Slog
News & ArtsMonday, September 12, 2011
Indian Country Well, This Is Awkward
Posted by Brendan Kiley on Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:17 AM
From the Native American Times:
OKLAHOMA CITY – Descendants of former black slaves once owned by members of the Cherokee Nation are asking a federal judge to block a tribal election for principal chief until the tribe restores their full citizenship rights, including the right to vote.
In legal papers filed Friday in Washington, D.C., descendants of Cherokee freedmen, as they are known, asked a federal judge to halt a Sept. 24 election for principal chief of the Oklahoma-based tribe. A hearing on the request is set for Sept. 20 before U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr.
Documents filed by attorneys for the freedmen accuse the tribe of violating a 145-year-old treaty when the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court last month restored a voter-approved amendment denying citizenship to non-Native American descendants of tribal members' former black slaves. The court reversed a lower court ruling that had voided the amendment approved by trial voters in 2007. The court's decision affected an estimated 2,800 freedmen.
What's at stake for the estimated 2,800 freedmen: a vote over who gets to lead the tribe's $600 million annual budget, wield veto power over the tribe's agenda ("which is crucial," the news story says, "since many tribal members live outside Oklahoma"), and oversee its casinos and healthcare facilities. What's at stake for the genetic Cherokee: a bunch of folks with an oblique relationship to Cherokee-ness having political influence over the tribe's future.
I'm going to take a risk and venture a hypothesis.
In the next decade or so, as an older generation concerned with maintaining tradition (as they define it) dies away and the rest of the U.S. slides deeper into trouble (drug war, economy, etc., etc.), the reservations' unique legal status will allow them to become oases of sanity (pot, gay marriage, etc.). Being registered as Choctaw or Cherokee or Suquamish will become less of a cultural proposition and more of an economic/political one.
According to Indians in the Making by historian Alexandra Harmon, Indian "tribes" in the Puget Sound area were invented during the treaty-making process, which involved government agents identifying powerful families to negotiate with and build a "tribal" infrastructure around. That centuries-old political jockeying is why, in part, the Tulalip keep trying to legally block the Duwamish from being recognized as tribe.
The business of Indian-ness—once perceived as a liability, increasingly perceived as an asset—is going to get much more complicated in the very near future.
3
Brendan,
Yeah, I read that Sat. morning in the Seattle Times and found it disappointing. A similar thing happened in Hawai'i regarding native Hawaiians. Like "hispanic" (created by the Nixon Admin.) these distinctions become quite problematic. Especially considering our country's population is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse and children of multi-racial and multi cultural relationships are claiming more than one "group".
Yeah, I read that Sat. morning in the Seattle Times and found it disappointing. A similar thing happened in Hawai'i regarding native Hawaiians. Like "hispanic" (created by the Nixon Admin.) these distinctions become quite problematic. Especially considering our country's population is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse and children of multi-racial and multi cultural relationships are claiming more than one "group".
5
I didn't know Native Americans owned slaves. I knew Jews did because there are a trillion books by black folks pinning the entire slave trade on them. Why so much obsession amoung black leaders over Jews miniscule partipation in the slave trade, while completing ignoring Native Americas? Perhaps because the average income of a Jewish family is a trillion times higher then that of Native Americans. More opportunity for a shake down
8
What's at stake for the genetic Cherokee: a bunch of folks with an oblique relationship to Cherokee-ness having political influence over the tribe's future.
It is not an "oblique relationship" that makes some people within the Cherokee Nation wish to restrict voting rights. It's more complicated than that.
It's complicated particularly because of the way that Indians continue to be marginalized, dehumanized, and lumped together in public perception as a monolithic group. In some ways, allowing tribal enrollment based off of blood quantum instead of cultural affiliation has been a mistake because it allows in some schmuck with a copy of a census record while keeping out those with powerful cultural ties and history but not a drop of blood from that tribe.
But, as time goes on and blood gets thinner there's a justified fear in not just cultural loss, but genetic extinction. And this is why many nations do have laws and struggles like this. Having been subject to genocide (and in some ways, still being subjected to it) and having been subject to colonialism (and unquestionably, still being subjected to it) there is a fight for identity and preservation.
It is not an "oblique relationship" that makes some people within the Cherokee Nation wish to restrict voting rights. It's more complicated than that.
It's complicated particularly because of the way that Indians continue to be marginalized, dehumanized, and lumped together in public perception as a monolithic group. In some ways, allowing tribal enrollment based off of blood quantum instead of cultural affiliation has been a mistake because it allows in some schmuck with a copy of a census record while keeping out those with powerful cultural ties and history but not a drop of blood from that tribe.
But, as time goes on and blood gets thinner there's a justified fear in not just cultural loss, but genetic extinction. And this is why many nations do have laws and struggles like this. Having been subject to genocide (and in some ways, still being subjected to it) and having been subject to colonialism (and unquestionably, still being subjected to it) there is a fight for identity and preservation.
9
Why so much obsession among black leaders over Jews miniscule participation in the slave trade
The Jewish participation in the slave trade was far from miniscule. What you are perceiving is from a lack of thoroughness. Jews were important & widespread traders during the medieval era, in not only slaves, but pretty much anything, as they were the accepted go-between Christian Europe and Islamic North Africa & Levant. They were slowly pushed out in the Mediterranean, and were not allowed to become involved in the exploding American slave trade. Some Jewish families were able to participate through investment. They were participants-- so were a lot of different groups. They obviously had no moral qualms about what they were doing.
The Jewish participation in the slave trade was far from miniscule. What you are perceiving is from a lack of thoroughness. Jews were important & widespread traders during the medieval era, in not only slaves, but pretty much anything, as they were the accepted go-between Christian Europe and Islamic North Africa & Levant. They were slowly pushed out in the Mediterranean, and were not allowed to become involved in the exploding American slave trade. Some Jewish families were able to participate through investment. They were participants-- so were a lot of different groups. They obviously had no moral qualms about what they were doing.
10
I agree, Zuulabelle, except that the "oblique relationship" is precisely the question.
What did "tribal membership" mean in 1300? What did it mean in 1700? 1800? 1900? 2000?
It's a question that (I predict) is going to see some serious public debate in the near future, charged with not only the high-voltage cultural implications, but economic and political ones as well.
What did "tribal membership" mean in 1300? What did it mean in 1700? 1800? 1900? 2000?
It's a question that (I predict) is going to see some serious public debate in the near future, charged with not only the high-voltage cultural implications, but economic and political ones as well.
11
Maybe now wannabes won't think it's cool to say their grandmother was "full-blood Cherokee." But that aside, it is an interesting dilemma. Sovereignty, and in particular, that part of self-determination that allows a tribe to determine its own identity and who can be a citizen, is a two-edged sword. Each tribe is very different and because the Cherokee did own slaves and those slaves went with the Cherokee who walked to Oklahoma, the US made the treaty such that included everyone who was with Cherokee society at the time--including the folks that were the slaves. So the Cherokee play a dangerous game in choosing which parts of their treaty can be ignored. At some point, Congress may abrogate the whole thing with them. Their decision has consequences outside of the tribal business which I'm sure will come to play for Cherokee, but likely with other tribes as well because Americans are really super stupid about American Indians and how there are many different Native cultures and tribes.
The concept of tribal identity as opposed to village or family identity isn't universal. But the US in its treaty-making shoved the concept on all Indian people at least in the lower 48.
There are many people who are members of the Cherokee tribe who have to go a really long way back in their lineage to show "Cherokee blood" and it is entirely based on who had ancestor on the Dawes rolls. The Dawes rolls themselves were idiotically managed by the US and people were assigned a supposed blood quantum based on appearance. This of course means that people who were definitely by blood Cherokee who didn't make it on the rolls and it also means that there are probably some people on the rolls who weren't one bit Cherokee.
It seems from reading various opinions within the tribe about this issue, that the current tribal administration based their decision on the fact that the freedmen descendents didn't support the current tribal chair but his opponent. So it was dick move motivated by racism and political self-interest.
Tribes can certainly change how they determine membership in the tribe, and a tribe can certainly decide that blood quantum isn't the only way to be inclusive. Lineage or multiple tribal lineage are certainly other options that some other tribes use.
You probably won't really hear other tribal leaders comment on the dumbass move by the Cherokee though. But they will privately and in anonymous blogs say those Cherokee really pulled a dumbass move.
More...
The concept of tribal identity as opposed to village or family identity isn't universal. But the US in its treaty-making shoved the concept on all Indian people at least in the lower 48.
There are many people who are members of the Cherokee tribe who have to go a really long way back in their lineage to show "Cherokee blood" and it is entirely based on who had ancestor on the Dawes rolls. The Dawes rolls themselves were idiotically managed by the US and people were assigned a supposed blood quantum based on appearance. This of course means that people who were definitely by blood Cherokee who didn't make it on the rolls and it also means that there are probably some people on the rolls who weren't one bit Cherokee.
It seems from reading various opinions within the tribe about this issue, that the current tribal administration based their decision on the fact that the freedmen descendents didn't support the current tribal chair but his opponent. So it was dick move motivated by racism and political self-interest.
Tribes can certainly change how they determine membership in the tribe, and a tribe can certainly decide that blood quantum isn't the only way to be inclusive. Lineage or multiple tribal lineage are certainly other options that some other tribes use.
You probably won't really hear other tribal leaders comment on the dumbass move by the Cherokee though. But they will privately and in anonymous blogs say those Cherokee really pulled a dumbass move.
13
@9 "They obviously had no moral qualms about what they were doing."
Why should they? Africans, Arabs, Muslims and Christians didn't.
Why should they? Africans, Arabs, Muslims and Christians didn't.
14
[quote]I agree, Zuulabelle, except that the "oblique relationship" is precisely the question.
What did "tribal membership" mean in 1300? What did it mean in 1700? 1800? 1900? 2000?
It's a question that (I predict) is going to see some serious public debate in the near future, charged with not only the high-voltage cultural implications, but economic and political ones as well.[quote]
How do you imagine the public debate will be shaped? By the anti-Indian property rights zealots? The Joe Lieberman anti-Indian types? People who like to forget they have benefited historically from Indian treaties? The anti-Indian tea party types who also revere the very old Constitution? By blow hard dilettantes?
What did "tribal membership" mean in 1300? What did it mean in 1700? 1800? 1900? 2000?
It's a question that (I predict) is going to see some serious public debate in the near future, charged with not only the high-voltage cultural implications, but economic and political ones as well.[quote]
How do you imagine the public debate will be shaped? By the anti-Indian property rights zealots? The Joe Lieberman anti-Indian types? People who like to forget they have benefited historically from Indian treaties? The anti-Indian tea party types who also revere the very old Constitution? By blow hard dilettantes?
15
How do you imagine the public debate will be shaped? By the anti-Indian property rights zealots? The Joe Lieberman anti-Indian types? People who like to forget they have benefited historically from Indian treaties? The anti-Indian tea party types who also revere the very old Constitution? By blow hard dilettantes?
Exactly. The concept of Jewishness has evolved over the ages as well. Should Christians get to decide what counts to be a Jew? Perhaps France should have a say in who gets citizenship in Israel?
Exactly. The concept of Jewishness has evolved over the ages as well. Should Christians get to decide what counts to be a Jew? Perhaps France should have a say in who gets citizenship in Israel?
16
Zuulabelle, exactly right. However, the American mindset is such that they very much believe they can define Indigenous identity and who is Indian. I presume that the Cherokee's extremely unfortunate decision is the author's impetus for implying that Native identity has completely jumped the shark and is no longer useful to identify for any Native person from any one of the other 499 tribes. Even if Indian people don't lump together, that isn't going to get in the way of a blogger from assuming that we are one big lump of same.
17
No, no, no! I am NOT saying "lump of same"! And I'm certainly not trying to box in some narrow definition of pan-Native American identity nor say it's jumped any kind of shark. Because, as you rightly point out, I'm just a blowhard dilettante. What do I know?
I AM saying that the debate is in flux, it has been for centuries, and it's going to get more intense in the coming decades as both Indian Country and the U.S. change.
Who will set the terms of the debate and what will those terms be? Obviously, I have no idea. But it'll be interesting to watch.
I AM saying that the debate is in flux, it has been for centuries, and it's going to get more intense in the coming decades as both Indian Country and the U.S. change.
Who will set the terms of the debate and what will those terms be? Obviously, I have no idea. But it'll be interesting to watch.
18
Slavery is a whole lot more complicated the deeper you dig.
I recently was reading about Slavery in East Africa along the "Swahili Coast". Slaves could actually both be slaves and slave owners, and were!
I recently was reading about Slavery in East Africa along the "Swahili Coast". Slaves could actually both be slaves and slave owners, and were!
19
Reminds me of the Israelis. Back in the Middle Ages and into the modern era, anyone who walked up to a bunch of Jews and claimed to be Jewish was immediately believed, because the Jews were so hated that no one would claim to belong unless they really did. And after Israel was established as a nation and the Law of Return promulgated, they were, at first, very willing to believe people when they said they were Jewish and let them into Israel as Jews.
More recently, however, Israel has put in place proof requirements, which can be quite onerous, before you can immigrate to Israel as a Jew under the Law of Return. Why? Because in the 1990s after the Soviet Union collapsed, a lot of Jews who'd been stuck behind the Iron Curtain came streaming into Israel, along with some people whose Judaism was rather questionable. It came down to economic calculus: by the 1990s, Israel was much richer than the former Communist bloc countries. Being Jewish, once a huge liability, was now as asset for those seeking a better life. So they started jealously guarding the gates, and if you don't have government documents from your home country that say you're Jewish or a letter from an Orthodox rabbi attesting that you're Jewish, you pretty much have to go back through your matrilineal line until you find someone with a photographable gravestone written in Hebrew.
More recently, however, Israel has put in place proof requirements, which can be quite onerous, before you can immigrate to Israel as a Jew under the Law of Return. Why? Because in the 1990s after the Soviet Union collapsed, a lot of Jews who'd been stuck behind the Iron Curtain came streaming into Israel, along with some people whose Judaism was rather questionable. It came down to economic calculus: by the 1990s, Israel was much richer than the former Communist bloc countries. Being Jewish, once a huge liability, was now as asset for those seeking a better life. So they started jealously guarding the gates, and if you don't have government documents from your home country that say you're Jewish or a letter from an Orthodox rabbi attesting that you're Jewish, you pretty much have to go back through your matrilineal line until you find someone with a photographable gravestone written in Hebrew.
20
GUYS! I KNOW WHERE THE ANSWER LIES!
University of Michigan History professor Tiya Miles wrote a book a few years ago called Ties That Bind: A Cherokee Family in Slavery and Freedom (I might be a bit off on the subtitle). In it, she describes the relationship/marriage between Shoe Boots, a well-known, well-regarded Cherokee warrior, and his slave Dolly. They had five children, one of whom was captured and sold into slavery (though none of the children were born slaves in Cherokee society), two were made tribal members after Shoe Boots formally petitioned the tribal council, and two grew up to live part of their lives off-reservation (they all lived through the Trail of Tears, except Shoe Boots who died before it) and were denied citizenship when their mother petitioned for them.
Miles shows that part of the reason African American Cherokees don't have tribal membership is partly an issue of timing: membership rules based on parentage changed mid-century at a point when most Cherokee parents were dead (and thus could not advocate for their children) while most black children could not travel to Oklahoma to advocate for themselves.
The historical Cherokee resistance to recognizing its African-descended members differs from other Southeastern tribes such as the Cree. This is partly because during slavery, the Cherokee viewed black civil rights and tribal land rights as a zero-sum game. They listened to whites who proposed giving emancipated slaves 40 acres and a mule and said to themselves, "Hm, whose land do ya think white people are going to give up for former slaves? Not theirs!" They were right: in Georgia especially, one strategy for acquiring particularly valuable Cherokee land was for white squatters to occupy it; if the Indian owner objected in any way (or tried to evict them), they would be murdered by other whites. Obviously the conclusion that an increase in black rights is a decrease in Cherokee rights was not universal (again, see the Cree - not sure what the Chickasaw or other tribes thought), but it was reasonable enough.
It is a fabulous, well-written book about people who traverse the boundaries of societies and a highly educational read.
More...
University of Michigan History professor Tiya Miles wrote a book a few years ago called Ties That Bind: A Cherokee Family in Slavery and Freedom (I might be a bit off on the subtitle). In it, she describes the relationship/marriage between Shoe Boots, a well-known, well-regarded Cherokee warrior, and his slave Dolly. They had five children, one of whom was captured and sold into slavery (though none of the children were born slaves in Cherokee society), two were made tribal members after Shoe Boots formally petitioned the tribal council, and two grew up to live part of their lives off-reservation (they all lived through the Trail of Tears, except Shoe Boots who died before it) and were denied citizenship when their mother petitioned for them.
Miles shows that part of the reason African American Cherokees don't have tribal membership is partly an issue of timing: membership rules based on parentage changed mid-century at a point when most Cherokee parents were dead (and thus could not advocate for their children) while most black children could not travel to Oklahoma to advocate for themselves.
The historical Cherokee resistance to recognizing its African-descended members differs from other Southeastern tribes such as the Cree. This is partly because during slavery, the Cherokee viewed black civil rights and tribal land rights as a zero-sum game. They listened to whites who proposed giving emancipated slaves 40 acres and a mule and said to themselves, "Hm, whose land do ya think white people are going to give up for former slaves? Not theirs!" They were right: in Georgia especially, one strategy for acquiring particularly valuable Cherokee land was for white squatters to occupy it; if the Indian owner objected in any way (or tried to evict them), they would be murdered by other whites. Obviously the conclusion that an increase in black rights is a decrease in Cherokee rights was not universal (again, see the Cree - not sure what the Chickasaw or other tribes thought), but it was reasonable enough.
It is a fabulous, well-written book about people who traverse the boundaries of societies and a highly educational read.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (21) RSS