The Local Crank

Musings & Sardonic Commentary on Politics, Religion, Culture & Native American Issues. Bringing you the finest in radioactive screeds since 2002! "The Local Crank" newspaper column is distributed by Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Cleburne, Texas, United States

Just a simple Cherokee trial lawyer, Barkman has been forcing his opinions on others in print since, for reasons that passeth understanding, he was an unsuccessful candidate for state representative in 2002. His philosophy: "If people had wanted me to be nice, they should've voted for me."

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Blood Will Tell

I think it's astonishing that neither this USA Today story, nor Principal Chief Chad Smith's rebuttal to it, make mention of the central fact in this dispute: most of the Freedmen were not given a blood quanta on the Dawes Roll (due to the prevailing racist belief at the time that "one drop" of "black blood" made one "black") and therefore they cannot prove their eligibility for tribal citizenship, no matter how much "Indian blood" they have. Since we know the Freedmen were discriminated against, why can't the tribe simply allow them to register if they can show "Indian blood" from a source other than the Dawes Roll, such as one of the other rolls, the Cherokee census or so forth? This would allow Freedmen who are of genuine Cherokee ancestry to retain their citizenship, while weeding out those who have no "Indian blood," but are the descendents of those granted tribal membership on the order of the Federal Government in 1866. I hardly think I'm the smartest person watching this controversy; surely this solution has occured to someone else? Chief Smith is absolutely right; determining citizenship is a fundamental right of any sovereign Nation. But, as a dispossesed people, victims of ethnic cleansing, scattered into diaspora by the cruelty of a racist federal government, does not the Cherokee Nation have a larger moral duty? The duty to preserve the Nation by ensuring that ALL members of the tribe are ackowledged as citizens? Particularly those whose ancestors were subject to the first and largest termination in the whole sad history of that failed policy, the Dawes Commission?

Labels: , , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger WayneDawg said...

What % of blood makes someone a particular group of people?

12/07/2006 6:51 AM  
Blogger The Local Crank said...

The federal gov't invented the racist idea of "blood quanta." It is not an Indian concept at all. Indians are the only group in America required to "prove their pedigree" to the government's satisfaction. If you list yourself as, say, African American on the census, no one requires you to prove your grandma was also African-America. Anyway, today, the tribes determine what blood quanta is needed for membership. Some tribes require 1/4; the Cherokee Nation has no blood quanta limit, on the theory that Cherokee blood is like gold-precious no matter how diluted. You, do, however, have to prove a direct lineal ancestor who received an allotment of land from the racist Dawes Commission between 1898 and 1914.

12/07/2006 5:13 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home