Cherokee expulsion of Freedmen
Find out what historical circumstances led the Cherokee Nation’s expulsion of black Freedmen from their tribe in 2011 by reading the New York Times discussion below. Which of the 8 bloggers do you agree with most and why? What does this discussion illuminate about Indian sovereignty and race in America?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/15/tribal-sovereignty-vs-racial-justice
Read the nytimes article and respond to the question using your best blogging abilities. Your entry should be about 100 words.
Due September 26.
I agree with Joanne Barker’s debate. In her debate, she brings up that the tension between the African-American slaves and the Cherokee natives started when the Cherokees first adopted slavery. The Cherokees no longer accept the children of intermaried parents in their tribe either. I believe that the Cherokees are walking on thin ice because while they see this issue as a sovereignty ruling, others see this as strictly racist. The fact that the Cherokees are kicking out the Freedmen from their tribe and taking away all their benefits from being in the tribe as well is also convincing that it has to do with race. They are keeping only the “pure” Cherokees, and kicking out all the others.I think that this shows that sovereignty has superiority over race in America because the Cherokees are able to take a whole race out of their tribe and not have to explain why due to the tribe’s “sovereignty.”
I agree most with Carla D. Pratt’s debate. She argues that the Cherokee Tribe has no right to exclude Freedmen from their tribe, because it was originally Federal sentence for the Cherokee to accept Blacks into their tribe following the Civil War. The Cherokee were not discriminatory towards Blacks until they began to assimilate into American society and own slaves. They were then forced in 1866 as punishment for siding with the Confederacy in the war to allow Blacks into their tribe, who became “Freedmen”. So, though today they have “sovereignty” to make decisions within their tribe, they do not have the privilege to discern the members of their tribe by blood, because legally, Freedmen are part of the Cherokee tribe.
I disagree with Joanne’s statement that Cherokees should be so concerned about the issue of racism and headlines in the newspapers and on tv. As Heather Williams (a freedmen descendant herself)states, the American Nation basically needs to stay out of what is going on within the Cherokee nation, because it is a very confusing and complicated nation. It is very clear that something the Cherokees care a lot about is their identity as a whole. Indian abcestory is very crucial to their nation and is a key factor in what makes them an indian nation at all. If this is taken away, then can the cherokees really be called an indian or native american at all? I think that if ancestory is so important to them, then they should be allowed to enforce rules upon it. Just as Americans considder America a Melting Pot. It is the American way to be accepting of many different races and cultures because that is the way our history has always gone for us and is what makes us an American Nation. If it were any different, then would we be considdered American? It is the same idea with the Cherokees. They treat ancestory with the same amount of importance as we do of acceptance of different cultures.
The question of who should be considered “Indian” is a very complicated question. I agree with Kevin Noble Maillard that this comes down to who was indigenous, and who was not. These freedmen were a part of the Cherokee culture and played an important role in their tribe. The Freedmen were indigenous people and have certain rights. Who here has the right to say “I’m a real Indian” and tell them that they weren’t important to the Indian culture? In 1866 a treaty was passes that gave the descendants of slaves full rights as citizens. I believe people need to stick to facts and not look at certain members of the tribe as sovereign or superior. However, I also believe that my opinion may be inaccurate because I am not a member of the Cherokee tribe. I agree with Cara Cowan-Watts and Heather Williams that outsiders cannot judge the Cherokee nation. Should the U.S. government really be able to define who is an Indian without input from the Cherokees? As outsiders, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions about the Cherokee, and should give them a chance to define who they are themselves.
I agree most with Heather Williams. She is a descendent of a non-Indian freedman, and is often asked about the controversy. The controversy is being portrayed wrongly by outsiders she says. Heather also says that the Cherokee nation is very diverse and welcoming, which says something about race. It says that race doesn’t matter, all that matters is preserving the Indian identity. Preserving the Indian identity means looking back to ancestry to make sure that the people who are part of the tribe have the bond needed for it to flourish. Which I agree with, there cannot be people who don’t understand the Cherokee culture part of the tribe it won’t help them get anywhere. Heather talks about the court’s decision about having Indian blood and that they need to abide by it because the tribal and federal courts have the sovereign right to decide who does or does not have the right to be a Cherokee citizen. Their nation like any other should have the right to determine who can be a citizen. Overall, I agree with Heather in the fact that all that matters is the Indian identity as individuals and people.
While reading all the different perspectives on the debate on the Cherokee Indians its easy to see how the answer to that question cannot be just a simple yes or no. Personally I agreed most with Heather Williams because she can see both sides to the debate,to her the most important part of being Indian is conserve the Indian identity whether it be through direct blood relation or through descendants. This seems a lot like what America is, the united states is a melting pot just like the Cherokee nation, no should be excluded just because they aren’t directly blood related. All in all Heather knows that the Cherokees will abide by anything the courts decide, however she also understands that sometimes it isn’t just the blood that makes you Indian or not.
Over all I agree with Heather Williams because with her background she is able to see both sides of the situation. Heather said she is often asked by others her opinions on the debate because of her being both the Cherokee and freedman backgrounds. She explains in her argument that the public usually misinterprets the issue on it having to do with race but really the problem is only about preserving the Indian identity. In the end Heather understands that her people must abide by the rules oh the Indian court and that she does understand their decision and effort of trying to preserve their nation and beliefs of their people.
Well reading all the different points of view on the Cherokee’s the person that I agree with the most is Clara D. Pitt. The reason that I agree with her the most is because she brings up the point that in 1866 the Cherokee’s agreed to a treaty that made it law that all the Blacks would be part of the Cherokee Nation, and yet now they say that is Blacks can’t be tribal members because federal law requires Indian ancestry. This doesn’t make sense because the treaty of 1866 made it the law that the Blacks were part of the Nation, but now they are saying that they are not. This discussion aluminates that sovereignty has superiority over race in America because the Cherokees can just take a whole part of their tribe out and be ok with it because of sovereignty.
having read about many different points of view on the Cherokee nation the person that I agree with is Clara D. Pitt. I agree with her the most because she brings up that in 1866 the Cherokee’s agreed to a treaty that made it law that all the Blacks would be part of the Cherokee Nation, however now they say that Blacks can’t be tribal members because federal law requires native ancestry. This doesn’t make any sense because the treaty of 1866 made it the law that the freed Blacks were part of the Nation, but now they say that they aren’t. This discussion shows that sovereignty has a higher place over race in America because the Cherokees can take a whole part of their tribe out and be just fine with it because of their sovereign.
I agree with the points made by Heather Williams. I like how her main focus was on the identity of the Cherokee nation but also how she was able to see both sides of the argument. While reading about their fear of losing their identity, I thought back to the fear of losing their identity in the frontier and how they had to assimilate. Is it possible that the Cherokees are thinking back and remembering what their ancestor gave up? I believe that the past with assimilation only plays a minor role in the decision. The bigger picture is the fear that people will come in wanting to change a tribe and their ways that has been respected for so long. Williams’s post further exemplifies how much of an influence the past has on the present.
After reading all the arguments, I agree with Heather Williams the most. She is a member of the Cherokee nation herself, a descendant of non-Indian Freedmen, and therefore can see both sides of the argument. It is clear from her argument, that the Cherokee’s decision to eliminate a group of Freedmen from the tribe is not a result of racism, but simply the need to preserve the Indian identity. The Cherokee Nation should have the right to define themselves and their identity however they choose without interference from outside sources. On the other hand, I do agree with Clara D. Pitt’s statement that in 1866, the Cherokee’s signed a treaty, in which they agreed to take in any of the slaves as Freedmen and consider them as part of the tribe. The fact that the tribe assimilated into white culture over time would explain why they are suddenly going against this treaty.
After reading the 8 different viewpoints, i agree most with Carla D. Pratt. Her view is summed up in a clear, concise phrase: “It is said that knowing one’s history is the best way not to repeat it. If that is true, the Cherokees don’t fully understand their history.” Pratt wants to put forth her view that the Cherokee never truly forgot their racist view towards blacks in their communities. This is true to an extent because as the Cherokee sought to assimilate to the Europeans in the frontier, they changed their own ideology on blacks. Cherokees treated blacks as whites treated blacks, and Cherokees sought to find a foundation where they could relate to the whites. However, when the Cherokees were forced to treat the Trial of Tears in 1838, their whole perspective of the whites changed; their persistence in trying to assimilate to the whites was completely eradicated. Thus, now that the Cherokee are sovereign, they still have not forgot their views towards blacks, which they had originally attained from the whites. So, when the Cherokees want to take out the influence of Freedmen in their societies, they are truly going against their own views because at one time they were also striving to assimilate(as the blacks are doing) to another race, and they did face defeat. So why repeat history? In a sense Indian sovereignty has its roots embedded in white views and is not exactly based on just the ancestral views of the Indians themselves.
After reading the 8 different debates, I agree most with Carla D. Pratt. She brings up an excellent point saying that the Cherokee are being hypocrites. They show their hypocrisy when they decide to expel black freedmen from their nation, because up until that point it was part of their law that blacks would be accepted in their nation. This goes against what Heather Williams said in the following quite, “The Cherokee Nation I know is one of the most diverse, welcoming societies I’ve ever seen.” If they are that welcoming and diverse, why do they decide to expel a race from their nation? While the Cherokee have the sovereignty to run their own tribe, I think it is wrong and highly hypocritical to go against their own law to ban an entire race from their nation, because at one point they accepted them.
According to Carla D. Pratt, “Early in their history, they [the Cherokee] adopted a former slave woman of African ancestry into the tribe and exercised their sovereignty to keep her as a citizen of the tribe.” Pratt argues that this changed once the Cherokee assimilated into American culture. The move to include African slavery in their tribe along with adopting other English customs would establish a belief among the white community that the Cherokee had “civility” and potential equality among whites. If such an equality were to be established, then perhaps an agreement could be produced among the two cultures that each has equal right to land, something the Indians had been struggling with for years. Though the Proclamation of 1763 seemed to be a solution to stop white settlers from taking over Native land, it was not permanent. In Pratt’s blog, she mentions the Treaty of 1866 that restored Freedmen’s citizenship into the Cherokee tribe, granting them equal tribal privileges. This Treaty lasted until 2007 when Chief Chad Smith called a constitutional referendum against the tribal court’s agreement to keep the treaty in effect. This referendum led to blood quantum laws, which determined one’s tribal citizenship on the amount of Indian blood they actually had. Though Pratt’s blog answers why the Cherokee Nation expelled black Freedmen from their tribe, I agree most with Heather Williams. Williams defended the Cherokee Nation, who gave her full citizenship even though she comes from a family of black Freedman. Williams emphasized that the Cherokee only want to preserve and understand their identity by stressing the importance of their lineage as a culture. The reason behind a further understanding of their culture is due to the fact that many other cultures, such as European settlers, have tried to erase their customs and beliefs by converting them to other religions or creating treaties. This is evident in documents such as the Concord Treaty of 1646. Williams closes her argument in response to criticism of Cherokee efforts to utilize blood quantum, “’Who decides who is an Indian?’ Does the United States government decide? Does misinformed public opinion decide? Or do Indians decide?”
In reading the eight different debates, I agree most with the argument made by Carla D. Pratt. In her argument, Pratt explains her belief that the Cherokee Nation has no right in denying the Freedmen of their rights, seeing as Federal Law required them to give these Freedmen equal tribal citizenship. The Cherokee Nation had never begun to expel the Freedmen from their tribe until the Cherokees began to assimilate into American culture. It seems as if the Cherokees not only adopted many American ways of life, but also American ideology, that included prejudice against Blacks. This prejudice is clearly still present in the Cherokee Nation’s Supreme Court decision, thought because the Cherokees are bound by the Treaty of 1866, they therefore do not have the right to expel the Freedmen from their tribe.
After reading all 8 viewpoints on The Cherokee Nation Supreme Court’s decision to expel most black Cherokees, the person I agree with the most is Carla D. Pratt. Her point of view seems to make a lot of sense. She believes the Cherokee were once a tribe who were racially unbiased. However, this changed after the Indians became more assimilated into white culture. The Indians developed the same attitude of blacks as the whites did. They have seemed to have passed this attitude to many modern day Cherokee’s. Black Indians are called Freedmen, and although they enjoyed equal tribal citizenship, they were never considered to be true Indians. Pratt feels that the attitude many Cherokees have about Freedmen and the feeling that they are not true Indians is the driving force behind the decision to disqualify anyone classified as Freedmen.
I agree with Heather Williams in that outsiders should not judge the Cherokee Nation. As a Cherokee member herself, she states that it is confusing and that outsiders dont truelly understand what is going on, and therefore should not get involved. I also agree with Carla D. Pratt because the Cherokee Nation should not be denying the Freedmen rights to citizenship in the Cherokee tribe. In 1866, decendants of slaves and Freedmen were included in citizen rights to the Cherokees. The Cherokee tribe should stick to the former facts rather than let the assimilation to American culture affect who is and isn’t a member of the Cherokee Nation. With this assimilation, the Cherokee’s devolped a racist view of blacks, which greatly affected the black members of the tribe. Racism should not be the reason for expelling tribe members though, and if they were once considered members their descendants should also be considered members.
I agree mostly with Heather Williams because she can see the Cherokee side and the non-Indian Freedmen side. This gives her insight that outsiders do not understand. Everyone has to follow the rules, but according to Cara Cowan-Watts, from 1898 to 1914, people of mixed ethnicity rejected citizenship to the Cherokee Nation and that decision impacted their decedents. Therefore it is not their fault for what their ancestors chose. This discussion shows that the Cherokees changed their ideology as they assimilated into American culture. They say that they have no racial bias against people of African decent and that that it is “one of the most diverse, welcoming societies”, but now they are excluding the black Freedmen because they lack “Indian blood.”
After carefully reading all of the articles, Carla D. Pratt made the best arguments. She begins with a bold statement that Cherokees perhaps do not even understand their own history, but backs it up with a variety of valid points. For a long time the former slaves of Cherokee Indians were adopted into the tribe and known as Freedmen, however as the Cherokees began to conform to the American lifestyle, they picked up certain prejudices and ultimately the Freedmen were expelled from the tribe. In 2007 when controversy arose about the amount of Indian blood the Freedmen actually had, the Freedmen received the “short end of the stick” and were disqualified in a sense. Even though the Freedmen had equal tribal citizenship, they were never considered true Indians because of the color of their skin. Because of this belief, the Cherokees believed they had the grounds to eliminate the former slaves altogether.
I most agree with Kevin Noble Maillard after reading each of the 8 arguments. Maillard writes that the Cherokee tribe claims sovereignty in providing citizenship to the Freedmen, but underlying this, race protrudes through. His analogy of the sovereignty sauce gives a good description of the issue. There are many components added into what the Cherokee are calling “sovereignty” that it is not solely the power anymore, but discrimination added to it. In order to seem as a non-prejudicial group, the Cherokee do not say that race is their main factor for denying citizenship, when it is. The Freedmen were a large part of the tribe and contributed to how it formed and the way it is today. The 1866 Treaty gives the Freedmen descendants a right to citizenship, yet the sovereignty and intolerance are not giving them what they truly deserve.
The issue of the Cherokee Nation expelling the once accepted Freedmen was greatly debated throughout the 8 viewpoints. I support the argument of Tiya Miles more than any of the other because of her insight into the minds of the freedmen. Miles compares the Cherokee members to the Freedmen and points out key flaws in the argument that they are not true Indians. For example, she states that Freedmen are normally called Indian “descendants” while Cherokee are referred to as Indian “by blood.” However, Miles goes on to say that most Cherokees are “descendants” of slave-owners, anti slave activists, and even slaves. By pointing out this similarity, it makes one wonder how the two groups are really that different. Because of this important comparison, the argument that the expulsion of Freedmen from the Cherokee nation was racially fueled is proved. Miles’ article shows that the Cherokee are abusing their sovereignty to bypass important race laws of the United States as well as the racial tension that still exists today throughout any nation. Overall, Tiya Miles’ viewpoint is the most valuable in the debate over the expulsion of Freedmen from the Cherokee nation because it is the most thought provoking and convincing while greatly supporting one important side of the argument.
After reading the eight articles, I agree with Carla D. Pratt the most. In the first paragraph, she explains that the Cherokees don’t fully understand their history because they have not learned from it. She says that after the Civil War, the Cherokees agreed to allow Freedmen into their tribe, and therefore, they became citizens of their nation. She argues that since the Freedmen were members of the tribe back in the 1860′s they should be members of the tribe currently. I agree with this statement because it is unfair to classify who is technically Indian and who is not. Yes the Freedmen were not technically Indians back in the 1860′s, but they were given tribal memberships and therefore should not be discriminated against. It is unfair to classify the descendents of the Freedmen not members of the tribe nearly 150 years after they were given tribal membership. This discussion expresses that in Indian tribes, sovereignty clearly overrides race because the Cherokees deliberately declared the descendents of the Freedmen not members of the Cherokee culture because of their race.
After reading all eight of the different viewpoints, I agree the most with Carla D. Pratt. Pratt, a law professor at Penn State University states that “Early in their (the Cherokee’s) history, they adopted a former slave woman of African ancestry into the tribe and exercised their sovereignty to keep her as a citizen of the tribe.” Why then, if the Cherokee were so accepting of African Americans would they not allow the freedmen to be legally considered citizens of the Cherokee Nation? The change in their acceptance came after assimilation into white society. After assimilating, not only did the Cherokees share the language and conform to the social norms of white society, but they adopted the whites’ prejudices against African Americans as well. After the assimilation the Cherokees felt they were on the same level of equality with whites, above the freed slaves. In 2007, the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court determined the Cherokee Nation had to abide by the Treaty of 1866, meaning the freedmen were indeed Cherokees. But a Cherokee chief would not accept this ruling and demanded a constitutional referendum, to expel the freedmen. The ancestors of said chief would have been appalled at this action, as they accepted former slaves of African descent into the tribe even before the Treaty of 1866. I believe that it was indeed assimilation into the white society that caused the Cherokee to share the whites’ prejudice against African Americans. This discussion shows that Indian tribes still do have sovereignty, as in 2007, the referendum made to the Cherokee Nation constitution annulled a U.S treaty. It also shows that racial prejudices are not yet gone.
I agree mostly with the viewpoints of Heather Williams. Since she is a Cherokee and a descendant of a non-Indian freedman she is asked about the controversy involving the expulsion of black freedmen in the Cherokee nation often and understands both sides. Because she grew up in the Cherokee Nation she knows that it is a very diverse and welcoming society but she also understands that the outsiders do not know this and portray it wrong. She believes that the most important part of preserving the Cherokee identity is through Indian ancestry. Williams also believes that the focus of this issue of citizenship should not be based on race but on what is the best way to save the Indian identity.
After reading all of the documents i have to side with Kevin Milliard because he says that the Cherokee tribe claims sovereignty in giving Freedmen their citizenship, but underneath all of that there is the issue of racism. Kevin used the analogy of the “sovereignty sauce” to describe the issue. However none of the Indian tribes want to be viewed as racist or prejudice against the Freedmen so they say that the reason why they aren’t giving the freedmen citizenship is because of “sovereignty”. the fact is is that the Freedmen were a large part of the tribes history and helped to shape it to be what it is today. The 1866 treaty gave the decedents of Freedmen rights to citizenship yet because of intolerance and racism they are being denied of their rights.
I agree most with Carla D. Pratt and her belief that it is unfair for the Cherokee tribe to discriminate against the Freedmen and not allow them to be apart of their tribe. I feel that because the Freedmen were members of the Cherokee tribe in the 1860′s, they should currently be apart of the tribe today because it is unfair for them to be discriminated against simply because the Cherokee’s assimilated to American culture. In addition, the Cherokees claimed that they were not expelling the Freedmen because they were black, but because they were not Indian and according to federal law, “only an Indian person can be a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe.” This is extremely unfair because in 1866 federal law stated that the Freedmen were apart of the Cherokee tribe and to say now that descendants of these tribal members do not have membership in this tribe is ridiculous. Overall, this discussion shows that among Indian tribes, sovereignty overrules race because in 2007 the Cherokee expelled Freedmen from their tribe only because they were not technically “Indian”.
Out of all the debaters I agree the most with Carla D. Pratt. She argues, “True freedom for the Freedmen won’t materialize until their status in the Cherokee Nation is no longer connected to the badge of slavery.” She said that the Natives had a history of being distasteful of African Americans. They Natives did not have any racial biased until the europeans showed up and they began to assimilate into White society. As they spent more time with the White people they began to act more like them as well. They grew accustomed to not treating African Americans as equals because they had them as slaves and after the Treaty in 1866 that said all the slaves would become part of the Tribe. This attitude, she believes, is still active today and is the reason that the Cherokee do not wish to share the perks of being in their Native Tribe. They argue its, “not because they were black, but because they were not Indian” which is obvious because they wouldn’t admit to their racism. The Native sovereignty is more present than the Native race because now they are not the ones being discriminated against like they were with the English, but they are repeating the same mistake and discriminating against the African Americans that have a right to be part of this community now.
I agree mostly with the entry that Carla D. Pratt wrote. I do because I agree with the point that she makes, when she says that the Cherokees do not know their own history because they have not learned from it. What Pratt is trying to say is that the Cherokee’s never forgot their racist point of view, and that is proved by their decision to not acknowledge African American slaves who were once apart of their tribe as Cherokees. Pratt also explains how the Cherokee’s mostly just wanted to assimilate into american culture, and as they did that, picked up many American prejudices along the way. The freedmen that were once allowed into their tribe, are now expelled and have no part in it. It seems like when the Cherokee tribe attempted to assimilate into american culture, they also picked up the bad parts of american ideology, like racism towards blacks. This viewpoint is clearly still expressed by the Cherokee’s in their unwillingness to accept the freedmen as part of their tribe. Therefore, because of the treaty of 1886, the Cherokee Supreme court does not have the right to expel the freedmen from their tribe.
Of the eight articles under “Tribal Rights vs. Racial Justice,” I agree most with Tiya Miles’s stance on the issue the most. Miles believes that the Cherokee Nation, like other societies with a history of slavery, has “a moral obligation to confer citizenship on the formerly enslaved and their descendants. As chairwoman of the department of Afro-American and African Studies – and needless to say, a black woman herself – Miles exhibits a profound emotional connection to the issue and naturally feels compelled to defend African Americans in the issue. She also points out that the 1866 treaty between the Cherokee Nation and the United States ascertained the citizenship of “Freedmen” and that the Cherokee should remain “true to the promises of the past,” a line of reasoning with undeniable logic. Also, regardless of the arguments of “blood quantum” or “sovereignty,” I agree that Freedmen should not be stripped of their rights as Cherokee citizens because it condones and promotes discrimination which I find intolerable. This discussion reveals a dark, prejudiced side of modern Indian sovereignty. It also represents the struggle that contemporary Indian societies face in reshaping their own cultural identities and maintaining political autonomy from the states.
VERY WELL SAID.
YOU DO A NICE JOB IN COMMENTING ON THE AUTHOR AND WHAT SHE BRINGS TO THE ARGUMENT. IT GIVES YOUR COMMENT MORE WEIGHT.
HISTORIANS DON’T REALLY PROVE THINGS – THEY GATHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A POSITION. WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE MOTIVE OF THE CHEROKEE?
YOU MAKE SOME VERY GOOD CONNECTIONS TO 1646 TREATY AND PROCLAMATION OF 1763. WELL DONE. DO YOU THINK INDIANS SHOULD DECIDE IF PEOPLE ARE TREATED UNEQUALLY? SHOULD THERE BE A CHECK ON THEIR POWER?
I agree most with Heather Williams, author of “My Cherokee Identity”. She explains that the problem is not who should decide who is an Indian, “but of how best to preserve Indian identity.” People today are missing the main point of why they want to change the rules. Indian’s pasts have been full of people trying to destroy their culture and erase their identity so the Cherokee want to keep their way of life and preserve their nation. To truly decide who gets to be Indian, people must take opinions from outside authority but also from the Cherokee since they are the ones who must abide by the rules. As she says, “The Cherokee Nation should have the right, like every other nation, to determine its own citizenship.”
After reading the eight different viewpoints from the eight different authors, i found that i agree most with Carla D. Pratt. Pratt states that the Cherokee nation do not know their own history because they have not learned from it. At first, the Cherokee nation were friendly towards African Americans. Pratt states, “Early in their history, they adopted a former slave woman of African ancestry into the tribe and exercised their sovereignty to keep her as a citizen of the tribe.” However, as soon as the Cherokee are assimilated into European culture, they begin to speak the European’s language, they would exercise their norms, and they began to believe in the European’s prejudices. One of the prejudices was the fact the blacks were inferiors and slaves. This drove the Cherokee to treat the African Americans as inferiors. In 2007, the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court determined that the Cherokee Nation was bound by the Treaty of 1866. The treaty stated that freedmen were considered to be citizens of the Cherokee Nation. however, the Cherokees argued this and ultimately expelled the freedmen from their society. They argued that they expelled them not because they were black, but because they were not Indians. I agree with Pratt because the Cherokees would not have expelled these freemen if they knew the true orgins and facts of their history.
I most agree with Carla D Pratt. She raises some very good points about how the Cherokee were very hypocritical about their views on African American slaves. Carla D Pratt states that before the Europeans introduced their way of life to the Cherokee, they were very accepting of not only African Americans, but may other ethnicities as well. they even took a African American woman in and made her an “official” member of the tribe. But as the Cherokee started to pick up on the American way of life in the 1800′s, they also picked up on the racist biases of the period and decided to expel one particular race. This shows that they took their beliefs in a completely different direction just because of European influence, which proves Carla’s point that they were indeed hypocrites.
After reading the eight viewpoints on the subject regarding who should be allowed in the Cherokee tribe as a citizen I think there are many valid things said but, Heather Williams’ argument particularly struck me. She is a Cherokee who is a descendent of a non Indian freedman. She says, who should decide who really is a Cherokee? How can people not involved in the tribe themselves decide what makes up a true Cherokee? Cherokee’s should have the right to decide the qualities that make up a Cherokee citizen and not anyone else. People who try to influence that are in the wrong because they aren’t part of the nation themselves. Heather says, “And the issue itself is not one of race, but of how best to preserve Indian identity.” That is what the issue is all about. People need to realize and understand that Cherokee’s are trying to stay true to their Indian identity and are doing that in the best way that they know how.
I agree with Matthew Fletcher’s view on the Weak Sovereign of the Native Americans. The debate over the question about whether or not American Indian Tribes will develop into a nation or remain a tribe has led to the recent decision to expel most of the descendants of the Cherokee Freedmen as members. The main issue about this topic is over the view that Indians are losing their true identity and their identity is being lost in this mix of different inheritance of Native American ancestry. It’s a matter of reaching complete sovereignty over the Indian people without the non-Indians getting in the way. Fletcher’s definition of an Indian Tribe is “a group of individual Indians who are linked by geography, culture, politics and ancestry.” No where in the definition does it include anything about race and yet the government which has control over the tribes asserts racially exclusive power over the Indians. The goal that most tribes are trying to achieve is to have an Indian Nation where they have a robust form of sovereignty over their own territory and people. The way Indian tribes will accomplish that goal is to include the non-Indians into their society and governance structure. Fletcher argues that because the Cherokee Nation which is considered a tribe, despite its name, chooses to exclude the black Freedmen as a way of enforcing the limited forms of membership to non-Indians. Fletcher gives an example of racial politics when describing the way the Cherokee Nation excluded the votes of Freedmen descendants which guaranteed the candidate, who was against allowing Freedmen to become part of the Indian Nation, to win. The fact of the matter is there is no definite definition to who a “true” Indian is and yet even though the U.S. government chooses to play with the definition the Indians are also choosing to play with the definition when deciding whether or not Freedmen should be considered a part of their society.
After reading all eight viewpoints and all of the comments in this blog, it is clear that this is a question that has no correct answer. To some, mostly the Americans imputing their two cents, it is not right to revoke their citizenship. However, the definition of Sovereignty is, “supreme power or authority.” As a nation recognized by the United States, it has a right to decide who can and who cannot be part of their nation. Americans themselves are so used to the idea that just about anyone should be able to get citizenship, that they forget that they are the rare few that grant citizenship to outsiders. This is why I agree with Heather William’s viewpoint the most, she sees both sides of the argument and has a better idea as to why they are doing this. From her viewpoint it is clear that this ruling was not out of racism but out of necessity to preserve their Cherokee identity.
I agree mostly with Tiya Miles. I agree with the arguement that the Cherokee has no right to instill such genocidal practices as the expulsion of the freedmen from their tribes. I believe that one of the reasons the Cherokee has recieved “sovereignty” is because of the guilt that Americans have for the past injustices placed upon Indian Tribes. Therefore, i believe that the Cherokee do deserve to have the self-rule that was taken from them in the 1800′s. However, i do not believe that the existence of the Cherokees nation within a nation should warrant them the right to exclude races of people that have been part of their tribe for over a century simply becuase of the guilt Americans feels for treating the Indians so horribly in the past. As Tiya states, the Cherokees need to rememeber that they, in fact, are decendants of slave holders, anti-slavery Cherokees, and even slaves. Therefore i do not agree with the Cherokee’s insistence that one must have the right “blood” to be a true member of their tribe.
After reading all the arguments I agree most with Cara Cowan-Watts stance on the issue. She argues that although the Freedmen are a very important part of their history it, would be contradictory to not only the tribal definition of who is Indian but also the very nature of why having the ability to choose who is Indian and who is not is important. I agree with this because I think it is important to be able to definitively prove whether you are part of the tribe or not. This way nothing gets lost in translation just because you were a slave of a real Cherokee this doesn’t make you part of the tribe. She further argues that they are not discriminating against blacks that contrary to that most of her relatives are very diverse. That the expulsion of the freedmen from the tribe was not a bigotry action but one that had to be done because they did not have an Cherokee blood. The discussion reveals that although the act of expulsion may seem to be a racist move it also sheds light on the diverse nature of the Cherokee tribe. I do believe in “sovereignty” that all freedmen should not be considered Cherokee.
I agree the most with Kevin Noble Maillard. He points out the fact that Freedmen are not 100% “Indian,” and that the term “Real Indian” was established in the 1800′s. However, he brings up a racial argument and says that Indians with white and native parents will receive full coverage of benefits offered by the Cherokee community, but those who have black and native parents will not. Maillard also poses the fact that “sovereignty” does not have anything to do with the federal government, and therefore it cannot be argued as a political affair. This change in the Cherokee network establishes that sovereignty does not have as big an impact as before; now it is all about rights and privileges, meanwhile in the 1800′s and back it was about the establishment/maintenance of a government. Sovereignty is not as important and relevant as it used to be, therefore it shouldn’t be given such a big emphasis.
In my opinion, freedman Cherokee’s deserve the same perks and benefits that the “pure Cherokees” have. The ancestors of these freedman’s grew up in Indian Culture. They lived in equal or worse living conditions, and went through many of the same hardships as the “pure Cherokees”. For example, in the NYtimes article Heather Williams discusses her experience of Indian culture as a freedman. She was a part of an Indian community, the Native American Students Association at Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, and Cherokee Nation citizen. She deserves the same as the other Cherokees regardless of her original ethnicity. Growing up and living in Cherokee culture for generations should be enough to consider someone a Cherokee. Many Cherokees are apposed to freedmans receiving the same privileges as them because of their skin color. However, these freedman’s experienced Indian culture to its full extent and deserve to be called Cherokees. Despite the Cherokee’s sovereignty, they should consider freedmans their own because of the freedmans participation in Cherokee life.
I agree mostly with Carla D. Pratt’s point of view. Pratt says that the Cherokee have not learned from their mistakes becasue they are not familiar with their own history.In the beginning, African American and Cherokee shared a beneficial relationship. Pratt herself says, “Early in their history, they adopted a former slave woman of African ancestry into the tribe and exercised their sovereignty to keep her as a citizen of the tribe.” This quote explains the friendly relationship both parties were part of.When the Cherokee bagan to assimilate into European culture, they took on many aspects of it, including language and prejudices towards the African Americans. They believed in the inferiority and enslavement of blacks. In 2007, it was determined by the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court that the Treaty of 1866 bound the Cherokee nation. It stated that the African American – Cherokee freedmen are citizens of the Cherokee. however, the Cherokees expelled the freedmen from their society. The Cherokee said that they expelled the African American not becasue of their race specifically, but because they were not Indian.