Congressional Black Caucus Attacks Sovereign Status of Indian Nations

The Congressional Black Caucus, in attacking the sovereign status of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, is placing in question and in jeopardy, the sovereign status of all Indian nations. At least that is the conclusion drawn by many tribal leaders across America.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the CBC, of which Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is member, demanded that he support their efforts to deny federal funding to the Cherokee Nation. The letter reads:

When H. R. 2786, the Native American Housing and Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007, was considered and passed the House Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and others insisted that the bill include a provision that would prevent the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma from receiving any benefits or funding under the bill until the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is in full compliance with the Treaty of 1866 and recognizes all Cherokee Freedman and their descendants as tribal citizens.

We understand that the Senate may be considering a version of this bill that does not include these critically important requirements. We are writing to advise you that the members of the CBC will not support, and will actively oppose, passage of a NAHASDA bill that does not include this limitation. We must send the unequivocal message to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma that failure to provide full citizenship rights to the Cherokee Freedmen will have severe consequences.

This is probably the first time in history that a Congressional Black Caucus, or any other Black organization for that matter, has severely threatened not only the sovereign status of an Indian nation, but also the withholding of funds that could cause widespread damage to the citizens of an Indian nation.

The people of the Cherokee Nation exercised their democratic rights when 70 percent of them voted to extinguish the tribal citizenship to the Cherokee Freedmen. The Freedmen are former Black slaves that became a part of the Cherokee Nation under the provisions of the Treaty of 1866.

The bill was introduced by Representative Diane Watson (D-CA). Tribal leaders across America feel that this bill could threaten Indian housing nationwide. They also believe that this action by the Congressional Black Caucus could set a precedent where any Indian legislation could be threatened by any special interest group.

In a memo sent out by Indian activist Ron Andrade it was noted that Obama is also a member of the CBC. "Someone needs to ask him how he can reconcile his support of the Congressional Black Caucus and his rhetoric about supporting the sovereign status of tribal governments," Andrade wrote.

The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina met on Wednesday of last week in a joint tribal council meeting. At the meeting they denounced legislation that would cut federal funds to the Cherokee Nation unless the Freedmen are restored to citizenship. The Eastern Band of Cherokee would not be affected by the legislation.

A joint resolution issued after the meeting reads, "This alarming, inappropriate and unacceptable overreach could set a precedent that undermines the sovereign tribal governments throughout Indian country. These proposed legislative actions threaten to turn back the clock on hard-won rights and to cease a nation's right to exist."

It should be noted that California is one of the worst states in the Union where tribes are systematically removing and denying citizenship to members. Rep. Watson represents a voting district in that state. What has she done about this problem in her own district? And what about the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus? Are they not concerned that Indian people are often removed from tribes in California without even a democratic vote? Or will they only speak up when Black Americans are involved?

And the final question: What gives the Congressional Black Caucus the right to interfere in the internal affairs of an independent sovereign Indian nation?

These are all questions that every Native American leader and citizens should be asking every member of the CBC including presidential candidate Barak Obama.

And isn't ironic that the very word "Caucus" is derived from the Algonquin Indian language and means, "A group of people united to promote an agreed -upon cause."

When the CBC begins to use its power to go after some of the tribes of California for ejecting and denying citizenship to their members then, and only then, will their actions against the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma have the appearance of justice or otherwise their objectivity will always be in question to the sovereign people of the Indian nations.

Comments

[JCornsilk]

CNOT is desperately looking for alternate funding for when the Congresswoman's Bill cuts them off at the Knees, (SOON I HOPE)!! And what they are looking at is the take over of the Indian health service in Tahlequah, an Probably Claremore as well, as they are both in CNOT-land! I just had another Article published, and if you go to this link http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/59220 you can see it, notice it starts of with an anouncement of the planned take over by CNOT, and also, note if you will the monies mention that I believe is the only reason for the planed take over, Smith no more cares for The Cherokee Peoples health, than the man in the moon, demonstrated so by what he did to his wife and kids, when he did this http://www.jalagi.org/twofamily.html

John Cornsilk

[Podcast]

I appreciate all of the comments posted concerning my column on the CBC. It opened a venue for dialogue pro and con and that is the most any columnist can hope for. I post a column every week dealing with issues important to Native Americans. It should be pointed out that although Barack Obama did not sign the letter sent to Harry Reid by the CBC, he also did not object to it. Tim Giago

[digoweli]

Pilamiya, Digoweli

[JCornsilk]

Well Redbow 40,

You Said:

Mr. Cornsilk, you have told me what I need to know. The fact that you rely on the Bureau of Indian Affairs to dictate who is and who isn't an Indian, well that says it all.

I say!

Simply inconsequential babble, as most is that you insist on spewing in matters that is quite evident NO concern of yours as the Non Cherokee you said you were. NOW, I will say you possibly should be concerned as a TAXPAYER over the money that is being wasted by smith and cronies fighting the Freedmen issue in DC, it runs into the Millions of bucks.

NOW, as for whom and what I rely on to determine (NOT DICTATE) and this applies to ANY and all who are NOT Cherokee Mr. Giago NOT excepted, is quite simply FACTS of Law, Treaty, SUPREME Law of the land, Cherokee Constitutional Law to be found @ www.cornsilks.com i.e. the 1839 Constitution. Then to learn the relevance of these laws to the issue/topic read my last response in the following thread to a poster that has turned up here from Indianz.com @ http://www.indianz.com/board/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=31632&whichpage=2 and get a grasp on the law and its relevance to the issue/topic!

Part 2 to follow!

John Cornsilk
Cherokee, CNOT Member!
Purveyor of Simple Truth

[JCornsilk]

Part 2 to Redbow 40,

You said:

I'll say two things. Look no further than California. There were hundreds of tribes here. The proof is dozens of languages with several dozen sub-languages otherwise known as dialects (look at the pre-mission times). Most of these tribes are extinct thats according to the "god of thunder" AKA, the Bureau of Indian affairs. The tribal members who are still living and not recognized are called Mexicans.I just thought you should know that "Mexico" is a nationality not a race of people or ethnic group. Most people know that the nucleus of Mexico are Indian people.

I am well aware as to the status of the Nationals of Mexico, absolutely no different than any other Nation of the world, USA, Canada, European Countries etc, and a funny thing that people overlook or want to ignore, The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is absolutely no different, since they are usurping the Cherokee Peoples Sovereign Rights and Acting as the Cherokee Nation, then it's citizenry is the same as any Nation, they are Nationals/Citizens with OUT regard to ethnicity/race, would you say and American is an American by blood, or A Mexican, or Canadian?? You answered your own dum statement/question!!

You said

As far as your CNO comment goes, your beginning to sound paraniod. I'm not a member of your nation.

I say!

See my response in the first part!

John Cornsilk
Cherokee, CNOT Member!
Purveyor of Simple Truth

[redbow40]

Mr. Cornsilk, What I described was your crediblity or specifically lack thereof. You came to this blog to tell us all the "real truth".Furthermore, you said we should refer to your website as source of information and truth. You have to accept that regardless of how many Cherokee citizens voted to remove the freedmen, it is a vote none the less.You like so many others now seem to suffer from a condition known as "selective democracy".
Do you know the difference between chattel slavery and captives? You have posted so much misinformation I don't know where to start. Are you saying that" many "tribes were engaged in chattel slavery? And if so you should name the "many" of them(If you expect us to accept you as a truth teller). As far as nationalities are concerned you mentioned "Mexican slaves" taken and held by the Kiowa.You should have no problem (you know being a teacher and all) describing the daily life of a "Mexican" slave held by the Kiowas.My point of the "Mexican" question was pre and post treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.You can call it "inconsequential babble" if you like to.

[JCornsilk]

Well People I see everything is oozing from the woodwork... Now, if you folks are serious and want to know about Cherokee Freedmen, the BOGUS Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, simply go to http://www.cornsilks.com.johnarticles.html and seriously read, then if you want to know about Cherokee Law and more on the BOGUS CNO, go to www.cornsilks.com then if you want to seriously discuss what you think you know come to John's Place @ http://www.network54.com/Forum/237458/
its all free! And if you are going to continue to babble on Cherokee issues, at least go and Read John C's Cherokee History 1863 to present PART ONE http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/58942 and PART TWO http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/59107

John Cornsilk
Cherokee, CNOT Member!
Purveyor of Simple Truth

[digoweli]

John,

Thank you for the invite. I've gone to the site, looked it over and even refreshed myself by re-reading the 1828 Constitution. So I say thank you for that. I will not be able to attend because, as you point out, although I'm from Oklahoma and of Cherokee descent, I am not a member and so what you guys do is really your business and not mine. I have my own way and it takes up all of the time I have left. I wish you, especially, well on the Freedmen issue. As a distant relative I don't like to see my relations self-destruct and considering the issues, that is what the CNO seems to be doing. I have many friends and relatives in the CNO and would not wish that for them. Not many people realize that Cherokees are a minority even in Oklahoma and thus have to scramble just to keep what they have. I ask that your heart be at peace even though you must fight for good causes. Digoweli

[digoweli]

Well Tim,

"I have to congratulate you." Part I.

This is one of the most historically erudite lists in the Huffington Post. We may not agree with each other or what you wrote but there is more history, thinking and serious discussions of these issues in the 42 posts than in the hundreds of others on the other threads. Any journalist should be proud to stir such discussion and examination. You have shown just what the history was and is and how deep the divisions are in the Indian family.

One man (I choose to call him) "Angry Badger" put it very succinctly on his website. He"s a man of good heart but very angry. He said that he didn't want all of these people coming in and becoming Cherokees because it would diminish his Indian entitlement programs as well as having less power in a larger group. It is unfortunate that the myth is out there but until it is answered and a better understanding of the impotence of small groups is realized, official Native America will be forced to continue to use the courts and victimhood to exist. (continued in part II)

[digoweli]

Second of Two Parts "I have to congratulate you".

In the current Supreme Court"s Indian case yesterday, it was evident that the court is growing tired of these exclusivist arguments and is likely to disallow them if called to vote. These are not Democrats against Republicans or conservatives against progressives. The blood argument is a conservative one and the people in the Cherokee Nation fighting are Republicans of all three colors in an inter-nicene battle. They are embarrassed by spirituality and contemporary culture and have big problems with capitalist economics. (As do I) But they miss the real moral issue here and the conflict with the American Constitution that goes far beyond the treaties. Religion and Personal Growth are the core values of most native groups.

I read an excellent legal brief by Running Badger on the American Chronicle website that completely ignored the American Indian Religious Crimes Codes of 1883 that lubricated and made possible the atrocities in the Dawes Acts and Curtis Acts. What underlying assumption would ignore the banning of all Native religions in America by the U.S. government? Not only to the Cherokees but to the Tiospayes and Sundance of your Nation as well. Also Senator Curtis of the same act was a Kaw (Osage) Indian and Herbert Hoover's vice president. These are all ignored in the legal professions pursuit of argument and relevance. A point which means the facts as they are, are correct, but the truth dies. Digoweli

[Unitednative]

Report From PEP : Miami, Oklahoma, Part 3
Indian Voters Send Obama And Black Caucus Message: Get Off Our Back!
http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/58698

The issue is about two things: reserving tribal rolls for those who are actually of Native American descent, and tribal sovereignty rights to do so. As one of many punishments after the Civil War, the Cherokees were forced to put anyone, including former slaves, on their rolls, whether or not they had Cherokee descent.

Ironically, during the Dawes Act of the 20th Century and the break-up of tribal cultures and soverignty, corrupt census takers routinely kicked Native Americans off the tribal rolls of many tribes for fake or minute reasons. They also put totally white relative and friends on in order to "cash in" on any potential Indian gains.

Because of those actions, many legitimate Native Americans can not be enrolled today. However, non-Indian blacks were enrolled, by federal demands.

And that just plain is racism, and it also isn't fair.

[digoweli]

In the 1950s I went to a concert in Miami, Oklahoma at the N.E.O. A. & M College auditorium. The group was called "Wings of Angels" and was African American. That wonderful choir had to go to Kansas to go to the bathroom (Kansas was ten miles away) or to find a bed to sleep in. The entire county of Ottawa was off limits to African Americans.

After the Brown decision exclusivity was removed. But when my father hired a qualified Black bricklayer to build a grade school we received death threats. My father, a Cherokee, had grown up in Creek Freedman territory and was not a prejudiced man. He persisted and got the town fathers of Picher to support him. Later, after he had his doctor's degree in psycho-metrics he became the counselor, the racial minorities would request, at the Bartlesville, Oklahoma schools.

During the Civil War our ancestors mistakenly fought in the Stand Watie Regiment and with the Arkansas 2nd Mounted Rifles. Cherokees in these regiments fought other Cherokees and the Mounted Rifles were bad people with many horrible criminals. I think my father learned his lesson from his grandfather who was always ashamed of that service. He had been shanghaied in Bentonville, Arkansas on the road to the Cherokee Nation from Mississippi. Can you find these stories in geneological history or the Dawes Rolls, not a chance. This is real.

Considerably more complicated than this fellow calling himself "United Native" is making it. Digoweli

[DavidCornsilk]

We have all heard the cries for enrollment from the wannabe class of American citizens. They have Cherokee princess grandmothers, chiefs in their trees and great warriors of our Nation impregnating their pioneer grandmothers. And all of that mishmash of historical fiction just mucks up the real truth, they can't prove any connection to the Cherokees. So lets move away from the wannabe smoke screen and into some real facts about the Freedmen and their real historic, legal and blood connections to the Cherokee tribe.

I have researched the Cherokee Freedmen (former slaves) and their descendants listed on the Dawes Rolls since 1988. I have found that 1/3 of the former Cherokee slaves listed on Dawes were the children of their Cherokee Indian masters. Their fathers either crept into the slave house and had relations with his female slaves or he had open relations with one or more slaves and produced children of mixed Indian/negro ancestry. These children, in accordance with anti-black Cherokee law, could not inherit citizenship from their fathers and thus, their right to enrollment came only from their rights under the Treaty of 1866. The Dawes Commission found no reason to record the Indian blood of the nearly hundreds of black Cherokees who were placed on the Dawes Roll as freedmen.

Part 1

[digoweli]

Cherokee people always like scholars who look, do their homework and document their research. I have some questions about the pre-1828 laws and the 1828 constitution as applied to today. My assumption is that you agree with your father about it still being in effect. Is that true? If not, then you can skip the questions.

Question 1: Is lineage no longer passed down through the mother since the termination of the Clans?
Question 2: Do the women still own the basic property or did the pre-1828 laws and the constitution remove this Clan law from the books thus dis-enfranchising the equality of Cherokee Women with Men?
Question 3: Were blacks allowed any rights at all in the 1828 constitution even if free?
Question 4: Was the Middle Eastern Desert Religion called Christianity given preferential treatment over traditional Cherokee Religious Culture under the 1828 constitution?
Question 5: What is the grammatical construction in the Cherokee language around owning life?
Question 6: What is the grammatical construction in European and Middle Eastern languages around owning life?
Question 7: Can a Cherokee belong, under the 1828 Constitution, to more than one Nation or Band?

Once you answered these could you again explain whether you and your father are American Citizens and Citizens of more than one Cherokee Band? And how you justify it given the 1828 Constitution? Digoweli

[Unitednative]

Report From PEP : Miami, Oklahoma, Part 2
Indian Voters Send Obama And Black Caucus Message: Get Off Our Back!
http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/58698

One chief came home and reported that friendly congressmen had alerted NCAI members that CBC members, after being contacted, asked for meetings, or receiving letters and information packets, quickly activated lobbyists and began pressuring congresspersons to block any NCAI issues. In a quiet, personal moment, one delegate, speaking off the record, said wearily: "We get the message. The message is about black victimology, and the CBC intends to shut down our issues. Our message is about working together to fix problems and look forward; that makes us an enemy."

The Congressional Black Caucus even held a specific rally against the Cherokee Nation.
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096415884

Leading the calvary charge this time: Congresswoman Diane Watson, a black woman from California who frankly, doesn't know anything about Oklahoma, the Cherokees, the tribes, the history, or the treaties. She just saw a great chance for publicity and to attack Native Americans, who unfortunately many members of the Caucus see as competitors for entitlement. In fact, entitlement doesn't have a thing to do with native issues.

Graham's voice is one that can not be silenced. The posturing to place the Cherokee Freedmen issue as one of race is a fraud. There are many Cherokee tribal members who are multi-racial, and many who have multiple black ancestors.

[Unitednative]

Report From PEP : Miami, Oklahoma, Part 1

Mike Graham is a Cherokee from Oklahoma. His well-written and passionate work speaks out on major issues confronting Indian Country.
Indian Voters Send Obama And Black Caucus Message: Get Off Our Back!
http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/58698

The problems with the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are not new. As Graham notes, Native Americans turned out to support black issues. However, that support has been repaid with silence, refusal to assist in issues that are of interest to multiple minorities, or,all too often, with outright attacks, as Graham chronicles here.

Many times in recent years the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) approached the CBC, to ask for their assistance on some important issues, including ones important to all minorities.. Not only did members of the CBC routinely refuse to meet with the delegates or stonewall them with silence, in some cases CBC members immediately put pressure on Congress to act against Native Americans.

[EliGrayson]

part 2...
Whereas it is the desire of the people and government of the Cherokee Nation to carry out in good faith all its obligations, to the end that law and order be preserved, and the institutions of their government maintained: Therefore,
Be it resolved by the national council, That the following amendments to the constitution of the Cherokee Nation be submitted to a convention of the Cherokee people to assemble at Tahlequah on the twenty-sixth (26th) day of November, A.D. 1866, under the proclamation of the principal chief;; and should said amendments, hereto annexed, be ratified by said convention, then they shall be officially published, and declared by the principal chief to be, and shall constitute, a part or parts of the constitution of the Cherokee Nation.
Amendments.
Amendments to Article II.
Sec. 5.
¦¦¦All native-born Cherokees, all Indians, and whites legally members of the nation by adoption, and all freedmen who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former owners or by law, as well as free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months from the 19th day of July, 1866, and their descendants who reside within the limits of the Cherokee Nation, shall be taken and deemed to be citizens of the Cherokee Nation.
Smith Christie, President of the National Committee.
Approved: Will P. Ross
(continue to part 3)

[EliGrayson]

part 3....
At a general convention of the people of the Cherokee Nation, held at Tahlequah, Cherokee Nation, on the 28th day of November, A.D. 1866, for the purpose of taking into consideration the foregoing amendments to the constitution of the Cherokee Nation, and whereof Riley Keys, chief justice of the supreme court, was chosen president, and Budd Gritts secretary, the said amendments to the constitution of the Cherokee Nation were read, considered, and severally approved and adopted by the Cherokee people.
In testimony whereof the president and secretary of said convention have subscribed the same at Tahlequah, Cherokee Nation, on this the 28th day of November, A.D. 1866.
Riley Keys, President of the Convention. Budd Gritts, Secretary.
And whereas the said foregoing amendments to the constitution were duly submitted to said general convention of the Cherokee people, and were severally read, considered, and adopted on the 28th day November, A.D. 1866: Now therefore,
Be it known, That I, William P. Ross, principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, do issue this my proclamation, declaring said amendments to be a part of the constitution of the Cherokee Nation.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name this 7th day of December, A.D. 1866.
Will. P. Ross, Principal Chief

[tbone99]

There are many blacks who have documented ancestral ties to The Nation and are recognized as Cherokee. There are many Indian people who don't have that documentation and are not included in the tribe because they lack it. Some African Americans were affiliated thru slavery , and others paid lawyers to obtain witnesses saying they were affiliated with the tribe when the word got out, even though they were not.Some of this was because a land allotment was initially part of the deal

A law preventing slaves from becoming part of the tribe was written long before the Trail and certainly long before the Treaty was forced upon them.Just as any nation has the right to determine citizenship, so does the Cherokee nation.The Black caucus would be better off going after slavery reparations from those who instituted slavery- the U.S. govn't.

If people are not happy with the voting numbers they should petition for a revote and get people out .To be willing to destroy the sovereignity of all Indian nations would be another heartbreaking step in a long history of them.

Does the Black Caucus truly think this step is porportional to the mess the U.S. has foisted on us all.?

[redbow40]

tbone99- The issue you wrote regarding a law that was passed prior to the "trail of tears" and not allowing them to be citizens is very interesting. That is the first time I have heard that. I did a little research from the last discussion we had. From what I've read it's a stretch to even call the Freedmen "slaves". They were at best indentured servants. They were allowed to carry weapons, have money and own homes. They were also allowed to move around quite freely. Mr. Cornsilk on his website wrote that many Indian tribes owned slaves. The figure that I was able to see was 5 tribes. That hardly would qualify as many.

[JCornsilk]

Well redbow, I do not reacall saying that, but it would not surprize me that I would have, because it is a fact that long before the white man, there were slaves held by the Cherokee and YES many other Tribes, who were capatives in tribal wars, and when the white man started poping up with their black slaves, some of them white and black wound up as slaves of one tribe or another...

Who is to say what constitutes many, it can be a number from a couple meaning distinctly 2, maybe a couple of, or a few, which is not many, or several which may or may not be more than a few definitely more than a couple of, whitch may be referencing 2 or 3 but a couple with the "of" most of the time means 3. Several as more than a couple, definitely more than a few, could be equal to a small number of many, So yes many Tribes owned slaves!

John Cornsilk
Cherokee, CNO member!

[JCornsilk]

Well tbone99, your words ring of complete and total ingnorance, there is no need for that, there is a simple solution, simply go here http://www.cornsilks.com/johnarticles.htm and seriously read.

John Cornsilk
Cherokee, CNO Member!

[Podcast]

Mr. Cornsilk should apologize to tbone99 because his comment is right on. When Cornsilk emailed me I did not respond because I never respond to someone with such a hatred for a tribal leader like Chad Smith. It smacks of political revenge. I stand by my article as do the many, many members of the Cherokee Nation that contacted me with their definite approval of what I wrote. Tim

[JCornsilk]

Well Mr Giago,
As you said of your article, I stick by my comment to tbone, facts are facts as I lay them out in my articles I suggested he read, and the ones by my Son David on the same page as well.

And if you wish to persist in babbling on Cherokee issues, my suggestion would be you seriously read them as well and for corroboration of my words simply click the links you will find there...

As I tell other folks that accuse me of hating Chad smith, I tell you the same thing, I do not hate him, actually I pity him, for his apparent mental deficiency...what kind of a sane man does what he did to 2 women and 6 children?

I do most assuredly despise what he is and stands for. Now as for the Cherokee that wish to stand by your article, I would guess ALL are connected at the hip to the Swimmer/Mankiller Machine and beholden for their exagerated salaries to driver of the machine, Smith the dictator.

Now if you would like to discuss Cherokee issues such as Sovereignty, Cherokee Freedmen, Bogusness of CNO, history/culture of the Cherokee go to www.cornsilks.com click on John's Place Banner!

John Cornsilk
Cherokee, CNO Member!

[apok99]

"What gives the Congressional Black Caucus the right to interfere in the internal affairs of an independent sovereign Indian nation?"

Umm.. the fact they are duly-elected representatives and members of the law-making body of the United States? Congress does this ALL THE TIME with the internal affairs of states. They're not forcing them to do anything, just withholding funding. That's how our federal government has worked for decades now. It's like you're just learning this fact or something. I'm not equating states with indian nations, but are you any less outraged that the congress and president does this with education and highway funding and all sorts of other programs?

I'm not saying they SHOULD do this, but it's been a well-established legislative tool.

[DakotaSioux]

Thank you, Mr. Giago.

[JCornsilk]

May I ask, Thanks for what? This article by Mr Giagio appeared on my discussion forum, from a news source with no comment section, so I sent Mr. Giago an email, with no response as of yet.
Here are my words to Mr. Giago as sent in the email and posted on my forum and Indianz.com.
http://www.cornsilks.com.giagoemail.html

John Cornsilk
Cherokee Member of CNO!

[JCornsilk]

Wrong link here is the right one
http://www.cornsilks.com/giagoemail.htm

[redbow40]

Cont'd- They have been with you for over a century and walked with you on the "trail of tears". I believe in my heart the real problem is racism by the Cherokee Chief and tribal council. The Cherokee have a right to remove them if it's your will, but I as an American Indian am embarrassed and ashamed by your actions.
I hope that Indian people will see once and for all that the Democratic party doesn't give a damn about us. It's time for us as a people to seek out a political party that will support us. Last summer Obama and Clinton refused to attend our presidential debate in Southern California. Why do we support people who routinely abuse us? And what does that say about us as well?

[NDNlady]

Redbow, the impression that you (and most Americans) have that non-Indians descendants of freedmen "have been with you for over a century" is not true. It is part of a carefully crafted campaign of disinformation put forth by Rep Diane Watson. As I'm sure you know, Indian law is complicated and most MSM members have neither the time nor the ability to understand. So they have picked up the most inflammatory parts of the "story" and run with them. Following the Civil War, the Cherokee Nation extended citizenship to freed slaves and free blacks and this lasted for forty years.

At the turn of the century, CONGRESS abrogated our treaties, including any citizenship provisions, when it allotted our land and nearly destroyed our government. Under the US's own court decisions, actual freedmen HAD rights, modern day descendants do not. The CBC has claimed we are "breaking" a treaty in order to justify their own racist actions in attacking our right to self-government. We are an indigenous nation and we are entitled to define that through our citizenship laws. Cherokees kept our government alive in Cherokee communities and societies throughout the seventy years after allotment until our government re-organized. Since then, we have chosen to enroll only by Indian ancestry.

[JCornsilk]

Well NDNLady, your ignorance, or is it actually the same outright blatant regirgutation of equine excrement espoused by chad Smith and all the hawkers of the racist rhetoric, that eminates from the fingers of the fools!

All one has to do to know the facts of the matter, is study a little Cherokee History, and a very good start can be found in John's Articles at the top of the page at www.cornsilks.com, then within the site are documents that corroborate the laws cited by Watson in her Bill which can be found at Cornsilks as well.

For the act of the 1866 Treaty that made citizens of the Cherokee Freedmen to have only lasted 40 years as you said, the Treaty would have had to been abrogated by an Act of Congress, and it never has been to date, and Treaty is the Supreme Law of the land until Congress decides otherwize, "simple history 101"...

I have an Article being considered for publication in the American and Cali Cronicles, that will give you all the detail of this facet of historical Treaty Law and what it all is and means, read it when and if it hits the net, and shuck this suit of ignorance.

John Cornsilk
Cherokee, CNO Member!

[redbow40]

Tim, thanks again for the post. Prior to the Cherokee issue, the CBC had publicly boasted about their loyalty toward the first Americans. Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell the CBC that their votes are a matter of public record. The CBC's voting record on American Indian rights is unmatched, and should earn them a special lifetime achievement award at the KKK "hall of fame". The Republican party has a better voting record for Indian rights than the CBC. The CBC is telling the world that 2,500 Freedmen are worth more than 250,000 Cherokee. Wouldn't that be considered the epitome of racism? As far as the California Indian issue as it pertains to sovereignty is concerned, I raised that point before anyone the last time around. How can anyone say that it's wrong to exclude the Freedmen but you can kick out any other tribal members without question? The answer is the CBC doesn't care about Indians, they care about Black Americans only. I would like to ask a Cherokee person a question. Why would you exclude the Freedmen when you have opened up your rolls to so many anglos? The majority of your nation are now blond hair and blue eyed citizens. Is this really about your national sovereignty our about the fact that these are black people? I know you have the black Cherokee point, but really is this the way you want to express your humanity? The Freedmen are only 2,500.

[NW1]

Well Redbow,
I would ask why you are not equally outraged by the fact that the National Congress of the American Indian, the American Indian Movement ,Tim Giaggo, or any other Native American group or individual of political note has taken little to no action to address the dis-enrollments in California. Why would they even dare complain about what the Congressional Black Caucus has not done for non-African descent citizens of Native Nations when Native activists have done even less. Why would it take an African-American citizen like myself to speak-up on behalf of the Pechanga dis-enrollees when George Bush, Diane Watson, and Tim Giaggo said or did nothing.
Simple assertion; No one should lose an inalienable right like their citizenship based on their genetic heritage. That of course hinges on whether your are asserting national sovereignty or ethnic tribalism. If a sovereign nation chooses to change any definition which it is recognized for, than those nations that recognize it have a right to reconsider it's diplomatic relationship with the changing nation.
Some will allow this incident to debase into a Black v. Indian issue, but others are able to simply see a wrong that must be made right. If the NCAI were to step up and insist on the enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act Native nation citizens, regardless of their genetic heritage, inside the nations and tell the CBC to back off, I would understand that, but they haven't.

[digoweli]

What would the various Native African Nations say about being required to accept outsiders? Isn't this the problem with the Hutus and Tutsis? I believe that over one hundred forty two years, or likely seven generations, are enough for any family to become a member of a Nation. Maybe not a primitive tribe, but certainly a modern nation. But then there are those groups fighting all over Africa over similar issues.

Then again as the Cornsilks point out, just as in California, it is none of my business. They do seem to be on the right side of that issue. It is a paradox that the people who accepted the slaves as people were the ones who owned them. They slept with them, according to David Cornsilk, had children by them and lived outside the matrilineal traditional family law of the Cherokees. John Cornsilk makes the case that Ross Swimmer created a fraudulent Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma in the 1970s. But a careful reading of the 1828 Constitution, and pre-laws, shows me that the business interests were as alive and well in instigating that document as they were during Swimmer's tenure. Swimmer was a Republican banker and completely pro-private enterprise and not very traditionally conscious as the Elder Navajo women taught him during his failed tenure with the BIA.

The plot is as thick as a full blood's blood. But you can learn a lot if you study. I'm just not sure where it will take you. Digoweli