document.write('
This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone.
Posted by  Allen L. Lee on June 27, 2008
“Attempts to force non-Indian citizenship on a tribe is considered to be a form of cultural genocide.”
Posted by IndianPOV on June 23, 2008


Beneath the Underdog:
Race, Religion, and the “Trail of Tears”
By Patrick Minges

“In 1835, the movement to free the African slaves of the Cherokee nation was put into motion by several \"influential men\" of the nation. Arrangements were being made to emancipate the slaves and receive them as Cherokee citizens. “
Cherokee Emancipation Proclamation (1863)
“and therefore it shall be unlawful for any person to hold a Slave within the limits of the Cherokee Nation. And any person who before any of the Courts of the Nation having jurisdiction in the case shall be found guilty of Holding a Slave or Slaves, Shall be fined in a Sum not less than One thousand Dollars __ nor more than Five thousand Dollars. And any Slave So held in Bondage shall be forever free.”

Cherokee freedmen controversy
From Wikipedia
The Cherokee Nation Constitution was amended in a special convention on November 26, 1866.
\"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.\"[22].

Lucy Allen, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) JAT-04-09
Cherokee Nation Tribal Council

“…The Cherokee Freedmen were citizens of the
Cherokee Nation prior to the enactment of the 1975 Constitution. The language of
Article III does not specifically exclude them from continuing membership. The
constitutional language requires membership by reference to the Dawes Commission
Rolls and the Freedmen were included in those rolls.”

What force?
Allen L. Lee




Posted by  Allen L. Lee on June 25, 2008
\"Wait for the courts!\"
That\'s funny. I don\'t know how many times during the 4000 plus lynching that occurred in this country when victime begged for a court and couldn\'t get one. when they did the jury box and the bench was stacked whith people who openly proffessed their hatred for the Black person on trial, not unlike the non-Indian haters in the Cherokee nation of Oklahoma who tell those very same people that they hate to wait for Indian courts to decide their non-Indian fate.
Do you know how antithetic that sounds to the principles of self-determination that the all Indian Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma promotes. \"Wait for the courts!\" You might as well say wait for the second coming or wait for your knight in shining armor or if you can\'t call 911, don\'t try and save yourself. or some other completely \"I\'m helpless without massa\'s guidance\" statement. No truly self-determined people are going to wait for the courts of their enemies to decide their fates.
Wait for the courts! That\'s funny
Posted by  Allen L. Lee on June 25, 2008
My question is why the Cherokee nation of Oklahoma would give a damn about the 300 million in Federal dollars when self-determination and sovereignty are at stake.
If the Black Nation of Islam, not federally recognized by the way,and a nation with even a bigger gripe than the Cherokee complaint of being forced to live with non-Indians by the \"White\" federal government, they believing that Whites are devils and not quite humans, can get Quadaffi of Libya to pledge a billion dollar grant for their sovereignty, then I would think that the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma with it\'s massive Indians for Indians support could rally the NCAI to get the 70% of the Native Nations it claims to represent and also supports the Cherokee nation of Oklahoma in this dispute to offset that 300 million easily. I recall of at least two public schools that refused federal funding because they thought the \"No Child Left Behind\" requirements were to encumbering for the schools to perform under.
Just have the Indian nations who do not lose funding re-negotiate their state compacts and re-direct some of their abundant casino earning to replace the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma\'s federal shortfall.
Sometimes it seems like the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma isn\'t even trying to be truly sovereign. To busy blaming the Freedmen Descendants for not getting of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma\'s government teat when the all Indian Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma won\'t get of the U.S. governments teat themselves.
Allen L. Lee
Posted by  confused on June 23, 2008
Why in the world would you want to cut off funding to the Cherokee Nation until the issue is settled in court? The Freedmen whose citizenship is in question are still members of the tribe. If you cut off funding to the Cherokee Nation you cut off funding to the Freedmen, too. That doesn\'t make any sense.

I agree with Keep it Real. Why do black people want to be part of an Indian tribe? It doesn\'t make sense unless they think they are going to get some mythical payout that doesn\'t exist.

Boren got it right on the Freedmen issue and he will eventually come around and support Obama. After all, Obama agreed with Boren on leaving the Cherokee Freedmen decision to the courts. They are really already on the same page.
Posted by  DavidCornsilk on June 23, 2008
Hey \"Keep it Real\" you asked why \"we\" I guess meaning blacks generally, don\'t \"go after whites.\" I\'m wondering if you remember or have read about the Civil Rights Movement! The former slaves of the Americans, freedmen and their descendants, fought hard for the civil rights you and I enjoy to day through the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act etc. The civil rights leaders of the 50s, 60s and so on did fight whites throughout the South and in the federal government to get their rights. Are you suggesting the Cherokee Freedmen, who were not slaves of Americans, but were slaves of Cherokee Indians, should do any less for themselves and their descendants? Should Martin Luther King have just backed off because the United States was created by whites for whites? Nations evolve. The citizenship base of the sovereign known as the United States of American changed to include other ethinic groups. So too did the Cherokee Nation evolve to include other ethnic groups. Both are sovereigns with rights to determine citizenship, but also moral obligations to not deny existing citizens their civil rights.
Posted by  Keep It Real on June 23, 2008
As a black person I have to say I am confused by the \"Freedmen\" trying so hard to be a part of the Cherokee tribe. There may be some of them that had an ancestor over 100 years ago that was an actual blood Cherokee and they didn\'t get put on the right rolls, but for the rest of us (which I assume is the majority), what is the point of trying to be a part of a tribe we have no cultural connection with? If it\'s just a matter of principle because our ancestors were held as Cherokee slaves, why are we going after this lone tribe so hard? Why not go after the whites, who had a ton more slaves than tribes ever did? And if this effort is being headed up by Freedmen descendents who don\'t have an ancestor on the rolls but they know a Cherokee ancestor existed, why should they be any different than so many other people today who have pictures and such of Cherokee ancestors, but they didn\'t get on the Blood Rolls either? I just read somewhere on the National Archives website that 2/3 of all applications to be on the Final rolls were rejected. So that should tell you there were bound to be mistakes and not everybody got on the Blood rolls that were supposed to.

If its about the benefits, then I think we should all be concerned about ALL Americans getting access to better healthcare, education, and housing, not just our group that may or may not have Cherokee blood.

So, back to the issue of the article, THAT\'s why Boren should be supporting Obama!!!
Posted by  Anna Lyzer on June 23, 2008
Boren screwed up with his Obama stance, but at least he was right on with the Freedmen issue! It is absolutely appauling Congress would be trying to cut funding for an entire tribe even though the Freedmen are receiving benefits while the case is being litigated, as the previous posters pointed out. This is just another sorry case of the U.S. government trying to destruct Tribal governments. It\'s just unfortunate that they are using another minority group as a scape goat for their maliciousness.
Posted by  IndianPOV on June 23, 2008
\"Freedmen\" was a legal term applied to all freed slaves at the end of the Civil War. The vast majority of African-Americans today are descended from \"freedmen\", but how many still use that name for themselves? There are no living \"freedmen\", only freedmen descendants. The Cherokee Treaty of 1866 did NOT grant citizenship to freedmen. The Cherokees themselves did that by amending their own constitution. Freedmen and their descendants based on certain residency requirements had such rights until the turn of the century when CONGRESS abrogated the Treaty with the same allotment legislation that destroyed our second country and paralyzed our government for seventy years. We have NO treaty obligations regarding citizenship and haven\'t for over a hundred years.

Slavery was introduced and promoted in the Cherokee Nation by the United States. It lasted for about 80 years and a total of 296 Cherokees participated. Less than 2% of a population of 22,000. TWELVE times as many free blacks in the American South owned slaves as Cherokees. 70% of the Cherokee men fought for the Union to end slavery. More Cherokees died than ever owned a slave. By extending citizenship after the war, the Cherokee government ensured that freed slaves received land and money that no Southern state ever gave. The ONLY reparations for slavery were made by Indian tribes!

Citizenship in an Indian nation is not based on geography, but on an ancient indigenous identity that existed before any other people came here. The rights of indigenous nations are guaranteed by federal and international law. Attempts to force non-Indian citizenship on a tribe is considered to be a form of cultural genocide. Read the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Slavery was wrong and some Indian people participated in it. The physical and cultural genocide perpetrated on Indian people was also wrong and is truly America\'s \"original sin\". And African-Americans participated. Were the famed \"Buffalo Soldiers\" racist? Or were they just trying to be \"good Americans\" when the only good Indian was a dead one? The \"travesty of justice\" here is that some
African-Americans are participating in the oldest form of racial discrimination on the continent. If the Indians have something you want, find a way to make THEM wrong and take it.

Posted by  935216 on June 20, 2008
Are you so blinded by Congresswoman Diane Watson, you don\'t even have the facts right on the Cherokee and Freedmen issue. Currently if the funding was cut, it affects the Freedmen just as much as any member by blood. At least until the outcome of the courts the Freedmen are part of the tribe.
Not everyone with an African ancestor is a Freedman ….
Cherokee Nation openly welcomes members who have both African and Cherokee ancestors.
The Cherokee people have the right to decide their own citizenship, much like the more than 500 other Indian tribes in the U.S. that require their citizens to be Indian.
Wait for the courts!
');