Cherokee Slaves Voted Out of Tribe. Why?

[Squink]

I’ve looked at several versions of this peculiar story:
Cherokees Vote Out Slaves’ Descendants
But none of them give any explanation for why the tribe is voting on this now. There’s a mention of a “commission, set up by a Congress bent on breaking up Indians’ collective lands and parceling them out to tribal citizens”, but no indication of how that connects to the vote on ex-slaves.
Can anyone supply the dope on what’s going on with this?

[Diceman]

WAG: does the tribe have some sort of income (say, from a casino) which is distributed to the members? If so, that would create an incentive to keep the membership count down.

[ratatoskK]

This was a story a few days ago (before the vote) in the New York Times . Basically, it’s rascism. The article is interesting, it turns out the U.S. drew up two separate lists of Cherokees around the time of the original treaty. One list had everyone who had no black ancestors, the other list was everyone with any black ancestors at all. So apparently if you trace your ancestory back to the list that contained black ancestors, you’ve just been voted out. The thing that I find so offensively ridiculous was that the U.S. government was the party that drew up the lists. From the article:

At issue is a group barely known outside of Indian country, the Freedmen. These are the descendants of black slaves owned by Cherokees, free blacks who were married to Cherokees and the children of mixed-race families known as black Cherokees, all of whom joined the Cherokee migration to Oklahoma in 1838.

The Freedmen became full citizens of the Cherokee Nation after emancipation, as part of the Treaty of 1866 with the United States. But in 1983, by tribal decree, the Freedmen were denied the right to vote in tribal elections on the ground they were not “Cherokee by blood.”

They sued, and in December won their challenge. But that has prompted a bigger fight. On Saturday, the Cherokee Nation is holding a special election — believed to be the first of its kind — to decide, in essence, whether to kick the Freedmen out of the tribe.

[…]

When the Dawes Rolls were created, those with any African blood were put on the Freedmen roll, even if they were half Cherokee. Those with mixed-white and Cherokee ancestry, even if they were seven-eighths white and one-eighth Cherokee, were put on the Cherokee by blood roll. More than 75 percent of those enrolled in the Cherokee Nation have less than one-quarter Cherokee blood, the vast majority of them of European ancestry.

Marilyn Vann said she could not believe that one election could determine whether she was allowed to claim Cherokee blood.

“There are Freedmen who can prove they have a full-blooded Cherokee grandfather who won’t be members,” said Ms. Vann, president of the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes. “And there are blond people who are 1/1000th Cherokee who are members.”

[monstro]

Sure sounds racist to me. I can kinda understand kicking out the descendents of Cherokee slaves. There are heaps of black people who can trace themselves back to a Cherokee slave, but I don’t think that alone should make someone Cherokee. But kicking out anyone with black ancestry, even if they do have genetic and cultural connection to the tribe? How can they justify that?

[desdinova]

@Diceman

WAG: does the tribe have some sort of income (say, from a casino) which is distributed to the members? If so, that would create an incentive to keep the membership count down.

The Cherokee Nation operates numerous casinos, in fact their casino in Catoosa is the largest and fanciest in the Tulsa area. To the best of my knowledge, there are no direct cash distributions to all citizens from their operation (I’m assuming this is the case because the Chickasaw operate numerous casinos as well, and I don’t get bupkis from them except an annual report, absentee ballots and a rather nice calendar around Christmas time). However, there are a variety of services that the indian nations provide their citizens, and obviously they would rather not share them with more people if they don’t have to. The whole thing sounds completely rooted in racism, but I’m not informed enough to provide a knowledgable opinion since this is the first I’ve ever heard of this. If it’s true that this vote excludes people who have demonstrable Cherokee descent, solely because they were on the Freedmen’s roll (which is noted in ratatoskK’s cited article) then that’s utterly ridiculous and I hope there is some federal intervention here.

Now I’m curious as to how the Chickasaw Nation handles this issue, since I know that the Chickasaw were slave owners as well. If they’re excluded it would be enough to actually get me involved in tribal politics for the first time ever.

I wonder what reason the Cherokee that promoted this law give in favor of it… surely they aren’t hurting for funds to provide services for them? My tribe seems to be pretty much rolling in dough if the annual reports they send me are accurate

[DSYoungEsq]

The eventual result will likely be that the vote will be overturned. The Seminoles went through this same exercise in silliness a few years back, and were forced by the federal courts to honor their assumed obligations under the treaty signed after the Civil War, IIRC.

[Tristan]

@DSYoungEsq

The eventual result will likely be that the vote will be overturned. The Seminoles went through this same exercise in silliness a few years back, and were forced by the federal courts to honor their assumed obligations under the treaty signed after the Civil War, IIRC.

Not to derail the thread, but does anyone else find it funny that the Supreme Court can force the Native American tribes to adhere to a treaty, but can’t make the US gov’t do the same (in regards to the Native Americans)?