Congresswoman Watson Attacks the Cherokee Nation

I must take exception to a column by Congresswoman Diane Watson (D-CA) published on the huffingtonpost.com on Oct. 25, 2007.

Before anyone starts to complain about the perceived mess in the backyard of their neighbor, perhaps they should clean up their own backyard first.

This is particularly true in the case of the accusation leveled by Ms. Watson against the Cherokee Nation. Ms. Watson wrote, "The citizens of the Cherokee Nation voted last March to expel their black citizens in a manner that equaled if not surpassed the most vitriolic attack against African Americans in the once segregated South."

She then goes on to justify this untrue statement by bringing up an ancient historical fact that certain Indian tribes were slave owners. "As an independently recognized nation in the 19th Century, the Cherokee Nation embraced and promoted African slavery."

I wonder if Ms. Watson has ever visited the Cherokee Nation? If she did she would soon see that there are many Cherokee citizens of African American heritage living and working amongst the other Cherokee citizens.

When Oklahoma became a State one of its first acts was to take Cherokee lands, allot them to individual tribal members, not in trust, but by restricted fee. The allotees were given an option to take 40 acres of their 160 acre restricted fee allotments as homesteads to be held in restricted fee status for 21 years. The remaining 120 acres would be held in restricted fee status for three years. After that the county could tax the 120 acres, worse yet, non-Indian squatters could move on the 120 acres and eventually claim title through adverse possession. Today it is not uncommon to see 40 acre allotted tracts owned by Indians while whites own the remaining 120 acres.

Scheme after scheme by the white-controlled state and national governments were set into motion to divest the Cherokee and the other Indian nations of their lands. These actions violated every treaty ever signed between the Indian nations and the United States of America. The American government broke every treaty, including the Treaty of 1866 that Congresswoman Watson is so fond of quoting. Whether the 1866 Treaty granted citizenship to the Freedmen and their descendants is mute. The American government saw to that.

When the question of whether the Freedman were citizens of the Cherokee Nation was put on the ballot in March of 2007, 76 percent of the citizens of the Cherokee Nation voted NO. Principle Chief of the Cherokee Nation, Chad Smith said, "We believe the Treaty of 1866 never granted citizenship to the Freedmen and their descendants and that we have fully complied with our treaty obligations. We also believe that the Congress clarified that today's Freedmen descendants are not entitled to citizenship in the Nation by passing the Five Tribes Act in 1906. Regardless of what Congress believes, this issue is before the courts."

Congresswoman Watson hails from the mighty State of California. If she had bothered to look around in her own backyard she would have noticed that some of the most notorious actions of disenrollment of tribal members by sitting tribal governments is happening right under her nose. Several hundred former members of California tribes have been kicked out in the cold without apparent comment or action by Ms. Watson. Why then is she making herself such a thorn in the side of the people of the Cherokee Nation? I am pretty certain that there are a few thousand Indian people in her own state that wish she would pay attention to their state of disenrollment.

Congresswoman Watson's bill calls for the de facto termination of the Cherokee Nation and does away with $300 million in federal health, housing and other vital services provided to the Nation through their treaty rights. The Cherokee Nation has the same rights as the other more than 500 Indian nations to choose their own membership without fear of termination based on the false and erroneous beliefs of a Congresswoman from California.

Chief Smith said, "The Cherokee Nation will abide by the outcome of the ongoing litigation in the federal and tribal courts. Before rushing to judgment, we hope Congress will also let the courts decide this issue without political interference." Amen, I say to that.

I believe Congress has more important things to do than to interfere in the legal rights of the Indian nations. But if Ms. Watson is so keen on making judgments against the people of the Cherokee Nation, I suggest that she be just as adamant in her condemnation of other Indian nations, particularly those in her own state of California where disenrollment has become a way of life.

(Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota, was born, raised and educated on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. He was a Nieman Fellow at Harvard in the Class of 1991 and founder of The Lakota Times and Indian Country Today newspapers. He founded and was the first president of the Native American Journalists Association. He can be reached at [e-mail])

Comments

[tbone99]

I've thought of a solution.:

In order for the tribe to retain its sovereignity rights to determine it's own membership (now based on the dawes) Cherokee who support freedman inclusion legally adopt several.

Adoption is recognized in the tribe.Surely Rep.Watson can use the NAACP lawyers lined up to perform the legal manuveurs and there's enough baptist preachers in Okla to baptiize us all in the Ark. River as true believers in frybread.

Those who support the freedmen can go all out to get them in, and those opposed will have to admit they have new relatives even crankier than the ones they have now.LOL

BUT - I am not adopting delewaeye -unless redbow takes him for the summers, to break buffalo up north
or to L.A. to have a lattes in true California indian style. Decaf bro', please...

[kurux]

I implore Mr. Giago to do some more research on this subject. The Freedmen were readily accepted by my people, and this was never an issue until the Thinblooded (low blood quantum) elite slave-holding class of Cherokee Citizens became greedy, and did not want to share with their former slaves. Unfortunately, this is still the case, and individuals on this board are prime examples of that.

Ms. Ross's ancestors helped to establish slavery in our Nation. They were the White men who married the Cherokee women for their land. Today, we can still see their descendents trying for over a century to deny the Freedmen their civil rights which were extended to them by the Tribal majority after the Civil War.

Also if one does not care for the Freedmen, one can view Chad Smith's destructive policies by looking at the Delaware and Shawnee Tribes. Thery were adopted by the same 1866 treaty, which was used by Chad to keep them in the Cherokee Nation, when they wanted to leave.

[GayleRoss]

Thank you, Mr. Giago, for your support. Rep Watson's campaign of distortions could devastate the Cherokees. Her continued malicious misrepresentations of Cherokee history and modern Indian law play well to those who do not know anything about either one.

"If central governments wish to perpetuate Indigenous poverty, its attendant ills and bitterness, and its high costs, the best way to do so is to undermine tribal sovereignty and self-deter­mination."

Stephen Cornell, Indigenous Peoples, Poverty and Self-Determination in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management and Policy and the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, JOPNA No. 2006-2, 2006, p. 28.

[Rosagrace]

You are right in wondering if Watson ever visited the Cherokee Nation. She didn't. She came to Oklahoma and held meetings in Tulsa and Muskogee, but the meetings were pep rallies for the freedmen, not to rationally discuss any issues with the Cherokee Nation. She had one woman thrown out of the Muskogee meeting and when the woman's son, a Cherokee African-American, stood up and asked why she was wanting to stop his tribal benefits, Watson didn't even get the fact that that was what she was doing. When she was questioned about the Treaty of 1866, all she could do was quote one excerpt she had been spoon fed by the freedmen. Then she had the audacity to say she was a descendant of Pocahontas. If that is true, she should prove it. It shouldn't be that hard to do since Pocahontas married a white guy and only had one son. So don't kid yourselves into thinking she wanted to talk to the Cherokees when she came to Oklahoma. It was political grandstanding for the freedmen.

In fact, it is virtually impossible to talk to Diane Watson. She will not accept any contacts through her website unless you have an address in her district. She will not take calls, either. Which makes me wonder how a California congresswoman ever got involved in Oklahoma tribal politics anyway.

[kurux]

Our Cherokee Ancestors CHOSE to adopt the Freedmen as Citizens after the Civil war. this has been well documented in Cherokee History, and was done before we signed the 1866 treaty. The Elite mixed bloods, who leaned toward white society were the main opponents of the Freedmen one hundred years ago, and unfortunately still are today.

The clear example of choice to include the Freedmen, can be seen when one compares all the five tribes' treaties of 1866. These were all given to the 5 tribes on a boiler plate, and differnet points were then negotiated. The Cherokee 1866 treaty is the most inclusive of all, and outlines Federal remedies if any violations occur, which is exactly what is heppening. the other 5 tribes were less inclusive, with the Chickasaw Nation totally excluding their Freedmen from citizenship.

I wish Mr. Giago would do more research for his opinion piece. He should also know that Chad Smith administration chose to extinguish the Delaware tribe in Oklahoma based on the exact same language that both them and the Freedmen were adopted into the Cherokee NAtion. The Chief cannot have it both ways, and has already rubbed out an entire tribe with this exact same language.

[tbone99]

From a letter from the Asst Secty of Indian Affairs May 07.( the capitals are mine)....

"I also recognize the 1866 treaty as SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL in its REQUIREMENT that the CN recognize the rights of individual freedmen IN EXCHANGE FOR AMNESTY AND THE CONTINUATION OF THE GOV"T TO GOV"T RELATIONSHIP between the U.S. and the Nation."

In other words, it was coercian ...with the threat of continued federal aggression and/or starvation to a tribe recently relocated and fractured by one more white mans war.

[JonahsDad]

TimG wrote: I wonder if Ms. Watson has ever visited the Cherokee Nation?

It is easy enough to ask Bert Hammond, her legislative aide, but the answer is yes. Congresswoman Watson held meet-and-greets in Tulsa with Cherokees, it was reported in the Muskogee Phoenix, which counts as "the home page" inside the District.

TimG wrote: ... the ballot in March of 2007, 76 percent of the citizens of the Cherokee Nation voted NO.

Actually, the correct statement is that of the approximately 8,700 ballots cast in the March 2007 special referendum, by approximately 48,160 registered voters, or on a 18% turnout, approximately 6,600 ballots, or 13.7% of the registered vote, supported Chad Smith's disenfranchisement text. Substitute "14 percent" for "76 percent" and "currently registered voters" for "citizens" and Tim's text is correct. What 6.6k votes cast and 250k total citizens works out to is ... 2.6%.

I'm a Dawes Rolls Cherokee and I suppose I should get off the dime and enroll in the CNO and register to vote. However, I spent my Spring running the Leeds/Vann campaign website and while in Telequah shuttling the kids between the pool and the library while my spouse helped Stacy and Raymond in the campaign office. I'm OK with that.

And I have the CNO voter file. All 48,160 records. And I'm OK with that too.

It would be an improvement if we could write, at HuffPo, about the last Abramoff linked Republican executive of a gaming tribe, about ballots and voting and getting out the base, both good and bad, as Dems, rather than play patsys in Chad Smith's us-or-them faux pan-tribal black-and-white diorama, until his next re-election cris de coeur.

[kurux]

Chad Smith has spent $4mil of my people's money to try and spin this issue in his favor, and unfortunately it seems to be working on some outsiders like Tim giago.

I would just ask Tim, if he Tells his own Lakota Tribe that the Treaty's are mute as they constantly fight for their sacred Black Hills? Watson's bill re-inforces the treaty of 1866, which was abrogated by implication in the Mar. 3rd vote.

Also, 76% of 3% of our tribe voted for disenrollment, so 2.3% of our entire tribe is settting precident, how can anyone see this as a mandate of my people's will? Chad disregards our own courts decision when he moved to disenroll the Freedmen, why would he do any different now?

Chads PR machine can be convincing, but I only have to remind Tim of back in the day when he fought his own tyrant, a MR. Dickey Wilson. What if congress curbed Wilson before it all got out of hand at Pine Ridge? that is what Watson is trying to do for the Cherokee Nation. Chad smith is a greedy politician in the mold of Dickey Wilson, and should be viewed as such by all indian people, especially the sioux.

[wisemommaerts]

1.It's a fact native tribes had slaves. 1st reported in de Soto's expedition. It was aboriginal bondage but with colonization of by Europeans, natives had to resort to chattel slavery because of quashed warfare by "civilizing". Don't try to say the Cherokees didn't have slaves. That's like saying the Holocaust never happened. Plenty of evidence for both. Read books, other than the white man's, by scholars, historians & anthropologists who've done the research, if you aren't going to do it yourself: Theda Perdue, Circe Sturm & Daniel Littlefield.
2. You can't say come look & you can see. So what? It's 2007, not 1800. Of course, there's no slavery in Cherokee land today.
3. 76% of citizens of the Cherokee Nation did NOT say NO. There are 250,000 citizens of the Cherokee Nation. Only 8,743 voted in the March 3 election, 6,702 in favor (76%) & 2,041 not (23%). Voting NO meant intermarried whites and freedmen enrollees & descendants would be eligible for citizenship. What you probably meant to say was 76% voted YES, but you still would be wrong. Check Cherokee Nation facts, www.cherokee.org. How does 3% of the citizenship constitute an overwhelming turnout? I'd say it's overwhelmingly sad.
4. You say the Treaty of 1866 should not be used to determine citizenship because the U.S. is notorious for not keeping treaty obligations. Okay, the 1866 treaty is void, then all treaties are including those adopting Delaware & Shawnee recognized as citizens and those that pay Native American tribes millions for retribution. Let's not forget the U.S. gives money to federally recognized tribes. The Cherokee Nation alone was to get $270 million for 2008.
5. As for your accusation of Watson's silence regarding natives in California, I not done my research on that. I guarantee, I won't be taking your word on it.
PEOPLE, this is proof you can't believe anything you read until you do your own research. Even people who claim to be experts because they're part of the group are not going to know all the facts or willingly omit facts.

[PaulinaHunter]

Tim asks why Congresswoman Watson is not looking in her own backyard.

I'm here to say: SHE IS! She has had meetings with the AIRRO organization, and met with disenrolled people of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of Temecula CA.

Tim, I'll ask you: Why haven't you done more to highlight the tragedy of disenrollment in CA?

Pechanga is spending tons of money trying to improve their bad press that they have been getting from many blogs, including:

Original Pechanga’s Blog

John’s Disenrollment Blog

Tribal Corruption

Pechanga Disenrolled website

as well as my own: Paulina Hunter's blog

Do some more reporting on California's Tribal Disenrollments.

Come take a look at all of them.

[MBW]

Chief Smith declares again and again, "Let the courts decide," and yet always fails to mention that the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court (Judicial Appeals Tribunal of the Cherokee Nation) determined in Lucy Allen v. Cherokee Nation Tribal Council (JAT-04-09) that, under the 1866 Treaty, the Freedmen, like other non-Cherokee peoples, e.g., the Shawnee and Delaware, were made citizens of the Cherokee nation, and that the Cherokee Nation did not have the right to unilaterally abrogate the Treaty.

It should also be noted that less than 10% of eligible Cherokee voters participated in the March 2007 referendum disenfranchising citizens of Freedmen descent. So how is it that Smith can one, claim the Cherokee have the right to abrogate the treaty without consequences, and two, assert that it is the "will" of the Cherokee people that the Freedmen be disenfranchised, when so few cast their ballots.

It's important to realize that this is not a recent move on Chad Smith's part - in 2003, Smith hired Jack Abramoff to represent Cherokee interests, including the desire to disenfranchise their political enemies (and it should be noted that it was Ross Swimmer, as the first elected Principal Chief, who attempt to toss out the Freedmen, since they opposed his re-election candidacy.) The person to whom Smith and Abramoff plead their case was Dep. Secretary Steven Griles, recently sentenced to jail for abusing his office, in regards to issues such as this. Abramoff donated to Smith's 2002 campaign for Principal Chief, at the same time Griles hired Ross Swimmer to head up the Special Trustee's office. One one occasion during his interview process, Swimmer met with Griles with a representative of a nuclear fuel storage company for which Swimmer's wife was a lobbyist.

This is not about race or Indian sovereignty. It's about internal politics, revenge and greed. We Indians need to start policing our own, and to recognize that just because a chief cries "sovereignty" in a crowded theater, we shouldn't all run for the exits.

MB Williams (wampum.wa­banaki.net­)

[ChahtaLusa]

Tim, you infer the Congresswoman should look around and will note the disenrollment of southern Calif. Tribes, has anyone from those affect tribes approached her or any other politician from the southern Calif. area to voice their concerns?

Why is the abrogation of a treaty a "perceived mess" rather than the mess the Chief made by his complicity in the "special election" to remove the freedmen?

He has not been innocent in this affair and the history of the Five Slaveholding Tribes towards anyone "perceived" to be black has been a problem since day one.

For someone who received a fellowship from Harvard, your repeating "verbatim" the words (rhetoric) of "He Who Shall Not Be Named" belies your credentials.

The Cherokee's have not shown any interest in diversity, they have made it clear those with "Indian blood" they don't say Cherokee blood for some strange reason, are welcomed, that is not diversity, that is eugenics.

The fact that other tribes are removing people who have "Indian" blood is not a product of "an all Indian" tribe, it is a manifestation of politics and greed and you sir should know better!

You all want to holler to the rafters that you have sovereignty and want to be left to your own devices, but as long as the Treaty of 1866 is considered in force, and their are people who seek to have it enforced (to their benefit) don't ask Congress to fund your eugenics program at their expense.

[Poboy]

The Cherokee Nation should be ashamed of itself for disowning and disenfranchising its citizens of African descent, albeit by majority vote.

I fully support Rep. Watson efforts, and I hope she is successful.

Greed should not come before blood!

[bmermaid]

What is really hard to understand is why 99.99% of the American people don't know anything about American Indian issues, and don't care, and even of those that care, a lot of the information they get is incorrect.

We should all care about minority issues, and try to inform ourselves, if only because decent human beings do care about our neighbors. But also because if we allow Minorities to be treated poorly, we are forgetting that all of us will be in the minority at some point, and thus will be in peril ourselves.

Please keep writing Mr. Giago.

[redbow40]

Right on Tim, thanks for exposing her.