Earlier this month, the Justice Department entered the on-going dispute between the Cherokee Nation and the descendants of freedmen, supporting the latter's claims to Cherokee citizenship. At first blush, it is easy to sympathize with the majority of Cherokee who voted in 2007 to restrict Cherokee citizenship to the descendants of those listed on the Dawes Roll as “citizens by blood," which effectively disenfranchises blacks who claim to be Cherokee; Native Americans—but especially the Cherokee—have expressed sensitivity about who has the right to claim the heritage without having to carry the baggage of centuries of oppression, and now want to acquire the “benefits” of it.
Officially, there are 300,000 “citizens” of the Cherokee Nation, but approximately three-quarters of a million people “self-report” as having Cherokee “blood.” Here is a list famous and semi-famous people who have “self-reported” as part Cherokee but in fact have no legal claim to the appellation: Tori Amos, Garth Brooks, James Brown, Kevin Costner, Johnny Depp, James Garner, Demi Moore, Chuck Norris, Elvis Presley, Quentin Tarantino, Burt Reynolds, Tina Turner, Steve and Liv Tyler, Billy Ray and Mylie Cyrus, Cher, James Earl Jones, Johnny Cash, Sam Elliot, Tommy Lee Jones, Waylon Jennings, Robert Redford and Diane Sawyer. The only members of this bunch who could actually pass for Native American is Cher and maybe Reynolds; the rest are obviously trying to acquire some “kinship” that has a political dimension, or trying to establish their “native” credibility (likely true of the Southerners).
I recall a History Channel program which made laughably baseless claims of non-Indian settlements deep in the interior of North America thousands of years ago. Much of this is based on the belief that many of the “civilized tribes” had members with Caucasian features, including the Cherokee. Some whites who claim to be Cherokee say their ancestors were one of the tribes of Israel; others claim that it was the Welsh. Half the states in the union have ignored federal and Cherokee Nation requirements of genealogical proof and have recognized numerous so-called Cherokee bands; these bands allow anyone who claims to be “Cherokee” to become members of the “tribe.” To a person, these people are clearly Euro-American, and many make no pretense that they are not. In 2007 the state of Tennessee gave recognition—despite opposition from Cherokee Nation and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians—to a group calling itself the Central Band of Cherokee. However, earlier this year, the Bureau of Indian Affairs declined to recognize its legitimacy.
It is not hard to see why; the “band” was featured on that outrageous episode of the History Channel, in which the members claimed that their own white skin and features were “proof” that the ancestors of the Cherokee were the “lost tribe of Israel.” Although DNA testing proved their claims a fraud, the CBC still flies an Israeli flag over its “tribal” headquarters. These claims of non-Indian habitation before the Indian presence (which proliferated after the discovery of “Kennewick Man”) resembles the ideas of the Ahnenerbe, the Nazi SS “think tank” that, among other things, planned an expedition to the Inca ruins in order to discover “proof” that the ruins were actually built by a people of the Nordic race, thousands (nay, millions) of years earlier.
The CBC is one of five self-described “Cherokee tribes” in Tennessee which have no federal recognition. “One reason the Cherokee Nation opposes such groups is that such groups appropriate and distort our culture and our history. For example, this group identifying as the Central Band of Cherokee claim that they are the descendants of ancient Israelites, which is by far one of the wildest claims made by any of these groups,” said Richard Allen, a Cherokee policy analyst. “The Cherokee Nation has identified more than 200 such groups who claim to be new Cherokee bands, clans, tribes and nations. These groups cannot meet the requirements set forth by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs Branch of Acknowledgement and Research.”
In 2008, the joint council between the two Cherokee bands passed a joint resolution opposing “fabricated Cherokee tribes and Indians.” It resolved that
“WHEREAS, the Cherokee Nation has been aware of a growing number of non-Indian groups claiming to be Cherokee tribes or bands and that these groups have been organizing and attempting to gain federal recognition, this problem being acknowledged by the Joint Council in Resolution No. 008, adopted on October 3, 1988 in Cherokee, North Carolina.”
“WHEREAS, public funding by pseudo-Cherokee Tribes is of epidemic proportions and often involves membership fees; misleading presentations to school children and interference in a multitude of government functions including child welfare cases…the sovereignty and reputation of the Cherokee Nation and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, as well as members the general public continue to be in jeopardy due to the acts of individuals who organize and administer fabricated Cherokee tribe…untold millions of federal dollars that are appropriated for the benefit of tribal people are being diverted from their intended purpose, including money distributed by federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Native Americans, the Department of Labor, Department of Education, Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Joint Council of the Cherokee Nation and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians do hereby support the federal recognition process ofthe Department of the Interior as administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, and endorse the criteria used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs as appropriate;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Cherokee Nation and Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians denounce the state or federal recognition of any further 'Cherokee' tribes or bands, aside from the those already federally recognized, and commit to exposing and assisting state and federal authorities in eradicating any group which attempts or claims to operate as a government of the Cherokee people; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that no public funding from any federal or state government should be expended on behalf of non-federally recognized 'Cherokee' tribes or bands or the individual members thereof; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Cherokee Nation and Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians shall call for a full accounting of all federal monies given to state recognized, unrecognized or SOI(c)(3) charitable organizations that claim any Cherokee affiliation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the federal and state governments should stringently apply a federal definition of "Indian" that includes only citizens of federally recognized Indian tribes, to prevent non-Indians from selling membership in 'Cherokee' tribes for the purpose ofexploiting the Indian Arts and Crafts Act.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that no 501(c)(3) organization, state recognized or unrecognized groups shall be acknowledged as Cherokee,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any individual who is not a member of a federally recognized Cherokee tribe, in academia or otherwise, is hereby discouraged from claiming to speak as a Cherokee, or on behalf of Cherokee citizens, or using claims of Cherokee heritage to advance his or her career or credentials.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall be the policy of the Joint Council of the Cherokee Nation and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution.
So obviously the Cherokees are touchy about who calls themselves a Cherokee, especially those claimants who disassociate with the “nation.” The tragic irony of the Cherokee story is that they were one of the most successful of the tribes to assimilate their culture with Euro-American ways. From the late 18th to the early 19th centuries, the Cherokee (along with other “civilized” tribes in the Southeast, like the Seminole and Chickasaw) adopted many “white” ways: They wrote a constitution based on the U.S. version, adopted European-style farming techniques, textile weaving, and housing. The Cherokee also concocted their own written alphabet and dictionary, and most Cherokee were literate in both Cherokee and English. Many willingly adopted Christianity, because of its message of “universal love.”
Yet none of this meant anything to racist whites; even in Connecticut, Cherokee leaders Elias Boudinot and John Ridge—American in every way save their race—were driven out of the state by irate mobs after they married local white women. Land-hungry whites also found the Indians difficult to tolerate; although the five “civilized tribes” land rights were accepted for a time, the increasing influx of European immigrants put pressure on the federal and state authorities to dispossess the Indians of their land. Oklahoma territory was established as the new home of the Cherokee (the eastern band survived by squatting on the land purchased by William Holland Thomas, a white man adopted by a Cherokee chief).
One would naturally sympathize with the plight of a people who tried to assimilate with white ways and integrate with their customs, and to a great degree the Cherokee did this in a way that we would have recognized as successful. You can find countless examples of Cherokees from the first half of the 19th century who in culture, dress and education appeared to be American, even establishing a constitution based on the American model. But Southerners, Georgians in particular, found it difficult to abide their presence. Georgia passed laws that made it virtually impossible for the Cherokee to continue as a semi-autonomous state; despite the aid of friendly lawmakers in Congress and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that denied that states had a right to dictate to Native Americans, Georgia ignored the ruling, and President Andrew Jackson supported federal legislation that simply made Georgia’s actions a fait accompli. Soon after came the infamous “Trail of Tears.”
Although the Cherokee were technically independent in their mostly barren Oklahoma territory, this couldn’t last long. White settlers lived on a fraction of Oklahoma territory, and for those who sought statehood, the Indians, who “owned” most of the territory, had to be marginalized. The federal government was only too obliging. Although the 1887 Dawes Act was initiated in good intentions—to “integrate” Native Americans into the wider culture by giving them “allotments” of land for which to farm, after which they would forget their Indian ways and become good American citizens—by the time the law was passed, it was so full of loopholes that it essentially became a land grab for non-Indians. Whites rushed into the territory, taking the best land before the allotment process even began. Most Cherokees by now had become cynical about the “fruits” of white civilization, and many simply refused or could not adjust to yet another change in their circumstances. The Burke amendment made it easier—or more coercive—for Indians to be given their allotments if deemed “competent.” Those who were not deemed “competent” saw their “allotment” sold off to whites. Since Indians “accepted” the allotments, this meant automatic U.S. citizenship—and thus subject to federal and state taxes. Many Indians did not even know they were in possession of land until they received the tax bill; when they could not pay the taxes, the land was essentially forfeited to white buyers. One effect of the Dawes Act that did have consequences for the present day was Dawes Rolls, which a sort of census of those eligible for the allotments.
Then came the Curtis Act in 1898, which essentially banned tribal government. By the time the first iteration of Cherokee Nation was dissolved in 1906, white residents could now claim control over all of Oklahoma territory, and Oklahoma became a state the following year. It would not be until the Meriam Report of 1928 revealed the shocking conditions that the Dawes Act had left Native Americans in that calls for reform gathered momentum. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 during the FDR administration allowed for the return of “surplus” land to Indian control instead being sold to whites, and funds were provided to purchase more; the reestablishment of tribal government was set in motion, although for a time the Cherokees remained under federal supervision until the 1970s.
One thorny issue missing from this narrative is the status of freedmen. When people think of “freedmen,” they naturally think of former slaves on Southern plantations. However, not all slaves resided on plantations owned by whites. All five “civilized tribes in the Southeast (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole) owned slaves—another sign of their adoption of “white ways.” The Cherokee apparently owned more slaves than the other tribes, and mixed white/Cherokee more than “FBIs” (full-blooded Indians). It is estimated that there were 20,000 slaves distributed among the five tribes at one point. Many Cherokee took their slaves with them on the “Trail of Tears.” During the Civil War, most of the “civilized tribes” supported the South, although a minority in each supported the Union cause. The federals treated with Cherokee who were Union sympathizers, who agreed to emancipate their slaves—although the in totality this meant little since most of the Cherokee slaves were in the hands of Confederate sympathizers; it is believed that in exchange for their support, the Confederate government promised the Indians their own “state,” although this was a promise they were unlikely to keep.
After the war, the five slave-owning “civilized” tribes were more or less coerced into signing the so-called Treaty of 1866, which among other things gave the newly freed slaves formerly owned by Indians the choice of leaving the reservations and becoming U.S. citizens, or remaining on the reservations and becoming citizens of the tribes, whether the tribes wanted them to or not. The Cherokee insisted that the freedmen had six months to make their claim one way or other, or else they would be denied tribal citizenship. Although some supported freedmen rights, most Cherokee have been fighting that condition ever since; all “principle chiefs” elected since the 1970s (including Wilma Mankiller) supported enfranchisement only for those who hold a “Certificate Of Degree Of Indian Blood.”
Cherokee Nation leaders insist that Dawes Roll is the only legitimate list of who may claim Cherokee citizenship along with their descendants. However, there is much disagreement if freedmen, who were listed separately on the Roll, should be regarded legitimately as tribal members—particularly those who dispersed after the break-up of tribal sovereignty in the early 20th century. Many Cherokee believe that the descendants of freedmen only want a handout at the expense of legitimate Native Americans, and this claim has been around for well over a century, when Cherokee claimed that freedmen had no right to tribal resources, and were taking government assistance that rightly should go only to legitimate Indians. These claims remain the main “selling point” for those opposed to freedmen citizenship in the tribes.
This is not to say that the descendants of freedmen don’t have legitimate rights and grievances. It must be remembered that slaves held by the “civilized” tribes were so against their will, and the tribes did profit from their labor. The tribes “owe” them something. Earlier, the Cherokee insisted that what they were “owed” was already given to the freedmen in the form of the Dawes land allotments. But the ultimate question should not be about resources; it should be “Who has the right to call themselves ‘Indian’ and if not, is this in conflict with tribal identity?” Native American identity has been under assault by non-Indians claiming to be “indigenous” or otherwise members of said tribes, while others have tried to delegitimize their status as the “first” Americans. Can Native Americans safely accept as “citizens” non-Indians (whether white or black), and still maintain their historical and cultural identity, accumulated over thousands of years?
Perhaps the question should come down to how well the descendants of freedmen have acculturated themselves to Cherokee mores; simply voting in elections and accepting the “benefits” of tribal membership while existing outside the “nation,” without concern to longstanding and deep-rooted issues confronting Native Americans and their relationship with the “outside” world, should not be sufficient to claim “citizenship.” However, those freedmen descendants who have no Cherokee “blood” but can demonstrate that they are active in the Cherokee community (and I mean the tribal, not black, community) should, on the other hand, have the right to claim citizenship in the tribe.
No comments:
Post a Comment