Jim Crow in Indian Country
Imagine yourself as an African American and resident of the State of Alabama in 1964, the year that President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the historic Civil Rights Act. And again imagine in 1964 that Alabama Governor George Wallace, in an act of defiance that not even he considered, introduced legislation to expel all African Americans from Alabama.
Now fast forward to the year 2007, over four decades later, when the citizens of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma voted last March to expel their black citizens in a manner that equaled if not surpassed the most vitriolic attacks against African Americans in the once segregated South.
Many Americans do not realize that some Native American tribes owned slaves of African descent. As an independently recognized nation in the 19th Century, the Cherokee Nation embraced and promoted African slavery, a position it maintained after removal to Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma) in the 1830s.
During the Civil War, the Cherokee Nation fought on the side of the Confederacy in order to preserve its southern slaveholding tradition of trafficking in the ownership and sale of black slaves. In fact, Stand Waite, the last Confederate General to surrender to the Union Army, was Cherokee.
The Cherokee Nation emancipated all its slaves in 1863. In 1866, the Cherokee Nation signed a new treaty with the United States Government that formally ended the practice of slavery and made the former slaves citizens of the Cherokee Nation. The Treaty of 1866 resulted in an amendment to the Cherokee constitution that same year, which read in part: "All native born Cherokees, all Indians, and whites legally members of the nation by adoption, and all freedmen (the term used for freed slaves of African descendants of the Cherokee Nation) shall be taken and deemed to be citizens of the Cherokee Nation."
Toward the end of the 19th Century, a distinction, a product of the new Jim Crow South and later codified in practice by the U.S. Government, had emerged between black freedmen Cherokees and those who were categorized as Cherokee by blood. The distinction is used today by the current Cherokee leadership that claims it is primarily concerned about preserving the Cherokee Nation's heritage for those who can prove that they have Cherokee blood lineage.
But such claims, as Professor Robert Warrior of the University of Oklahoma elegantly makes the case, "fail to rise to the level of those earlier Cherokees who understood that the tragic absurdity of reconciling a nation to its history of slavery requires wisdom and compassion, not insulting and ridiculous appeals to faulty membership requirements and the poses of victim-hood."
Today, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma receives roughly $300 million a year in federal taxpayer dollars. The Cherokee Nation is also the beneficiary of a federal gaming franchise that is estimated to yield it another $300 million yearly. This is not an insignificant amount of money.
If the Cherokee Nation is allowed to pursue its current policy of expelling black descendants of the Cherokee Nation, black descendants obviously will not be able to receive federal assistance from the Cherokee Nation in the form of health, education, and housing assistance.
I do not believe that your or my taxpayer dollars should go to any group that practices discrimination. First and foremost, it is against the law. That is why I have introduced legislation, H.R. 2824, that cuts off all U.S. government relations with the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma until it agrees to accept the black descendants of the Cherokees as full participating citizens of the Cherokee Nation.
I respect the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma as a sovereign entity. But no sovereign nation, particularly one within the confines of the United States, should be given a free pass to exercise its sovereign rights to expel its citizens on the basis of ethnicity, class, or race. And when a nation violates its treaty obligations with the United States, Congress is obliged to take action.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As an African American/Cherokee from the red river reservation in Texas my great grandmother was full blooded Cherokee with the name of Hightower.
My mother told me that when she was a young girl her mother told her that she couldn't date anybody from Arkansas or Oklahoma because they were relatives. It is so sad that in the 90's the indian tribes let all these white people on their rolls but if you where AA you didn't qualify and can not join in any of the benefits even if you're 50%.
My husband is 50% Cherokee Tribe from Oklahoma and is very proud of that but when I told him about the them disinfranchinsing those mixed with African American he was shocked.
Because his pawpaw (grandfather) only set him on his knee and told him he belong to a strong people.
What is interesting is that the Cherokee as well as other nations find themselves in the position they are in today because of whites. One in particular Andrew Jackson, who was the instigator of the Trail of Tears. I suspect old Andrew would be welcomed on the rolls before a black indian. That old psychology where you begin to identify with your oppressor seems at play here.
didn't vote to expel us
Your point is well taken Rep Watson. I made a similar comparison as it relates to you Alabama reference.
While researching my African and Native American Ancestry, i happened upon this story. I got very pissed and wrote them a few nasty letters, stating not even the racist in my home state of Mississippi in the 50s, voted to expel us. I decided i wanted no part of them.
I think they voted in the high 70%, to expel the freedmen.
I hope H.R 2824 passes. I don't want my tax money going to jim crow Cherokees.
First of all the Cherokee nation split on the question of the supporting the Confederacy, abetted by the fact that that the Confederate troops swept violently through Indian Territory just after the tribe was getting back on its feet after the last Removal, compelling many to join at gunpoint.O
After the Civil War the Feds punished the whole Nation by taking away the Cherokee Panhandle (1/3 their land) and forcing them to take on the freedmen as tribal members.Th
To step into a tribe's sovereignity that has been removed multiple times at gunpoint and forced to start from nothing once again, to satisfy some short term facade of racial justice even as the federal government leaves HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of black people languishing on the bridges of New Orleans is laughable.
You've got the wrong target,Rep
Start targeting the real culprit - a government of white men that dictate who shall be free when, and what that freedom means. In other words -we ain't none of us free in the eyes of the U.S. government but they love to amuse themselves with our antics trying to reach the table for a few crumbs.
The US shouldn't step into the tribe's sovereignty. And the tribe is being racist.
The tribe may be being racist,its certainly not uncommon in America, in fact its the grease the wheels turn on.But if only a small percentage of Cherokees owned and used slaves for a short period of time - must the whole tribe pay for eternity?
And are you then going to create a racism test for all the federal monies that are allocated and cut them off?
Because if your're going to demand saintliness lets apply it across board
Isn't it bad enough that we lost our families, lands , waters through two Removals and being forced into the Civil War, forbidden to practice our religion and have our culture decimated.
This is a test of sovereignity and a good chance for people to read up on the sad and checkered history of native peoples : treaties forced on tribes at gunpoint and treaties abandoned at whim by those who created a justice system ,not based on law buttheir desire.
Representative Diane Watson continues her aggressive campaign to discredit and vilify the Cherokee Nation, regardless of the facts.
* The Cherokee Nation never owned slaves. 98% of the Cherokee people never owned slaves. In 1860 (based on census) 296 Indians and 82 non-Indians on Cherokee territories did. This is less than 2% of a population of between 19,000 and 20,000.
* The Cherokee Nation’s treaty with the Confederate states lasted less than 16 months of the Civil War. At least two-thirds of the Nation fought for the Union. The service of some of them is recognized in the Treaty of 1866, Articles 25 and 28. Why does Representative Watson continue to state the ‘Cherokee Nation fought on the side of the Confederacy’? Her statement is not consistent with history.
* Stand Watie was the head of a dissident faction within the Cherokee Nation, and did not represent the Nation. His faction did fight for the Confederacy throughout the Civil War. Why did the U.S. government negotiate with Watie’s dissident faction, playing them off the legitimate leadership of the Cherokee Nation at the end of the war?
* If the Cherokee Nation wanted to preserve ‘its southern slaveholding tradition’ why did it pass an Act less than two months (February 18, 1863) after Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation - providing the “immediate emancipation of all slaves in the Cherokee Nation” and that “any slave so held in Bondage shall be forever free” while the war was still waging? Additionally, the Cherokee Act prohibiting slavery was adopted almost three years before the United States’ 13th Amendment to the Constitution doing the same.
* If the Cherokee Nation was fighting for the Confederacy, why did Confederate forces led by Stand Watie forces burn down the Cherokee Nation’s capitol buildings, its libraries and the home of its elected Chief on October 28 and 29, 1863?
Public claims that the Cherokee Nation allied itself with the Confederate States to wage war against the United States in order to defend the abominable practice of slavery are inflammatory misrepresentations of fact. Representative Watson continues to ignore these facts. Why?
And weasling is weasling. We're not talking about the Civil War, or who fought where, or who's bad and who's worse.
And we shouldn't be talking about Watson or why she introduced her bill; she is not the one who has discredited and vilified the Nation.
We're talking about people who have been members of the Nation for nearly a hundred and fifty years. Their ancestors didn't ask to be bought by Cherokees; "only a few" Cherokees owned slaves, etc., etc. But they were freed by the Nation and accepted as members of the Nation - for what I consider damned good reasons.
But now they're not. Why?
This is another reason I won't vote democrat, and I encourage other Native Americans to seek out another party. Diane Watson and her anti-Native American brigade are attempting to force slavery reparations on Native Americans. I wonder if Diane Watson would support reparations for my people (Northern Cheyenne) for all the murdering (unarmed women and children) the buffalo soldiers did ? I know she wouldn't!
tbone and redbow: I'll make it real simple: They walked with us on the goddamned Trail of Tears - they've earned membership in the tribe.
Who can say how they came - did they have a choice or were they forced at gunpoint by Jackson's soldiers with the mass.? Just because people suffered something at the same time doesn't mean they are married.A contract is a consensual choice invoving both parties.Th
I don't think the point is Cherokee blood or DNA.
I think the point is the LOSERS in the Civil War made concessions in the form of treaties with the government of the United States of America. Freedmen and their descendants are citizens of the Cherokee Nation. These are the descendants who came with them on the Cherokee Trail of Tears. They were with them during the good times and the bad times before gaming.
For years we have been made to believe that the Civilized Tribes had been wronged by the U.S. government.
However looking at what the racists they are today, the Trail of Tears is what they deserved.
I expect other tribes to follow if this is allowed to stand.
Nobody ever deserved a Trail of Tears.
My thought exactly.
Just can't win for losing...
This ought to start some trouble: I've never been quite comfortable with the "sovereign" nature of any of the reservations. To my mind the laws of the United States still apply..inc
Disagree. There would be no U.S. if the colonialists didn't ethnically cleanse the native population. It would all be sovereign Indian land. Besides, they hold their own elections, have their own laws, etc.
Disagree. The tribes should make their own laws. Otherwise the Indians will cease to be separate nations.
Bravo.
As an African-American with Cherokee ancestors on both sides, when I first heard this story in March, my reaction was anger and confusion.
I briefly considered whether it would be medically possible to separate my African blood from the Cherokee. Kind of a reverse transfusion.
Perhaps the millions of African-Americans with Cherokee ancestry could donate our blood to the Red Cross and deliver it en masse to Oklahoma?
It has always puzzled me that Europeans with very little (or no) Cherokee blood are accepted as "Indian" while African-Americans are not. When I see pictures of Sitting Bull and Chief Joseph, they are much darker than the so-called Native Americans who espouse this nonsense. If they were alive today, would they be accepted by their own tribes?
When the Dawes Indian registry was created, the Indians were lined up and literally signed in, after being approved or denied by Dawes' agents. These agents would nearly always eliminate anyone who exhibited any African features, even if that person had an Indian parent. Today, these same nations use the Dawes Rolls to determine who is legitimately "Indian".
If we can use DNA testing in paternity and criminal cases, it should be used to determine whether a person has a legitimate claim to Native American ancestry. Many prominent "Indian" spokespeople have a lower percentage of Native American blood than your average NBA player.
For example, Oprah Winfrey is about 30% Native American, but none of her ancestry would be acknowledged by adhering to the Dawes Rolls criterion - which was racist to begin with.
This is yet another sad example of a conquered nation choosing to emulate the worst behavior of its oppressors. It probably has more to do with greed and reluctance to share the proceeds from casinos than it does with trying to preserve the "purity" (Mein Kampf, anyone?) of the Cherokee nation.
I share your frustration of the Dawes Indian registry. My ancestors were from the ruling class of Muscogee (Creek) Indians who systematically married British colonels and colonialists. As a result I am denied membership because they stayed behind in Alabama and didn't register with Dawes' agents, even though my great-grandfather, who I knew, is the person that posed for the portrait of William Weatherford, Red Eagle, that hangs Okmulgee, OK. That said, I think the article above is correct in saying that no one "should be given a free pass to exercise its sovereign rights to expel its citizens on the basis of ethnicity, class, or race" but I find it ridiculous that she added "and when a nation violates its treaty obligations with the United States, Congress is obliged to take action," because the U.S. government violated every treaty with the Muscogee people before they were forced onto the Trail of Tears. To use that as a reason to take action is laughable.
So true and so sad.
People are people, regardless of race. That means they can be real jerks.
First you derail the feds - for lining people up and enrolling them in the Dawes Rolls( even creating such a system -ahh -the bureacracy of oppression) , then you blame the tribes for using them.We are stuck in a game not of our own making .
You are right -it is not about purity - it is about the sovereignity of a people who have had a gun held to their head while they have been systemically, robbed, raped,enslaved murdered for a couple of centuries. It is about their right to make a choice on their own .It seems a little to me like how the U.S. pushes democracy but only if you vote in their choice.
Wow, tbone99 is basically making the Native American equivalent of the Confederate "State's Rights" argument. It's "not about purity" its about "sovereign
And to give your argument added weight you throw out the fact (which no one disputes) that Native Americans have been the recipients of vicious abuses - so why can't they be a little bit racist.
You're not doing your people proud with that kind of argument.
Who are we supposed to look like? Mariah Carey?
If a person can be shown to have Cherokee blood via DNA testing, then that person is an obvious descendant of the Cherokee nation.
If there is no blood lineage, and there has been no adoption, then the person is quite clearly not a Native American and is just a blood sucking leech.
DNA testing can't tell if you are Cherokee. It can just say what area you came from if you carry a native marker.
This is about casino money.
The Cherokee Nation of Arkansas has no casino. It takes anybody that can trace to the Dawes Rolls.
The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has casinos and therefore will not grant membership in the tribe unless so many generations have lived on the reservation.
It's about the money.
The article has a great history of the Cherokee. I posted some of the slave stuff here last week.
When people say they are Indian and Cherokee, I know they aren't Indian. Cherokees have been very white and intermarried since the 1700s. Like the Choctaw and other Southern tribes.
The tribal rolls, like the Dawes Rolls, show very white names and low degrees of Indian blood over a hundred years ago.
The legislation seems right to me.
Friend-the Cherokees have not ever lived on reservatio
I agree with you, Rep. Watson. If a non-Cherokee without even one percent of any Native-American blood, Ward Churchill, is given phony honorary status, then its only fair any African-American who DOES have some Chereokee blood in them be given status in the Chereokee Nation.
$600,000,0
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
