The existence of the Freedmen is one of the least known chapters of both North American African-ancestored and aboriginal history. The Cherokee, once among the wealthiest of the North American aboriginal tribes, sometimes owned large plantations in the southeast United States in the late 1700s and early 1800s. The Cherokee, like white plantation owners, often worked those plantations with African-ancestored slave labor. When the Cherokee were expelled from the the southeast United States by the federal government and and sent to live on reservations in the southwest, some took their slaves with them on the long, brutal march known as the Trail of Tears. The Trail of Tears resulted from the enforcement of the Treaty of New Echota, an agreement signed under the provisions of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which exchanged Native American land in the East for lands west of the Mississippi River.
The Cherokee Nation acted to abolish slavery in 1863 and in an 1866 treaty titled Articles Pertaining to African Cherokee Citizens and Ending Slavery in the Nation the Cherokee Nation recognized the citizenship of former black slaves held by blooded members of the nation. It was estimated that over 20,000 persons of African ancestry, known as the Cherokee Freedmen, were officially recognized by the Cherokee Nation after the 1866 treaty. Notwithstanding the treaty, those of African ancestry were frequently denied membership, despite the fact that some could trace ancestry to the Dawes Roll, a list of Cherokee by blood, intermarriage, adoption, or former slave status drawn up by federal officials at near the end of the 19th century. A March 2006 ruling by the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court held that the 1866 treaty assured freedmen descendants tribal citizenship. Since then, more than 2,000 freedmen descendants have enrolled as citizens of the tribe. This decision of the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court and the subsequent enrollment of new African-ancestored persons led to the March 2007 referendum vote in which Cherokee members by blood were asked whether membership should be limited to those meeting blood quantum rules. Almost 77% of those voting (representing less than 5% of voting members) opted to amend the tribal constitution to limit citizenship to "blood" tribe members. Over three quarters of enrolled tribe members have less than one fourth Cherokee ancestry.
The decision expelling Cherokee Freedmen has caused dismay in some parts of the African-American and the North American aboriginal communities, as the decision seems to suggest that the practice of race-based discrimination against blacks in the United States is not limited to those of European ancestry. The decision also served as a rather rude awakening to a number of African-Americans who had for generations passed down lore about their Cherokee ancestry either with little knowledge of the fact (or ignoring the fact) that such ancestry may have originated when their ancestors were slaves of the Cherokee. The Cherokee, moreover, were not the only tribe to hold African-ancestored slaves. By 1824, it is estimated that the Cherokee owned almost 1,300 black slaves. The Choctaw and the Chickasaw held over 5,000 blacks in slavery by 1860. In my own family we are well aware that some of our Oklahoma and Arkansas ancestors had ties to the Cherokee, but these ties were shrouded in mystery despite what was an otherwise quite detailed recitation of family descent.
While the right to self-determination is an understood attribute of a sovereign people, it comes in this instance at the cost of expelling persons who, in many cases, have longstanding cultural and often genetic ties to the tribe.
What do you think?
6 comments:
The recent referendum issued by the Cherokee Nation brought to mind the poignant words of W.E.B Dubois's book The Souls of Black Folk who said that African Americans were "in" the United States but not "of" it, unwilling immigrants who contributed to the culture but who were simutaniously denied agency within that very culture. What is so striking, however, about the Chreokee Nation's referendum is that we are not talking about white European attitude toward the "other"; we are talking about Native Americans who in many cases share a common history of oppression and subjugation by White, European culture. In denying descendents of the Cherokee Freedman membership, the tribe aligns themselves with the very racial supremist ideology that has in the past been used against them. In effectively casting out their African American history, is the Cherokee Nation buying into the Europeaon idea of the inferiority of African Blood? Has the Cherekee Naiton, who ostensibly cast their vote in the referendum to preserve their unique culture, actually assimilated the thoughts of their white racist neighbors?
Given that the Cherokee have long sought to enforce treaty rights with the United States government, amending the tribal constitution to facilitate the expulsion of Cherokee Freedman seems inconsistent with the tribe's prior and ongoing attempts to secure respect for and enforcement of treaty rights.
teabanks
I think that this referendum is indicative of the fact that exclusive practices and characterization of the "other" is not limited to white maintstream society. That is, the unequal treatment of the other is bolstered by exclusionist impulses that undelie myriad cultures. In many ways, minority groups have embraced the same kind of racist thinking that they are victims to. Why? That's the crucial quesiton. Perhaps it's an amalgam of different factors: bitterness that springs from the racism they've encountered throughout history; the result of their desire to strip away their non-white characteristics and be included among white, mainstream society; an unconscious choice to exclude those who are different. The last explanation may be the most interesting and revolting: it points to the idea that human beings are inherently racist. Is racism the norm? Surely, this can't be the case in 2007...can it?
This is in response to 'jt'. Though I do not think racism, per se, is natural to us humans, i DO think that "othering" is a natural evolutionary psycho-social response. Personally, I believe that when humans begagn organizing in groups, the importance of "othering" (that is to say, keeping "us" and "ours" away from those ("others") that have not contributed, was an essential survival instinct. It is a part of our evolutionary past. And, as our groupings expanded, so to did our reliance on definitions of "us" and the "other", to better enable the larger labour-diversified groups to determine just who got to share with the group, and who was excluded. Finally, when our groupings got large and mobile enough, 'racism' was born; and, unfortunately, we have never grown out of it. Racism, just like all other "isms" (sexism, nationalism, etc.) are just means by which the human social animal differentiates between those it can trust as part of its own mutual network, and those part of another (and, thus, deserving of mistrust). Nothing I have said 'justifies' racism - just explains it, in my opinion.
-Manjit
In response to Manjit, I'd like to say that I agree with your assertion. This explanation supports the claim that racism is deeply rooted in our history and goes far beyond what most people can imagine. The problem here, as stated by Bonilla-Silva, is that the majority of individuals in today's world do not recognize the gravity and seriousness of the matter; as a result, our society develops weak responses to something that calls for much more.
- Jonathan
This is very disheartening. My husband is about 1/8 Cherokee and is very proud of his heritage. I always held the Cherokee in higher esteem because of their acceptance of all the children of the tribe.
This regression to the disgusting racist policies of British and American government practices aimed at exclusion sadden me a great deal.
If one has blood of a certain group, socializes with that group, practices the religion, participates in celebrations, shares its losses, and speak the language of that group, they are a member pure and simple. It is up to the descendant to define him or herself, not the men in power who establish laws to serve their own ambitions and interests. This writ will never change the fact that those people are Cherokee, it just brings the shame of the tribe's racism to light.
Post a Comment