|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:35 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| I'm not really up on Native American history, but it's news to me that the Cherokee even had slaves. I really don't remember being told that they owned black slaves when we read about the Trail of Tears in 5th-grade history class. I wonder why not... did the textbook writers think that including such information would have diminished our sympathy for the Cherokee and the perceived injustice against them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Cherokees, may the Great Spirit bless their ruddy cojones, insist they have a sovereign right to determine tribal membership along genetic bloodlines. Such a sentiment seems simultaneously antiquated and refreshing. There are likely some economic reasons for denying tribal membership to the Freedmen, but there�s also an apparent will to preserve a genetic and cultural heritage that was nearly obliterated. For the Freedmen�s descendants, despite their yakety-yak about human rights, it strains belief to think they really care that much about sweat lodges and stomp dances. For them, it appears to be all about the wampum.
http://takimag.com/article/bury_my_heart_at_wounded_negro/page_2#axzz1X4rTRuiN |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
| Why would so many people suddenly want to on the tribal membership roll? Nostalgia for the great Native American past!this is about money. There are thousands of people of all sorts of ethnicity who attempt to get their name on the tribal rolls and get a piece of the casino money. Far more "whites" are rejected. People get denied or booted off all the time, these people just happen to be black. that does not guarantee that this is racial descrimination. Lets see one of your ancestors was a slave of the Cherokee, you are one eight of that lineage, and you have never set foot on the reservation. tHIS IS TYPICAL OF MANY OF THE APPLICANTS FROM WHAT I HAVE READ IN THE nORTH cAROLINA NEWSPAPERS. Should you recieve funds that were set aside for people who can prove that they are one 16th Cherokee and have relatives who reside on the reservation or who reside their themselves. |
I think there is universal agreement that the Cherokee have the right to deny benefits to those who have a limited or tenuous connection to the tribe or their traditions. But the Cherokee have not created criteria that would limit contributions to those with the sole intention of collecting benefits. This is what the Cherokee Nation did and the Cherokee high court approved:
| Quote: |
The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma can deny citizenship to the Freedmen, who are the descendants of former slaves, the tribe's top court ruled on Monday.
In 2007, tribal members amended the constitution to limit enrollment to people whose ancestors were listed on the Indian portion of the Dawes Roll. Ancestors on the Freedmen portion of the roll weren't accepted as proof of citizenship.
Freedmen descendants sued in tribal court and won a decision that reinstated their rights. They argued that a post-Civil War 1866 treaty with the United Status guaranteed citizenship.
The Cherokee Nation Supreme Court acknowledged that the tribe amended its constitution in 1866 to accept the Freedmen. But that also means tribe could take action to exclude them, the justices said by a 4-1 vote. |
This is racial discrimination. It is discrimination based on race, not on other factors (such as intent to be part of the Cherokee tribe).
I actually agree that this is permissible under Cherokee Nation law. After all, they did amend their Constitution.
The question is: does the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause apply to the Cherokee Nation? I think the 14th Amendment should apply to the tribes. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the tribes must guarantee their citizens protection under the US Constitution (it incorporated most of the Bill of Rights). Nevertheless, case law has limited the practical enforcement of many of these rights. In fact, Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez involved an equal protection claim (although based on sexual rather than racial classification). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
