<div>maybe the Freemen need to agitate for reparations? At the very least African-americans should boycott Cherokee casinos, tho thats very unlikely.</div> <div> </div> <div>jim<BR><BR><B><I>John Thornton <jthorn65@sbcglobal.net></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Miles Jackson wrote:<BR>> John Thornton wrote:<BR>> <BR>>> Ismail Lagardien wrote:<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>>> Hi folks<BR>>>><BR>>>> This is from another list - incredible. What a country!<BR>>>><BR>>>> Cut Here:<BR>>>> By an overwhelming vote<BR>>>> the Cherokee amended their constitution that in effect nullified tribal<BR>>>> citizenship for nearly 3,000 members for having ancestors that included<BR>>>> people of African descent. The one-drop rule seems to have resurfaced<BR>>>> with a bite.<BR>>>>
<BR>>>> <BR>>> The one drop rule?<BR>>> What does the most recent decision by the Cherokee Nation have to do <BR>>> with the one drop rule?<BR>>> Absolutely nothing.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>> --On the contrary: it's precisely analogous to the one-drop rule in the <BR>> South! One group sets an arbitrary standard for "pureblood" membership <BR>> that excludes people of African descent? Check. The arbitrary standard <BR>> is then used to allocate rights and resources to the "pureblood" group <BR>> and exclude the "mixed race" group? Check. The official designation of <BR>> the "pure" racial group reinforces the myth that there are biologically <BR>> distinct racial groups? Check. --What's not to get here?<BR>><BR>> Miles<BR><BR>I'll try to explain this as best I can after a few gin & tonics.<BR>Many Cherokees owned slaves. They not only owned slaves of African <BR>descent but Lenape
and Creek descendants.<BR>Race originally had nothing to do with slavery for the Cherokee and race <BR>had nothing initially to do with tribal membership either.<BR>The Cherokees let members of any race become tribal members. Tribal <BR>membership was viewed in political terms, not racial terms.<BR><BR>All of this slowly changed as the Cherokee, in an attempt to show whites <BR>how civilized they were, adopted more white values.<BR>Only in 1824 did it become illegal for a tribal member to marry someone <BR>of African descent. This was, in a sense, the beginning of the end of <BR>racial tolerance.<BR>In 1828 blacks could no longer be members of the tribe but existing <BR>tribal members with black ancestry were no stripped of membership.<BR>If the one drop rule were to be believed to have been applied then those <BR>tribal members with African ancestry would have been stripped of their <BR>membership.<BR>Therefore it is obvious that the one drop rule was not being
applied.<BR><BR>The Freedmen were just exactly that. Slaves who were freed in 1866. They <BR>were not allowed to become members of the tribe but the reality is that <BR>the 1935 census of Cherokees showed that fewer than 1% of the freed <BR>slaves claimed any Cherokee blood ancestry. They were not Cherokees <BR>either through kinship or custom at that time so why it is "obvious" <BR>today that they should be considered Cherokee?. There are Cherokee with <BR>black ancestors and there is no move to strip them of citizenship which <BR>would also have to be the case were the one drop rule to be applied.<BR>As I have repeatedly said, I disagree with the vote to exclude the <BR>Freedmen and I think it is disgraceful but I believe it is disgraceful <BR>for real reasons, not imaginary ones. Believing it is a version of the <BR>one drop rule is imaginary. I have never defended the tribes position on <BR>this issue but I also wish for it to be seen for what it is. If you <BR>oppose
it because you believe it is an implementation of the one drop <BR>rule then once it is demonstrated that it is not does do this the <BR>grounds for opposition are removed. Opposing the tribes position for <BR>real reasons runs no such risk.<BR><BR>When the truth is damning enough why do some feel compelled to embellish <BR>the story and exaggerate what has taken place?<BR>How can one reconcile the fact that there are Cherokees with African <BR>ancestry who are tribal members if they really believe that the tribe is <BR>attempting to implement some form of the one drop rule? The one drop <BR>rule would exclude those tribal members and there has NEVER been any <BR>discussion of removing those members.<BR>Some list members bristle at the use of the term fascist to describe our <BR>current administration because it is not accurate.<BR>They should equally bristle at the idea that what the Cherokee have <BR>recently voted to do is implement a one drop rule.<BR>Denying Freedmen
tribal membership is ugly, hateful and racist but it is <BR>not an implementation of the one drop rule.<BR><BR>John Thornton<BR><BR>___________________________________<BR>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Jim Davis<br>Ozark Bioregion, USA<br><br>New: http://www.lulu.com/content/306796<br>http://shops.half.ebay.com/brothershak_W0QQmZbooks