman John Lewis, the man who was beaten unmercifully as he fought for the right to vote to be restored to African Americans, heaping praise on Chief Chad Smith, the man who engineered the disenfranchisement and defacto expulsion of thousands of Black Cherokee Freedmen from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (CNO). The Congressman pledged to the Chief that the "Trail of Tears," where Cherokees and other Native Nations were removed from their ancestral homeland in the Southeast and forced to relocate to Oklahoma, would never happen again. He talked of being moved by scenes in the Museum in Tahlequah depicting the suffering and horrors of the forced march to Oklahoma. The problem is apparently the good Congressman did not see faces of people of African descent who also traversed the Trail of Tears as slaves of the Cherokee. Perhaps, in his understandable quest to identify with the historical plight of Native people, he was totally ignorant of the enslavement and oppression of Africans by the "Five Civilized Tribes," the Creek, Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw and Cherokee, prior to the Civil War.

Historically there has been a strong affinity between Red and Black, Native people and Africans. In virtually every class I teach in the social sciences at York College/CUNY, I remind my students that every person who lives in what has become the Untied States of America is the beneficiary of the dispossession of the indigenous people, Native Americans. I remind them that the two most damaging stains on the American character are the dispossession of Native people and the exploitation of enslaved Africans. A bond of blood and solidarity was forged among Africans and Native Americans when various Native Nations harbored runaway slaves and often accepted them as full members of their communities. Indeed, the Seminoles are comprised of runaway slaves and contingents of disaffected Natives who came together to create a nation. Historically, there was a tremendous amount of intermingling between Africans and Native Americans, so much so that the majority of African Americans have some Indian blood in their lineage. The African influence on Indian country is also clearly evident when you see the faces in Tribes like the Lumbee of North Carolina and Massapequa of Connecticut.

There have been exceptions to the amicable relationship between Africans and Native Americans. Some Blacks served as Buffalo Soldiers in the U.S. military waging war on Native Americans in the west after the Civil War. And, there is the case of the enslavement of Africans by the governing bodies of the Five Civilized Tribes who fought on the side of the Confederacy during the Civil War [some members of the Five Civilized Tribes broke with their official leaders and fought on the Union side also]. By doing so, these Indian Nations severed their official relationship with the U.S. government. Consequently, after the Confederacy was defeated, the Five Civilized Tribes had to renegotiate their relationship with the U.S. government. Eventually, the government recognized and granted citizenship to the Five Civilized Tribes, including formerly enslaved Africans who are called Freedmen. The Freedmen were granted full citizenship as members of these Tribes irrespective of whether they had Indian blood in their veins or not. In other words, by virtue of having been a captive of these Tribes, Africans with or without Native blood were granted citizenship rights.

This background is important because the Five Civilized Tribes are subject to a different set of rules in their relationship with the Federal Government than other Native Nations. Whereas blood quantum is used to determine who is a member of other Native Nations, it is not applicable for the Five Civilized Tribes. By treaty, the Black Freedmen are defined as full citizens to be afforded all rights and privileges on the same basis as members of the Tribe who have blood quantum.

Unfortunately, with rare exception, the Black Freedmen have never really been treated as first class citizens of the Five Civilized Tribes. Perhaps it is inevitable that in a nation infused with racism, it would also poison relations inside these Indian Nations. In addition, as these Nations have gained the right to operate casinos and have secured greater resources from the government, there has been a tendency to invoke measures to deny the Freedmen access to these benefits. One of the tactics has been to pass measures to define membership/citizenship strictly in terms of blood quantum. It is precisely this kind of "Indian purification act" that Chief Chad Smith proposed and was adopted by the governing body of CNO. As a result, thousands of Black Cherokee Freedmen were stripped of the right to vote. This was tantamount to expelling them from the CNO.

Outraged by this racist act, with the support of a number of members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congresswoman Diane Watson introduced legislation to cut off all federal funds to CNO until the rights of the Black Freedmen were restored. Flush with an abundance of cash from casino operations, however, Chief Chad Smith and his cohorts have spent millions of dollars with lobbyists and public relations specialists in a shameful campaign to defeat the efforts of Congresswoman Diane Watson and the Freedmen. How Congressman Lewis missed these efforts is mystifying to say the least. Perhaps he is just ignorant of the storm that has been swirling around this issue. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and not believe that he has been co-opted by the avalanche of cash being heaped on politicians by CNO.

Whatever his motives, Congressman Lewis needs to redeem himself. The image of him pouring his soul out at the Cherokee Holiday with Chief Chad grinning in gleeful gratification was disgraceful. Chief Smith could grin because he was able to dupe one of the most respected members of Congress and a Civil Rights legend to legitimize his racist regime. Congressman Lewis needs to issue an apology to the Black Cherokee Freedmen for betraying their struggle and aspirations. He needs to wipe the grin off Chief Smith's face by condemning the disenfranchisement and expulsion of the Freedmen from CNO, and enthusiastically join Congresswoman Diane Watson and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus in vigorously demanding that all federal funds be cut off from CNO until the Freedmen are restored with full rights. Then and only then will my faith be restored in John Lewis as a Civil Rights icon!

Dr. Ron Daniels is President of the Institute of the Black World 21st Century and Distinguished Lecturer at York College City University of New York. He is the host of Night Talk, Wednesday evenings on WBAI 99.5 FM, Pacifica New York. His articles and essays also appear on the IBW website www.ibw21.org and www.northstarnews.com. He can be reached via email at info@ibw21.org.
 
 
t the Keetowah had to say about the freedmen and John Lewis...



And also Don, I’m starting to get the sense that you’re a mentally unstable man.  I’ve already agreed with you numerous times that there were elements of racism in the CN in the 1800's, especially during the Civil War.  You need to take a vacation or something.  The argument is not whether there was racism ( THERE WAS ), the argument is whether the Cherokee Nation has the right as a sovereign people to determine who is and is not entitled to Cherokee citizenship. The bottom line is we want our Tribe a Tribe of Indians.  People who can PROVE this on the Dawes Roll are entitled to enrollment. As Moma_porcupine pointed out, the Cherokee Nation is one of the most open Tribes in the country in regards to enrollment.  While a lot of Tribes cap their BQ’s at 1/4 or an 1/8,etc, the Cherokee Nation only ask for PROVEN LINEAL descent of someone Indian “by blood” on the Dawes Rolls.  As I pointed out before, there are over 1,500 Cherokee Citizens who are also the descendants of Freedmen and many of these people are of predominantly African American ancestry.

A fact that always gets overlooked is that the Freedmen DID get citizenship after the Civil War and were freed in 1963.  But to think that because they were former slaves of a small minority of Cherokees, that that gives their DESCENDANTS the RIGHT forever into the future, Citizenship in the Cherokee Nation is absurd.  I’ve looked at the stories of Marilyn Vann and others with similar claims.  It’s a shame that their ancestors didn’t get on the Dawes Rolls, but its also a shame that there are a lot of other people who can prove that they are Cherokee and also didn’t have ancestors on the Rolls either.

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #148 on: January 25, 2010, 04:45:06 am »

Hey I responded to rattllebone, not vice versa he sent me that shit about black on black crime.  I responded, so you are wrong. If anyone is a racist its certainly isn't me. I didn't respond to the issue with black on black crime statistics like some damned dittohead. What is nso hard to see thats racist and nhas nothing to do with the issue. If this man had any guts he'd admit that he doesn't want the freedmen to be in the CNO because they're black. Thats all because they're black,why else do black urban crime statistics matter. Its like some white Indian told me that all black people are crack heads and sex fiends, thats why the CNO kicked them out. Face it its about racism, not justice for the injustice of slavery and segregation.


Don.  The crime statistics has nothing to do with anything, EXCEPT by you. 

Rattlebone.  I think we all pretty much understand that the statistics were merely in response to Don,  but I don't think Don will ever understand this.

I give up on trying to explain.  Either you are simply doing this on purpose to keep up this rant, or you truly have some sort of reading comprehension problem. 

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 256
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #149 on: January 25, 2010, 05:24:12 am »
. If this man had any guts he'd admit that he doesn't want the freedmen to be in the CNO because they're black.


 What blows this assine theory of your out of the water is the fact that I am not a member of the Cherokee Nation now, never have been, and have no desire to be.

 By blood I am Choctaw/Cherokee, but I was raised up by my family to be and consider myself Choctaw.

 My argument in this thread has been defending tribal sovereignty, and at the same time asking why people such as yourself are making such a fuss about the Freedmen when you say nothing about disenrollments going in other tribes, while falsely claiming you are not about race, which we both know you are.