Cherokee Indians say they will not be dictated to by U.S.

[Janos]

http://news.yahoo.com/cherokee-indians- ... 10913.html

And now the govt, which has broken damn near every treaty it ever signed with the Cherokee, thinks it has the high and lofty ground to be able to dictate the tribe's internal policies.

This isn't about 'right' or 'wrong', this is something else entirely.

Bottom line, is this is about 'black' members being cast out of the tribe, and them not getting their 'dues'. AKA welfare checks.

If it were 'white' members being cast out of the tribe, no one would even raise an eyebrow.

The whole 'double standards' things when it comes to 'race', just tends to irk me.

The only reason this is mainstream 'news' is because people of a certain ethnic descent are getting the shaft.

The Cherokee, with a majority vote, can change their constitution any way they like, and it's no one else's business.

This is about loss of govt freebies for a privileged minority.

Similar Threads:

• Millions of Indians Rise Against Walmart, Tesco etc.
• "Spirit of the Fire" - Keetoowah Society - Cherokee - Documentary from 1984
• The Ten Commandments of the Native American Indians
• Indiginous native indians speaking......Hopi , Archuar & Kogi's
• Syed Zaid Hamid - Warning to Indians and American Zionists

[OneLittleFrog]

Wow.....I'm seeing the "Thanks" pile up on the post above, so I suppose I'm alone in being a bit put off by this.

Nowhere in the article does it say anything about "welfare checks", other than "making them ineligible to vote in tribal elections or receive benefits." It sounds like you're saying "since they're black, all they want is welfare checks," and I really don't want to think you're saying that.

I never even knew the Cherokee owned slaves! (history lesson right there) but if the slaves were eventually freed and granted tribal citizenship in the 1800's, I don't understand why they suddenly need to be booted out now. Would you think the descendents of freed slaves in Alabama and North Carolina should show "blood relation" to the original land-owners of those areas to keep their citizenship?

Unfortunately, if you take a look at the comments under this article, you get an idea of the emotions fueling this sentiment -- such as this:
" Freeloaders......Cherokee are just figuring this out..........They are just getting another free ride. But once you want to kick them off that bus be careful.....Big bad democrats come to thier rescue..ACLU is right behind em........The problem with all of it is that nobody has ever forced them to earn thier own way so they keep sponging off of whatever society they can. Send them all back to africa where they belong.............Dirty rotten locust. Just like maggots."

I hate to think Nexians feel that way!

Sorry, I just think this needs a closer look..........

[fossileyesed]

well put onelittlefrog


it really breaks down to man verses man.
weres the love and humanity in politics.
completely missing imo
peace

[robert]

Hi Onelittlefrog

I did thank Janos for this information, simply because he brought it to our attention.
The more information we have the better the picture is.

Robert

[OneLittleFrog]

(I'm still blown away by today's history lesson, that Cherokees owned slaves! I don't remember anything about that in history class.....of course US History classes in the sixties had very little to say about Native Americans, period.)

Here's another possible reason for this action, from another article:

But the move also appears to be political in nature. That's because it happened a little more than a month before a special election will take place for tribal chief. Incumbent chief Chad Smith and the Freedmen--as the slave descendants are known--have an adversarial relationship, according to The Oklahoman. Expelling the Freedmen from the tribe means that they won't be able to vote against the incumbent chief.

http://racerelations.about.com/b/201...from-tribe.htm

[Charles]

Slavery and Native Americans in British North America and the United States: 1600 to 1865

Most Native American tribal groups practiced some form of slavery before the European introduction of African slavery into North America; but none exploited slave labor on a large scale. Indian groups frequently enslaved war captives whom they used for small-scale labor and in ritual sacrifice. Most of these so-called Indian slaves tended to live, however, on the fringes of Indian society. Although not much is known about them, there is little evidence that they were considered racially inferior to the Indians who held power over them. Nor did Indians buy and sell captives in the pre-colonial era, although they sometimes exchanged enslaved Indians with other tribes in peace gestures or in exchange for their own members. In fact, the word "slave" may not even accurately apply to these captive people.

read more..... http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/hist...ns_slavery.htm

[Janos]

Wow.....I'm seeing the "Thanks" pile up on the post above, so I suppose I'm alone in being a bit put off by this.

I wouldn?t call 5 ?thanks? a pile. Unless it was more, and some folks backed out. I really couldn?t say, as I haven?t really been keeping tabs on this thread, and I haven?t logged in for a few days.

Nowhere in the article does it say anything about "welfare checks", other than "making them ineligible to vote in tribal elections or receive benefits." It sounds like you're saying "since they're black, all they want is welfare checks," and I really don't want to think you're saying that.

No, I?m not saying that. But what you think I?m saying is irrelevant.

Just because it doesn?t spell it out in the article that it is ?welfare checks? doesn?t make it any less so. What ?benefits? do you think they are talking about here? The tribe gets $33 million in government freebies, that it then doles out to it?s members.

What do you think the tribe does with that money? Make gold plated totem poles?

Of course not. They parcel it out to their members as tribal welfare.

Personally, I?d think the tribe would have told the federal government to stuff it?s payoff up it?s arse by now, but generations of entitlements are hard to undo.

These folks aren?t complaining that they were just kicked out of the tribe, they?re complaining that they were kicked out of the tribe and now won?t be getting their monthly freebies. It has nothing to do with the fact they?re black. They could be purple or orange for all I care. They?re whining because their source of freebies are being cut off, after GENERATIONS of FREEBIES.

Now, if it was a group of folks of European descent that got kicked out of the tribe, would it have even made the news? Doubtful. Because no one would care. This is the double standard racial crap that I am referring to, and which I have no tolerance for.

I?m for an equal slate across the board. Not special privileges for special groups and special ?minorities?. And what makes something a minority anyway? I?m the only individual of Hungarian descent for miles around, and depending on where I?ve lived over the past decade or two, been only one of a few hundred in entire STATES. Did I get any special minority rights? No? sure didn?t. Still can?t figure out how when there are millions of folks of one ?ethnicity?, it makes them a minority, but when there are only a handful of people of another ?ethnicity?, it makes them a ?majority?, just because their skin is a lighter color, and they?re all lumped into a group together.

My points were not made from a ?racist? point of view. They were made from an ANTI-racist point of view.

Ask anyone who really knows me, and they?ll tell you the same thing.

I have absolutely zero tolerance for special ?rights? for special races.

If we?re all equal, then we are all equal and this special crap needs to die.

But your insinuation that I?m somehow presenting this from a "since they're black?? point of view is ludicrous and outright preposterous. You almost, but not quite, nudge at the accusation that I?m somehow racist because I called a spade a spade, and dared to point out things that the article didn?t cover.

FYI: My wife and I have friends ALL ACROSS THE WORLD, of all races, creeds, colors, and ethnicities. We are friends with actual people FROM AFRICA, (not just ?African-Americans?), though we also have black friends, including such amazing people as a black author, and a black VP of Information Technology. The latter of which, I?ve often described as ?The smartest man I?ve ever met in my life.?

So? the long and short is, if you are accusing me of being biased or racist based upon the folks in the article being BLACK, and I really hope you aren?t, you are barking way, way, way, up the wrong tree here, little froggie.

I never even knew the Cherokee owned slaves! (history lesson right there) but if the slaves were eventually freed and granted tribal citizenship in the 1800's, I don't understand why they suddenly need to be booted out now. Would you think the descendents of freed slaves in Alabama and North Carolina should show "blood relation" to the original land-owners of those areas to keep their citizenship?

Most of the tribes, who had members who were better off than others, owned slaves. And not just black men, other Indians. And had been doing so for generations untold. The ?white man? didn?t bring slavery to the red man. They merely continued an already existing tradition.

I?d suspect there?s much about such topics that you, and most everyone else, knows little about.

Slavery was invented by the Nubian and Arabic peoples, long before the first black man ever saw the first white man. They were enslaving themselves and other peoples and tribes, for thousands of years.

Everything you think you know about the origins of slavery? is probably wrong? if you got it from a mainstream history book.

The Nubian kingdom of Kush, that was modeled after the Egyptians, pushed slavery to new levels in their desire to be like their Lower Nile counterparts in Memphis.

The English, learned it from the Arabs, who? either invented it themselves ala Babylon, or learned it from the neighboring Nubian tribes. History is a bit unclear on that point, and it could easily go both ways.

Unfortunately, if you take a look at the comments under this article, you get an idea of the emotions fueling this sentiment -- such as this:
" Freeloaders......Cherokee are just figuring this out..........They are just getting another free ride. But once you want to kick them off that bus be careful.....Big bad democrats come to thier rescue..ACLU is right behind em........The problem with all of it is that nobody has ever forced them to earn thier own way so they keep sponging off of whatever society they can. Send them all back to africa where they belong.............Dirty rotten locust. Just like maggots."

I didn?t look at the comments on the article. Regardless, what people comment on, on a mainstream news article, doesn?t concern me.

After all, most of these poor folks actually think mainstream news is reality. So I?m sure they?re bound to make some ignorant comments. That?s not my burden to bear.

A very major point you are missing here?

It?s not about feelings it?s about sovereignty. But hey?. We wouldn?t want to offend anyone, now would we?

Let?s not talk about the right of people to determine their own constitutions, let?s talk about someone?s FEELINGS being hurt from being excluded.

Because if it isn?t about the $ (and it IS!), then what do they have to LOSE by being kicked out of the tribe? Hurt feelings? Their identity that labels their ancestors as being the b.i.t.c.h. of some one else? I don?t think that?s much of an identity to lose. Unless it?s a crutch. A crutch that also happens, along with pity, to bring you monthly freebies?

I hate to think Nexians feel that way!

Sorry, I just think this needs a closer look..........

I hope that clarifies things a bit for you.

And yes, it does need a much closer look, but for very different reasons than you pointed out.

This knee-jerk reactionism in labeling everything we don?t agree with that isn?t politically correct as somehow being ?racist?, just really needs to stop, and we need to grow up intellectually and emotionally, and figure out how to call a spade a spade if we intend to move forward as a people.

Just my 2 ? cents.

[OneLittleFrog]

Okay, I expected that response Janos. I have the utmost respect for you and all of your extraordinarily intelligent posts, but I'll stand by my little froggy "knee-jerk" and "ignorant" opinions where this particular issue is concerned. I'm well aware you don't care what I think -- I'm a very small player here -- but it's actually harder to shut up a little frog than you might think.

You're talking about the government shafting the sovereignty of the Cherokee. Fully valid. However your animosity seems more directed at the black Cherokee people than at the meddling government.

I'm talking about the Cherokee shafting a small group who were given tribal citizenship decades ago. I think their rights are valid too. And I think it's highly inaccurate to call them a "privileged minority."

Please note my other post above, and the possibility this banishment might also involve swinging a tribal election. There are usually some unexpected sides to a story like this.

As far as your well-researched history of slavery, I'd take it back even further, to the very creators of our species. The bible gives slavery a hearty thumbs-up as well. I don't think the ugliness of it will ever be gone.

I'm sorry I caused you so much anger, Janos, but it's just my little half-cent froggy opinion.

[Luke]

Wait a minute.

What sovereignity?

Since when receiving handouts is part of sovereignity?

It is more like sign of something contrary- they are receiving money from a system, and seem to rely on it, as a subjects.

(money /energy taken from WHOM?)

What we see is simply one group of subject shafting another group of subject in order to receive bigger piece of the pie, that is not theirs in the first place.

Cannibal morality in action.

[Janos]

Wait a minute.

What we see is simply one group of subject shafting another group of subject in order to receive bigger piece of the pie, that is not theirs in the first place.

Yes, that very nicely sums it up, thanks Luke.

Whereas the tribe does have a right to determine their own constitution, it does very much look like they are trying to slice the freebie/goodies pie of tribal entitlements into smaller pieces.

Of course, they'll never say, "We're kicking these people out, because we can, and so pure-blooded Cherokee will get more of Uncle Sam's goodie bag." They'll say they have the right to self-determination.

Personally, I do think the tribe is hiding behind the whole sovereignty issue. I never said what they were doing was 'right'. Just that they had a right to do it, and determine their own tribal... whatever.

Now whether or not they are doing what they are doing for the right reasons or not, that's an entirely different subject.

But, I agree with your point that it most likely isn't about sovereignty at all, but about getting a bigger piece of that entitlement pie.

Which, if they had any honor or decency at all, would have told the govt to stuff up it's arse, a long, LONG, time ago.

YEA... we're FREE Peoples... We depend on nothing and no one! We are free as eagles. Except... um... that we need a monthly payment from the govt.

What these folks don't realize, is that they are beholden to their benefactors, no matter how much they THINK they may be 'free', or have the right of self determination.

If they kicked the govt out of all of their affairs, and told them they never wanted another dollar, and went from there, then I'd have respect for them.

Otherwise, they are yet another group of people complaining of all the woes that were inflicted upon them in the past because they lost a war.

I mean... isn't that the normal course of human history? Since when in history do the people who LOSE a war, get freebies from the victors?

This was their land. They lost. The folks who invaded kicked their asses, and did so very well, on a whole. Looking back in history, that happened all in Europe too. But you don't see the descendants of the Romans paying the British for taking over part of Britain and founding Londinium (London) do you? Or the British paying the Scots and the Irish for hundreds of years of rape, murder, and pillage.

It's a very weird world we live in.

---------- Post added at 11:15 ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 ----------

If there was any truth in reporting these days, the original article would have said something like: "Cherokee Indians say they are kicking out non-Cherokees in order to have a bigger slice of U.S. Govt entitlements for themselves."

[BeYonder]

perhaps, the greatest lesson of all, would be to figure out, how not to repeat history - seems a lot of it, goes back to africa, and, then the jesuit/catholic takeovers