Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think reparations are in order. The indifference of those who currently and indirectly benefit from the evil that devastated successive generations of descendants of slaves, must be ignored. Time to make black people in this country whole. This should include financial compensation of such a magnitude that it immunes blacks from the effects of racism and white privilege. It should include educational incentives that enable every black person to obtain the highest of degrees in every field from the best universities in the world. It should include programs to help those blacks whose lives have been decimated by racism, transition into a life of high educational achievement, great wealth, and enlightenment. It should include a mechanism to provides qualified blacks with a majority share of every major corporation in this country. So on and so forth.
We already have that. It's called affirmative action and hiring quotas.
Quote:
Absolutely ludicrous this notion that a native American tribe can exclude blacks from its ranks, subjecting them to further hardships or reduced benefits.
What, taking away taxpayer funded education, housing, food, medical care, and education is subjecting them to hardships? What about the millions of Americans who don't get this special treatment? Time to earn your living and stop making others pay for you.
I am looking at it objectively. I don't like the special status just because of the past. If Cherokees think they are an independent nation, they should be treated like one. That however raises questions for instance regarding dual citizenship, which should be resolved symmetrically.
Neuling, it is not special status. Indian law is complex, so much so that the University of Tulsa Law School has an Indian Law division for law students to speacialize. Anyway, due to much of the American law and treaties signed with the many different tribes is why tribes have a Sovereign status. I don't know the exact year, but in the early eighties there was yet another Indian Law, "The Self-Determination Act". That act was to remove much of the power that the BIA held over tribes. It was meant to make tribes less dependent, which was the fault of the U.S., not the tribes. The Self-Determination Act allowed all tribes to once again (they had done so in the past, but the U.S. disallowed it during the Dawes-Severance Act era....I think that was the time) once again write their own constitutions.
Tribes are different than any other entity in the U.S. Tribes have a government to government status with the U.S. I know that in Oklahoma the tribal boundadries that were in existance before the land run have never been disestablished and the federal government recognizes those boundaries. Also, the tribes have their own constitutions, courts and legal system.
Tribes determine the requirements to become an enrolled tribal member, but one thing that is required is that people must be able to trace their blood to an ancestro on the Dawes Rolls. Not just anyone can enroll. You must have blood of that particular tribe. The Freedman most certainly did come with the Five Civilized Tribes to Indian Territory when America's Hitler, Andrew Jackson put them in shackles and chains and forced them out of the South and the Southeast. Long afterwards, during the Dawes era, the Freedmen were enrolled, but the were enrolled as Cherokee-Freedmen, or Muscogee-Freedmen or Seminole Freedmen, or Chicaksaw or Choctaw Freedmen. They were not consideder Indian 'by blood', but they DID also receive land allotments.
Now, once the Indian Self-Determination Act became law each tribe wrote a new constitution. That is when they decided the requirements of enrollment, (i.e., most tribes required a certain degree of blood, but some tribes later changed that and only required that the individual must prove descendency to an INDIAN who was on the original Dawes Roll)
Personally, I think the Freemen who trace their descendency to an enrolled Freedman should be able to enroll with the tribe, but as a Freedman. The tribe could amend their constitution to allow what things they are allowed. For instance, my tribe enrolls people who can prove their decendency to someone on the original Dawes Rolls, but.......you must be at a minimum of 1/4 Muscogee to run for office, and there are some other things, but that is jsut an example.
Neuling, it is not special status. Indian law is complex, so much so that the University of Tulsa Law School has an Indian Law division for law students to speacialize. Anyway, due to much of the American law and treaties signed with the many different tribes is why tribes have a Sovereign status. I don't know the exact year, but in the early eighties there was yet another Indian Law, "The Self-Determination Act". That act was to remove much of the power that the BIA held over tribes. It was meant to make tribes less dependent, which was the fault of the U.S., not the tribes. The Self-Determination Act allowed all tribes to once again (they had done so in the past, but the U.S. disallowed it during the Dawes-Severance Act era....I think that was the time) once again write their own constitutions.
Tribes are different than any other entity in the U.S. Tribes have a government to government status with the U.S. I know that in Oklahoma the tribal boundadries that were in existance before the land run have never been disestablished and the federal government recognizes those boundaries. Also, the tribes have their own constitutions, courts and legal system.
Tribes determine the requirements to become an enrolled tribal member, but one thing that is required is that people must be able to trace their blood to an ancestro on the Dawes Rolls. Not just anyone can enroll. You must have blood of that particular tribe. The Freedman most certainly did come with the Five Civilized Tribes to Indian Territory when America's Hitler, Andrew Jackson put them in shackles and chains and forced them out of the South and the Southeast. Long afterwards, during the Dawes era, the Freedmen were enrolled, but the were enrolled as Cherokee-Freedmen, or Muscogee-Freedmen or Seminole Freedmen, or Chicaksaw or Choctaw Freedmen. They were not consideder Indian 'by blood', but they DID also receive land allotments.
Now, once the Indian Self-Determination Act became law each tribe wrote a new constitution. That is when they decided the requirements of enrollment, (i.e., most tribes required a certain degree of blood, but some tribes later changed that and only required that the individual must prove descendency to an INDIAN who was on the original Dawes Roll)
Personally, I think the Freemen who trace their descendency to an enrolled Freedman should be able to enroll with the tribe, but as a Freedman. The tribe could amend their constitution to allow what things they are allowed. For instance, my tribe enrolls people who can prove their decendency to someone on the original Dawes Rolls, but.......you must be at a minimum of 1/4 Muscogee to run for office, and there are some other things, but that is jsut an example.
Still, I think they are hurting their own image with those actions. They appear like some Nazis obsessed with blood and genes... I don't like the unilateral character of the relationship between the US and Indian nations. They enjoy all the rights and privileges of both their nation and the US, but don't have to observe US laws they don't like.
And again, one might wonder what the real reasons for that decision are. Since they earn a lot from Casinos and they even have oil on their land, it can't be money
Are Cherokees on the verge of extinction? Hardly... Unless masses of young Cherokees decide to live in the US instead of their own nation, which would turn their nation into a kind of giant open-air museum and raise the questions why that is
Still, I think they are hurting their own image with those actions. They appear like some Nazis obsessed with blood and genes... I don't like the unilateral character of the relationship between the US and Indian nations. They enjoy all the rights and privileges of both their nation and the US, but don't have to observe US laws they don't like.
And again, one might wonder what the real reasons for that decision are. Since they earn a lot from Casinos and they even have oil on their land, it can't be money
Are Cherokees on the verge of extinction? Hardly... Unless masses of young Cherokees decide to live in the US instead of their own nation, which would turn their nation into a kind of giant open-air museum and raise the questions why that is
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,163,488 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Lexus
......I think reparations are in order......
Haven't we paid reparations over and over again? Talk about bad karma! Maybe modern urban African-Americans (the culture more than the race) should pay reparations to all the other ethnic and racial groups in this country.
Haven't we paid reparations over and over again? Talk about bad karma! Maybe modern urban African-Americans (the culture more than the race) should pay reparations to all the other ethnic and racial groups in this country.
It is the Cherokee Nation. It appears to me that the Cherokee wants only members with Cherokee blood, on the rolls. It was their choice, 77% chose this path, and it's their decision.
Um see but it's not their choice they have treaty obligations to uphold. I don't understand why this is difficult for people to grasp.
Um see but it's not their choice they have treaty obligations to uphold. I don't understand why this is difficult for people to grasp.
This is all very true. People don't seem to understand. It's not about reparations. It's not about paying for past injustices. It is all about legal documents called Treaties. These treaties were passed as acts of congress and signed by the President of the United States. These treaties have the force of law and are binding legal documents between nations.
What's it gonna be now? As I stated in another post,
"Is is now the agenda of the American people to deny these treaties?"
First they killed the people. Then they took the land and gave us a treaty in it's place. Now they want to take away the treaty.
Does the greed ever stop?
It is the Cherokee Nation. It appears to me that the Cherokee wants only members with Cherokee blood, on the rolls. It was their choice, 77% chose this path, and it's their decision.
There are many Cherokee (and those from other tribes) who are also of African ancestry AND hold onto the tradition and culture of the Native American tribes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
