Max, I see your point-and my reply to Chappachula was.directed to the notion of scientifically defining race. The geneological approach would likely fail in many areas as well. Again, in the south recognition of some native American tribes was denied, and records regarding tribal heritage were deliberately obfuscated. That was formal government policy as I understand it.
To me this goes to the difficulty/impossibility of making racially defined reparations. Perhaps our emphasis ought to be on helping underprivlidged folks get better housing, care, and educations on the basis of their horrifying condition today rather than based on the issues their ancestors undoubtedly faced. Tough problem, but we better face it.
Actually, it is possible that this could change my response to the debate prompt. If, for example, the reference rolls were tampered with so as to somehow present an unfair burden for applicants of one race, that could change my mind. Can you back up your claim?
The Racial Integrity Act and the Sterilization Act, both from the 1920’s, were the legal foundation for 20th century racism in Virginia. A guy named Plecker was apparently the architect of enforcement of Va race laws well into the ‘1960’s. This is a horrific, very complex story that explains why tracing Native American heritage could be a challenge. It is not unique to Virginia, as our laws influenced many others, including the Nazi’s.
Google “Cherokee Freedmen” for a complex example of the relationship between race, tribal membership, and Native American identity. The controversy continues until this day. I’ll let the readers do their own research; I feel it is too complicated to attempt a short, concise explanation here.
Amen, Ynnad. I started to say the same thing about the Virginia situation, it is horribly tangled. Worth anyone’s time though. I would bet that you could find like minded legislation in all 50 states. Quite a mess for us to deal with if racial justice is ever going to be served.
Eh, no, that’s not quite what I was looking for. Although Virginia did use the concept of degree of blood, I would say it was their laws discriminating based upon that and not the concept itself which was racist. I don’t see any evidence of obfuscating records relating to tribal heritage, however.
“A number of Riggs ancestors (including her father, mother, paternal grandfather, paternal grandmother, and maternal grandmother) are listed on the Dawes Rolls, specifically the Cherokee Freedmen Roll. Furthermore, in her affidavit Bernice Rogers Riggs stated her paternal Grandfather, Joseph Rogers, ‘was part black and part Cherokee Indian. He was the slave of Will Rogers, a Cherokee Indian. Will Rogers was his owner and his father. That is where we get our Indian blood.’ She explained that her father, Gabe Rogers, ‘was at least half Cherokee Indian. He always said he was an Indian, but because he was colored, the government wouldn’t let him prove it up.’ Riggs paternal great-grandfather, Will Rogers, is not listed on the Dawes Rolls as he died before these rolls were created. Riggs also claimed that her mother, Melinda Bean Rogers, ‘had Indian blood too, but I can’t remember where it came from. She was also part black.’ In her affidavit, Bernice Rigs accurately deduced that her ancestors would have been on the Dawes Rolls of Cherokee by Blood if they had been Cherokee-white mixedbloods. But because they were Cherokee-Black mixedbloods they were left off the main list.’” [citations omitted].
From African Cherokees in Indian Territory: From Chattels to Citizens by Celia E. Naylor, page 207.
This is just one example of the many problems with the various Indian rolls.
I have a colleague who tells a similar story of her family, but their issue had to do with Virginia’s denial of legal status to tribes. I want to find the book you cite. Thanks for relating this!
Excellent citation. I have no want to independently verify its (plausible) claims, therefore, I must concede the debate.
The Certificate of Degree of Indian or Native Alaskan Blood are based on tribal rolls which appear to have been obscured, deliberately and with racist intent, so as to present an undue burden for applicants of Cherokee-Black mixed heritage. Therefore, the certificate is inherently racist.
In the case of the Cherokee Freedmen, obtaining a CDIB depends on tribal rolls obscured for applicants of Cherokee-Black mixed heritage. However, the overwhelming majority of people applying for CDIBs claim neither Cherokee nor black ancestry, so how is the certificate inherently racist as applied to them? The Dawes Rolls, e.g., are irrelevant for people of Native Alaskan ancestry, or those of Navajo or Apache or Sioux or Mohawk ancestry.
I would not presume to speak for others, but my point was that racial animus has compromised lots of records of this type, in more than one state. Alaska may be entirely free of this, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
I don’t think its reasonable to say something is inherently racist if you belong to this one race, but it’s not racist for everyone else. If there were different certificates for different tribes, I would have a different opinion. But as it is now, both the Alaskan and the Cherokee apply for the same certificate, so I say the certificate as an institution is inherently racist.
To me, this is like saying that because there is racial bias in mortgage lending in some institutions and markets, mortgages as an institution are inherently racist. Would you agree with that?
If there was intentional racial bias in mortgage lending practices of one group, I would say that group’s lending practices are racist even if there are specific instances where a mortgage was approved but they didn’t invoke the racist procedure.
Granting a certificate is an official act of the United States government, and so by way of simile, the United States government’s certification process is racist like the mortgage lending practices of the bank.
Issuing the certificate today is no more or less racist than Fannie Mae agreeing to back a mortgage issued by a private bank. You are conflating two separate processes: the compilation of records decades ago by the feds, state governments, tribes, and other entities (the Dawes Rolls were mostly closed to new enrollment in 1907, e.g.), and the issuance of CDIBs in 2020 based on the extant records.
You are saying that because some records are tainted, every CDIB is likewise tainted and racist. By analogy, because some mortgage loans are tainted and then obtain federal backing, that makes EVERY federally-backed mortgage tainted (which makes at least 70% of the residential mortgage market racist).
If some of the records were obfuscated deliberately and with racist intent, and the process of granting applications results in actual discrimination on the basis of race, it seems appropriate to say the issuance of those certificates is racist.
The process by which every application is reviewed for certification is racist. Not merely because it relies on racist records, but because the process actually discriminates against applicants on the basis of race. The resulting document is the product of a racist process, and is therefore inherently racist.
If a federal mortgage program actually presents an undue burden for applicants of one race, based solely on racist acts or omissions of downstream institutions, that federal mortgage program as an institution discriminates on the basis of race and is therefore racist.