Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Rep. Diane Watson's Meeting With The Cherokee Freedmen

Rep. Diane Watson was at the Cherokee Freedmen's Meeting this past weekend.

The Honorable California Congresswoman Diane Watson of California was the keynote speaker at the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes Association annual conference which was held at the Oklahoma City Langston University campus on June 7th 2008. The Congresswoman exhorted the freedmen people to continue to fight on for their treaty rights. She spoke of the oversight role of Congress in determining how federal funds are spent. Her speech pointed out that the leadership of the Cherokee nation of Oklahoma has spent more than $10 million dollars in lobbying and legal costs to remove the tribal citizenship of the 2800 Cherokee freedmen tribal members whose ancestors were enslaved by Cherokee Indians.
She also spoke of how the tribe has shut down enrollment of Cherokee freedmen tribal members and how the descendants of the recognized black Cherokee freedmen tribal members are unable to access benefits. She spoke of her concern for elderly freedmen such as Mrs. Riggs, a relative of Cherokee Will Rogers who are currently being denied benefits available for other Cherokee citizens due to her status as a Cherokee freedman.

Congresswoman Watson discussed the bill which she introduced in Congress in June 2007, HR2824 which if passed will deny federal funding(which is currently about 300 million ) to the Cherokee nation of Oklahoma until the tribe comes into legal compliance regarding the continuation of the tribal membership of the freedmen tribal members who have a treaty right to tribal membership. She spoke of her support for hearings to be held on the bill by the House Judiciary and the Natural Resources Committees. She emphasized the fact that the bill HR 2824 is not a termination bill of the tribe’s government to government relationship with the United States.
She also discussed why myths which have been put out as fact by the Cherokee nation are not true – such as the tribal administration statements that Cherokees did not own slaves.
She spoke of the Cherokee tribe’s passing of brutal laws encouraging the oppression of people of African ancestry, of tribal laws passed protecting the institution of slavery during the 19th century and the brutal suppression of a slave revolt in 1842 by the tribal government.

She exhorted the freedmen people to continue to lobby members of Congress, tribal leaders, and local legislators for support of freedmen rights and warned the freedmen that the Cherokee leadership’s goal is to just outlast the freedmen and their allies.


Tyrant said...

It is laughable that when a Tribe breaks a treaty it is somehow big news or some horrible deed. The United States broke every damn treaty they signed with Native Tribes. If these freedmen descendents do not have any indian ancestors then they are not indian, there is no argument. You can spin the slavery issue any way you want, they are not indian, end of story. Watson would do better to stop worrying about non-indians in another state and more about the indians in her own.

It is time to vote her out I guess.

O Pechanga said...

Treaties should either be kept, or not. Because the US broke treaties, doesn't mean the Cherokee's haven't.

Cherokee's are able to toss out the Freedmen... and the Congress is free to not support a sovereign government that would do that sort of thing to it's people. NO MONEY.

I agree that it would be better for Diane Watson to get involved in the issues of Natives in California that have been mistreated and violated by tribes like Pechanga.

Tyrant said...

"Cherokee's are able to toss out the Freedmen... and the Congress is free to not support a sovereign government that would do that sort of thing to it's people. NO MONEY."

Are you even listening to yourself? The Cherokee feel they are righting a wrong, they were "FORCED" to include the slaves. They are not kicking out indians, they are kicking out non-indians. It is not the same thing as tribes disenrolling indians to up their cash payments. I feel bad for "REAL" indians forced outta their tribes over greed, but I will not jump on the Cherokee bandwagon as it is not the same thing. If the Cherokee are kicking out members that have "ZERO" Cherokee blood then be gone I say. Everyone that is supporting the Freedmen should be ashamed. In fact the Cherokee should be compensated for all the years that they "HAD" to share government funds with non-indians.

I will always support the Pechanga, however my personal feeling is that you should be ashamed for siding with the Freedmen over the Cherokee. I will freely admit that there may be aspects of it that I do not know or have yet to learn. I will simply state it like this, if all they are doing is removing non-indians from their rolls then there should be no problem.

You don't hear anyone crying out for "REAL" indians and demanding that these other tribes be punished, why not? Because we are not black, therefore we do not matter.

O Pechanga said...

The Cherokee Nation as a whole benefitted from slavery. Many fought on the side of the confederacy.

The Cherokee Termination acts are wrong, just as the removal of "real" Indians is wrong by Pechanga.

IF the Cherokee want to break the treaty... FINE. But the Feds should do what it's doing, not give anymore funds and let the Cherokee finance their nation with the over $400,000,000 they get from their businesses.

Tyrant said...

Like I said, Shame! I think the problem is that since your family was kicked out you feel some empathy or something for these non-indians. If they were never indian, then they should not be considered now. It really has nothing to do with any treaty, a treaty does not make anyone indian. These Freedmen should be held to the same justification as other indians, proof of indian ancestors. If they cannot prove, even if it was because the Dawes rolls were flawed then to bad.

As long as the Federals condone and reward other tribes for removing "Real" indians, these freedmen get nothing but disdain from me. They are not indians, if they could prove that they are they would not have been removed.

O Pechanga said...

The disdain should be felt for those Tribal Govts. such as Pechanga, that have abused their people. We have people that ARE NOT INDIANS kicking out those that are. In our family's case, one proven by the tribe's own expert.

The Freedmen were awarded all rights as citizens in the treaty that the Cherokee Govt. agreed to.

They benefitted from slavery and have the responsibility for it.

wiaasal said...

We as a family have voted for and support the adoption of non-indians in our tribe for the indian way.

These Cherokee Freedmen have been part of this tribe since they were forced onto reservations by the US Government.

I'm sure there is a long history behind this story that we are only getting a glimpse of.

The Cherokee have included the Freedmen since signing of its treaty.

They have a right to determine their membership, but they are terminating extended families some of which may have indian ancestry, some may not. The Indian way only allows for termination if tribal customs and traditions are being trampled on or violated by member or members of the tribe.

Some apple natives "red on the outside, but white on the inside" forget the true meaning of indian.


I believe the termination of indian people is for total control over governments, politics, and millions of dollars flowing thru our reservations today.

It's a sad day for indian country.

Phil Cuevas said...

Are the Cherokee kicking out those Freedmen desendants that never assimilated into the tribe at all (No Cherokee blood)?

Or are they also kicking out the desendants that mixed in with the Indians (Mixed Cherokee blood)?

t'eetilawuncha! said...

Stop the termination of life long members. If anything make your enrollment guidelines stronger. Do not terminate current members or entire families for political control of the tribe. It stinks of greed.

O Pechanga said...

T'eetilwuncha! is RIGHT. It does stink of greed and we should NOT let tribes like Pechanga and the Cherokee just get away with it.

Just as it's the Cherokee's sovereign right to terminate members and family, it's the US Govt. right to NOT GIVE them FUNDS to the tune of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Dollars as a reward. Non-Tribal citizens should CEASE to support tribes that do this.

In Riverside County, TEMECULANS should CEASE to do business with Pechanga, while understanding that it is PECHANGA'S SOVEREIGN RIGHT to NOT obey its OWN CONSTITUTIONS, thereby rendering it's bylaws WORTHLESS. It then matches the tribal council, which is also worthless.

Moral Outrage, expressed via withholding of funds and patronage, may help these tribes to see the right way.

Anonymous said...

The freedmans should have their rights.

The Hunter case is sooo different.
We are Native Americans & proved it!

Our tribe broke all the rules to get us out! All in the name of power&greed!!!

Sorry, but I have yet to see freedmans speak out on Hunters behalf. We sure seem to have their backs? Yes, I understand they are keeping the issue in the news. But,Is it helping us,OP?

Tyrant said...

Shame is all I can say. You are trying to compare to vastly different situations. Pechanga kicked out actual indians, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they and their ancestors were Pechanga. The Cherokee are removing "NON-INDIANS", they should never have been forced to take them in the first place. People are so afraid to look like they condone disenrolling. The Cherokee are removing non-indians from the rolls, this would free up money for the actual indians that may have use for it. The Cherokee are well within their rights to determine their own membership. They are not disenrolling most of their members to control the government, it was only like what 2000 people out of how many Cherokee Nation members.

Oh and the whole "Apple" analogy, dumb. Almost as dumb as calling people twinkies, real indians know that their tribes have certain rights and responsibilities to actual indians.

Freedmen are not Indian, never have been Indian and never will be Indian. You are either born Indian or not, there is no other way. I feel for real indians that have been removed for greed, but I feel no sympathy for non-indians removed from tribal rolls.

It must be torture to sit here day in and day out and rail about how evil Pechanga is and noone could give a S__T. Then you have blacks removed from a tribe and all of a sudden its National News. Good Job defending these non-indians, they shouldnt even be a blip on your radar, trust me you are not going to advance anything for your family by jumping on the soapbox for the freedmen.

That is it for me, I am never going to change my mind and you all will never change yours so no point going back and forth I have said all I have to say.

wiaasal said...

Some information:


O Pechanga said...

Tyrant, thanks for coming by and while we don't have to agree, your points are presented well.

We'd prefer you stay and contribute.

They are not disenrolling most of their members to control the government, it was only like what 2000 people out of how many Cherokee Nation members.


Allen L. Lee said...

“Tyrant says: “The Cherokee feel they are righting a wrong, they were "FORCED" to include the slaves. “

To my knowledge no one has ever been forced to own private property in the history of this country, of which slaves fit the category. There are plenty of instances of the government taking private property from people, including Native Americans, but forcing Native Americans to own slaves doesn’t fit with the facts.
Citizenship for ex-slaves after the Civil War based on their residency was the rule of the day in all slave owning territories. there was no more force on the Cherokee nation with regards to their ex-slaves and citizenship then there was for the states of Alabama or South Carolina. If that argument is valid for the Cherokee nation than it is equally valid for Alabama and South Carolina and they to should have the right to remove their slave descendant citizens from the rights of those states.
Their have been cases when a slave owner could not free their slaves in certain regions and had to move them to free areas in order to manumit them, but no slave owner was ever forced to take possession of a slave they did not already own by the U.S. or any individual state.
There have been several proposals to make slave owning mandatory, including one by a renowned Cherokee figure of history, on the subject of “forced”
1., “…Colonel Elias Cornelius Boudinot, the son of Elias Boudinot,
…Boudinot, his family, Chief Ross, indeed many wealthy Cherokees were slave holders in Georgia and, after removal, in Oklahoma. On this issue Boudinot saw no middle ground.
"The distinctions are hypocritical. ... We believe in aggressive slavery; that it is the duty of all good meaning citizens, if they are able, to own Negroes. We believe the Creator will inflict a terrible punishment on those who neglect this duty."
2., “I William Garrett Jr. of said state and county do hereby certify that on or about the fourteenth day of Sept. 1835 I was employed by John Ratliff, a Cherokee, to recapture a certain Negro man by name “Bill” who it was said had been stolen by one David J. Hooks a white man. That the said Ratliff agreed to pay me for recapturing said Negro, two hundred dollars; that I did recapture the said Negro “Bill” and return him to the said Ratliff; and that the said Ratliff has obligated himself in writing to pay me $200 for said service. I further state that the said David J. Hooks was tried in St. Clair county in said state for his life upon a charge of Negro stealing.
Wm. Garrett
Sworn to and subscribed before me the 4th Oct. 1836

Jesiah Harper (seal)
An acting justice of the Peace in and for said county”

As for the subject of non-Indians, the U.S. stance follows:
1., “Many people mistakenly believe that the unique status of Indians and Indian tribes is based on race. Unfair and illegal racial discrimination is a commonly used argument in challenging tribal sovereignty, the tax status of tribes and individual Indians, and other perceived "special rights."
Indian people and tribes often are treated differently under U.S. laws, but such treatment has nothing to do with racial classification. While Indians and non-Indians are different races, Congress and the courts have made clear that separate treatment of Indians is based on their status as separate political -- not racial -- groups. “

2., “In sum, the motion states that the ICRA amendments are reviewed under rational basis, since Indians [FN2] are a political and not racial classification; there is a rational basis for the law; and therefore, there is no constitutional infirmity.”
Allen L. Lee

t'eetilawuncha! said...

Nice history lesson.

It was only 2000 terminated? Well I guess that makes it alright.


Anonymous said...

I feel the same way as tyrant; and in some ways I am surprised that more do not feel this same way. If you look back at the history of Pechanga, if the tribe would have never allowed non-Indians into the tribe you all may still be enrolled. You talk about how unfair it is that Pechanga has non-Indian members and yet you, individuals with Indian blood are not in. It's hard to know what the future will bring for the Cherokee tribe, but maybe by correcting this now it will avoid problems for Cherokee blood Indians later.

scared lusieno said...

From my friend Robert Upman:
One Drunk Indian Interview,
but she makes some points.


Scared Lusieno said...

The above post was a fubar!

Try this one!


Tyrant said...

I am not leaving the site, merely not gonna go back and forth over the issue. You all feel people that don't back the Freedmen are wrong while we feel that anyone that backs the Freedmen are wrong.

Also to the guy that tried to overkill the whole thing. I never said that they were forced to have slaves, nor has anyone else. The Cherokee were forced to include the then freed slaves, hence the name "Freedmen". Maybe you should do some more research on the subject and come back and try to look even smarter. Also despite what you say about indian and non-indians there is a world of difference, you either are or your not. You just cannot magically become indian one day, no more than I can become Cuban tomorrow. The tribes are the ones that have the final say as to who they consider for inclusion, when it is done right you get the Freedmen situation, which is getting non-indians out, when it is done wrong you get the situation in California where the motivation is for greed.

Also how many freedmen makes it right? All of them. Everyone just tries to cloud the issue, they are not Cherokee, they never were Cherokee, they should of never been in the tribe in the first place. They should not be in there now, these non-indians are taking money out of the mouths of indian families that might need it. So if it was 2,000 or 20,000 it wouldnt make a difference.

Because they are black and their ancestors were slaves this issue has been pushed to the forefront of Indian Country. The bottom line is the descendants of the Freedmen are descended from Africans(there was no such thing as African American then), they are not Cherokee by any stretch of the imagination. You can argue that the Dawes rolls were flawed but that is to damn bad, a lot of REAL indians have to rely on that and some that deserve to be included in a tribe might not pass based on it. They don't get any special consideration so these Freedmen shouldnt either. Since you like to say it is well within the Federals rights to withhold money, then it is also well within their right to form a new tribe around the Freedmen. Maybe what indian country needs is a Native African Tribe to balance things out. Cause honestly that is what all you seem to be pushing for.

We Western Shoshone have been fighting over our Treaty rights forever it seems. We have gone before the UN and CERD and gotten favorably rulings and the US has been found in violation and told to deal with us. Have they? No! Why, because they are the Government and don't have too. The only reason these politicians care is because they know it will make them look good for re-election. You think these people give a S--T about us Indians? You don't see these Freedmen rallying behind the acutal indians that are being disenrolled do you, maybe they just don't deserve your sympathy or support.

Allen L. Lee said...

I'm leading to a summation that may be a little uncomfortable for all. The issue of legal status is more important than the genetic heritage with regards to citizenship. I find no relevance in Pauline Hunter's tribal affiliation as a by blood or non-blood Indian or Pechanga lineal descent.
What I find to be important is the recognized legal status of those who were dis-enrolled at the time they were dis-enrolled. There is no known precedent for a sovereign nation to retro-actively diqualify a citizen based on presumed errors of previous administrations. Even if the ancestor committed fraud to gain citizenship, accepting the descendants as citizens must be determined on its own separate merits. Under general rules of human rights, the child is not held accountable for the sins of the parent. Once accepted as a citizen, that right is inherit and inalienable. This is the crux of the human rights violation that I challenge.
If the U.S. can not enforce these general principles of human rights in Native Nations which they claim federal jurisdiction over, than they might as well relinquish federal jurisdiction and conduct government to government relation with Native Nations as if they were foriegn nations and allow any human rights complaints in Native Nation to be heard in international tribunals.
An interesting analogy is slave reparations. The fact that slavery was legal makes it that no person who was engaging in a legal activity will ever be held legally liable today. The only people who could be held liable are those who engaged in the practice after it was unlawfull. We also can not hold the descendants of slave owners liable for what their ancestors did as a legal practice. There are lots of reparations to be addressed after slavery ended, but that is another topic.
Point is that current governments do not generally hold themselves or their current citizens accountable for the decisions of their predessecors, that is one of the purposes for sovereign immunity. For Pechanga and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma to draw back to the actions of their predessecors and say they made a mistake in citizenship decisions that we are correcting now, that is the human rights violation and it must be addressed by federal jurisdiction. Citizenship once inherently recognized by a nation or granted without fraud to an adoptee is inalienable.
Allen L. Lee

'Amo'kat said...

Mr. Lee you make some good points that a tribe should not be able to retroactively disenroll people by undoing actions by previous officials.

However in our case some of the people who disenrolled us or pushed for our disenrollment were the same people who voted us in in the first place!

For example, I know of some desecedants of Paulina Hunter who have letters welcoming them to the tribe years ago signed by the very same people who were on the enrollment committee who voted us out all of these years later!

Although the enrollment committee did have some changes there are members of the committee who have had their positions for many years and also former enrollment committee members who approved our membership now claim we don't belong who are now against their own decisions to enroll us years ago!

Mr. Lee, one thing I disagree about is that the crux of the matter is that Paulina Hunter was an origninal Pechanga person and that is really all that matters.

'Amo'kat (Hunter in the native language).

Tyrant said...

What a joke!

Allen L. Lee said...

Hello 'Amo'kat,
I fully expected to have to qualify that position and I thank you for allowing the opportunity.
There is no doubt that your ancestor, Pauline Hunter is of the utmost significance in establishing a cultural heritage for her descendants as Pechanga people. Another one of the posters one this thread hit the nail on the head for me with a key word, that being "recognition." when discussing how the elders would recognize a member. Their is no doubt that Pauline Hunter was recognized as a Pechanga and as I read your response and some of the history not posted on here about the deeds of your family for the tribe, there is no doubt that you and your family were recognized as citizens of the Pechanga Tribe/Nation.. Once you were "recognized" as a member/citizen of the Pechanga Nation there is no precedent in my mind for that being recinded for any purpose other than deliberate fraud to obtain citizenship or treason. Selling sacred objects to museums or publishing ceremonial secrets in your college papers is a form of treason to me. None of these two scenarios exist for your family or with the Cherokee Freedmen. Not only were you recognized as a citizen by the Pechanga, but you were probably recognized as a Pechanga by the Soboba, The Morongo the Cahuilla, the Pala and by the U.S.
This is important because all these conditions of recognition establish your right to be Pechanga. While it is important to respect blood ties and culture, and I don’t see that as a problem when considering someone’s petition to be a citizen, the rights of a citizens already recognized should not hinge on the status of an ancestor.. It is a dangerous premise that is directly associated with blood quantums, by-blood discrimination and an old American tool to deny freed slaves rights after the Civil War called “Grandfather Clauses,” which basically established if your grandfather didn’t vote before the Civil War than you didn’t have the right to vote.
You had a recognition as a Pechanga citizen. With-out just cause, a sovereign nation can not instruct other sovereign nations to no longer recognize you as one of their own and not be considered a human rights violation. Saudi Arabia had just cause to deny Bin-laden as one of their own, he declared war against another nation without the consent of the government he was a citizen of, the Taliban should have done the same. The Pechanga have no just cause and neither do the Cherokee and the U.S. has to make some hard decisions on whether they are going to recognize constantly fracturing factions of tribes or the historically defined (Pauline Hunter and descendants/ Cherokee Freedmen and descendants) total tribe as a sovereign nation.
Allen L. Lee

Allen L. Lee said...

to tyrant,
What's laughable is the term "real Indian" since no such term can be established to have existed among any of the native people here before Columbus initiated the European move to colonize and conquer the western hemisphere. If you were to say real Shoshone, or real Pechanga, or real Cherokee based on a peoples social and political recognition of each other, I would take that seriously, but real Indian? I think there is some knowledge to be gained in understanding the difference of how colonize and conquest affected different Native peoples depending on where they were located on the continent. Three main things were used on Native peoples everywhere, assimilation, isolation and extermination. Assimilation was often an ultimatum made in order to avoid the other two fates. One of the things that accompanied the pressured assimilation of the Cherokee, the Choctaw, the Creek the Seminole and the Chickasaw was their adaptation to the institution of slavery. Their ability to participate in this institution as slave-owners and traders is largely what gave them the title of "civilized tribes' No ethnic group is immune from the stain of slaveholder, privileged Blacks owned slaves and Black family members owned other members as slaves because they could not be set free in certain regions, requiring that the slave prove that they have any free master that they would be accountable to, Black, White, Indian or otherwise.
Once Blacks became slaves of citizens of Native Nations, they became members of those nations, albeit subjugated members. After the Civil War sovereign states were expected to incorporate their slaves as citizens of their states, the Native Nation who had slaves were no different in this respect. many of the Native Nation slaves left and became citizens of all Black towns in the territory that eventually became the state of Oklahoma. They relinquished their rights to be citizens of the native Nations when they left. Those that stayed in the nations were granted citizenship and that is the legal basis for the rights of the descendants today. The treaty states that the ex-slaves and their "descendants" shall have all the rights of native Cherokees. The rights of the descendants are established by law.
Let's discuss assimilation, isolation and extermination in the western part of the continent.
In California assimilation began in the missions with Spanish colonialism. Slavery of Native Peoples accompanied both Spanish colonialism and the American conquest in 1846, with Native peoples selling as slaves for around 50 to 100 dollars. California sold bonds for a war of extermination of California Indians and American settlers beheaded Native Americans for bounty in no less an obscene fashion than Al Qaida has done. under Bin Laden
Native American contact with people of African descent begins with Spanish colonialism and continues with the American Black-White man as gold miner, settler, and Buffalo Soldier. There are some instances of people of African descent becoming members of Native Nation in the west, but their membership in these nations has little basis in the history of America slavery.
African American is a unique culture defined by the laws and customs they wee forced to live by. People of African descent in Native Nations represent a different culture than that of the African-American. They lived by different cultural standards simply by measure of them being members of native nations rather than U.S. members/citizens. Being Indian or non-Indian is so western values of racial definition that any citizenship requirements that call for it should be reviewed for racism and human rights. There isn't anything indigenous about it.
Allen L. Lee

Tyrant said...

For all your huffing and puffing the basic facts are that the United States is going to support and condone the Pechanga, as they have said membership determination is an "Internal Tribal Matter". Funny when it has to do with indians it is an internal matter and the Federals do nothing, but when blacks get the axe they want to jump in with both feet and do something about it. The Federals are the ones that introduced degree of blood, once again you are either born indian or you are not. Either your ancestors were indian or they were not, there really is no two ways about it. Once again the Pechanga and Cherokee are two vastly different scenario's that people try to treat as identical situations.

I and my family fully support the Hunter's, and there hasn't been one time when I made the trip up to the Owens Valley where my family has not asked what is going on with the Pechanga People. I don't support the Freedmen, that is my choice, just like it is yours to support them. However if you are going to support them then do not try to relate the Pechanga with the Freedmen, the only thing they have in common is that members of the tribe were disenrolled, however in one case you have indians and in the other you have non-indians. Imagine what would happen if the Federals made the decisions about who was to be included in tribes rather than the tribes themselves. If the Federals want these Freedmen to be considered Indian then let them form a new tribe around them. I guess it is about time that us real indians stop keeping being an indian all to ourselves.

Tyrant said...

Real Indian is just that a "Real Indian", not someone like the Freedmen that claim they are Indian because they were in a tribe. I am Paiute/Shoshone because my ancestors were Paiute and Shoshone. So for all your attempts at overkill and history lessons the basic fact remains the same. The Freedmen are not, have not, and never will be Indian. Therefore they are non-indian and therefore not real indians. Once again you are Indian if you were born Indian, the same way one would be Irish, Mexican, Chinese, or Martian. If your ancestors were one thing then you are the same, you cannot get away from it. You are like a lot of people, trying to hide the facts behind a long list of irrelevant things. You have us going to Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia and Africa and all over the damn globe, and yet the simple fact remains that the Freedmen are just that freed slaves that should of just been freed and the Cherokee should not have been "FORCED" to make reparations to the slaves by including them. So get on with the next history lesson, maybe you will eventually get to something relevant. I am not saying you are not convincing somebody, however for me, my family and the people looking over my shoulder we are just laughing at you. Sorry! Also please do me one small favor when you start a new paragraph can you include a space so it will be a tad easier to read, thnx.

Allen L. Lee said...

To tyrant,
The point is the Freedmen descendants don't have to be real Indians. They only have to be Cherokee citizens by law, meaning citzens of a sovereign nation, not a racial club. You don't need my
help making a race club.
With all your concern about real Indians, you probably missed the fact the one of the Hunter posts stated that their were peersons of African descent in their family. That's not unusualy in the Southern California Nations, especially around Banning. I don't see how you could be an honest advocate of the Hunter's knopwing your racial disdain for people of African descent as non-Indians.
On the point of Freed slaves. they were freed with the understanding that those sovereign nations and states where they were located would incorporate them as citizens. They were'nt just supposed to be freed and ride off on a boat back to Africa or start their own Black nation, though there were several attempts to do just that. The federal government, states,and Native American nations
frowned on the idea. You should read the history on the attempt to turn Oklahoma into a Black state.
Allen L. Lee

tyrant said...

Once again nothing you said pertained at all to anything of relevance. I have no disdain for Blacks at all, I am not just blindly jumping on the bandwagon because they are Black like everyone else appears to be doing. The only reason this issue is national and not something local is because they are black that is a fact.

They do have to be Cherokee as the Cherokee have said that is what is a requirement to be a member of their nation. You are trying to say/imply that I am racist somehow because I am against the Freedmen, when I am against all persons that want to be Indian when they are not Indian. It is a Tribal right to determine its own membership, sucks, but its a FACT. This is why Pechanga and other tribes get away with what they are doing to their own members. Disenrolling members so the remaining can get a bigger check is wrong, disenrolling members because they should never have been members is right.

Whether they were freed with the understanding that they would be incorporated or not is pretty much irrelevant, the Cherokee were forced to accept them. I would read the history of Oklahoma, however I don't care about the history of Oklahoma.

So just to clarify I never said that being an Indian or a real indian meant that you could not be mixed with any other race. There are many black Cherokees members that proved their descent and are still members, the ones that were axed were the ones that could not prove they were in fact descended from Cherokee. So huff and puff some more, spin it any way you want, you cannot and will never change the basic fact that non-indians are trying to force themselves into a tribe.

'Amo'kat said...

Tyrant, I don't think you are using sovereignty as a club but tribes like Pechanga are doing so.

It seems like some people, not you in particular, do look at sovereignty as some sort of God that has to be blindly followed at the expense of individual liberty.

I could list how Pechanga violated their own laws and how they ignored any evidence that supported our citizenship but how do we get past the sovereignty issue.

It is not just us it is happening to as the count is at least 3000 or more and counting in California alone who have been disenrolled and in the vast majority of the cases due process was not followed.

You do make some good points about the Freedmen but beyond them, if they are given due process and are disenrolled anyway, WHAT DO THE REST OF US DO WHO HAVE BEEN WRONGED, PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD THEIR RIGHTS VIOLATED BUT CAN'T GET PAST THE SOVEREINGTY ISSUE?

Any suggestions beyond forming our own Hunter/Freedmen alliance?

By the way, I just use capitals to emphasis not to shout.

Allen L. Lee said...

tyrant said:
"...Whether they were freed with the understanding that they would be incorporated or not is pretty much irrelevant, the Cherokee were forced to accept them."
Ex-slaves being incorporated was extremely relevant to the point that ex-confederate states were divided into military districts and ex-confederates were denied citizenship until they took an oath of allegiance to the U.S. All states where slavery was legal were forced to accept there ex-slaves a citizens. I re-iterate that the force you speak about was not discriminately applied to the Cherokee nation but all nations and states known to legalize slavery.
The Cherokee slaveowners had ample opportunity to release their slaves before the war began. Cherokee slaveowners choose to keep their property and enjoy the profits their slaves brought for them. At no time during their "forced" membership as slaves were they ever refused the opportunity to be slaves because they were not "real Indians." No Cherokee seemed to care about them being real Indians when they were slaves, why is it so important now?
Allen L. Lee

Tyrant said...

I kind of figured the CAPITALIZATION was more for emphasis but it is generally regarded as shouting in online forums and online in general, so I had to bust your chops about it. Sorry!

We all have our opinions on the Freedmen issue, I doubt very seriously that any of us are going to change our minds however the fact that we can go back and forth is key in keeping the topic real and relevant.

My family had a similiar situation happen about 6 months ago. Our tribe is kind of split by factions and the "Evil" faction is hell bent on destroying the tribe and seems to be only out for themselves and their cronies. The key difference for us is that our tribe still has no valid constitution and therefore we seem to be at the whim of whoever is the current Chairperson. Anyways right before the new voter list was approved the Evil Ones tried to have all of my family kicked out of the tribe because they claimed that we were not a lineal descendent to an orginal assignment holder. They brought in all kinds of papers from the 1937 land Exchange to prove their case. The problem was they only brought in papers that helped their case and left out pages that hurt it. In the end the other members of the Tribe refused to go along with it and it was back to business as usual. The Funny thing is my Grandmother is #16 on the assignment list.

It was close though, I told my family that it is much easier to stay in a tribe than to get back in after being removed. I pointed out what has been happening with the Casino Indians. We could of just as easily of been removed from the Tribe based on false and fraudulent information, so do believe me when I say I take disenrollments very, VERY seriously.

The real problem with the Pechanga issue as I see it is no one knows. Well perhaps no one is a strong word but it is just not a well known issue. The word must be out. Look at what happend in South Africa for instance, Apartheid was wrong but no one cared until celebrities made a HUGE deal out of it. Do celebrities frequent the casino or perform there? I would contact them or their agents. I would also try to send emails/letters to the stars that are in the news as of late about the crisis in Darfur, such as G. Clooney and Don Cheadle. Adam Beach is another I would also consider getting in touch with AIM although they are not what they used to be. Trust me when I say you do have supporters, but until the issue jumps to the forefront of the news no one will know and no one will care. All it takes is one event to explode the issue. What is needed is an advocate that is famous and will be heard, I would seriously get together and petition for recognition as a new tribe. Even if it is an impossiblity it might get a mention in the news. Another issue is you have to be on every website that is Indian relevant and posting as much as possible. AIM was a pretty much unknown group until they took over the BIA building in Washington back in the day. (Think it was the BIA building) That was a HUGE Thing, that is what is needed eventually you have to take it from writing to something more militant.

Tyrant said...

Allen listening to you just makes me feel tired all over, you just keep going back to the same thing over and over. You completely skirt around the fact that these slaves were not Cherokee Indians, they were merely at the time property of Cherkoee Indians. Was/Is slavery wrong, of course. Does that fact that they were the slaves of the Cherokee give them some form of claim to Cherokee ancestry, NO! The fact that they were slaves is irrelevant, they could of been martians and it would still be irrelevant. The simple fact is and always has been that the Freedmen were never Cherokee Indians and just because the Government put forth the Treaty granting Freedmen inclusion into the tribe doesn't mean that the Cherokee cannot go and remove them.

You can bring up that it wasn't only the Cherokee that were "forced" to do anything and that still wouldn't matter. The United States has said that Indian Tribes/Nations determine their own membership. I don't necessarily agree that they should have the utmost say, I think there should be some review by the Federals.

I think most people are looking at this as a black issue, which somehow makes it even worse and the fact that these are descendents of slaves only adds fuel to the fire. I look at it from the point of view that these non-indian members have been taking up valuable resources that other real indian members could of used. The money from the Federals only stretches so far. Like I said you can bluster all you want and at the end of the day the fact will remain that these descendents of the Freedmen were never Cherokee Indians. So in the eyes of the CN they are simply removing non-indian members who should of never have been in the tribe in the first place.

Allen L. Lee said...

To Tyrant,
The Shawnee are not Cherokee Indians, the Delaware are not Cherokee Indians, yet they are members/citizens of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. If the Cherokee were so concerned about "real Indians, they should have swapped their non-Indians slaves for Indian ones when they fought with their slave-owning buddy Andrew Jackson and made their Creek enemies their slaves. Everybody would have been Real Indians and we would not be discussing this point. Who knew their slave running ally Andrew Jackson would stab the Cherokee in the back after Horseshoe Bend.
I hate to do an overkill but your are probably wrong about Tribes having absolute authority regarding membership/citizenship. Most of my notes establish that Congress also has an authority to determine tribal membership. Courts avoid the issue out of jurisdiction, that has nothing to do with a federal authority to intervene.
The fact that they were or were not Indians by racial definition is the irrelevant thing from my view. Extremely important to you as that is were you always return.
For me the relevant isssue is the legal precedent that made the freedmean and their descendants Cherokee citizens. That legal precedent did not infer that there would be some magical racial metamorphisis and Black folks would be Indians. All the Cherokee officials who amended the 1866 Cherokeee Constitution to make their ex-slaves citizens of the Cherokee nation understood that many of those new citizens were not Indian, but they granted them the legal, not racial credentials to be Cherokee citizens. Once that right is granted, it can not be removed at the whim of political factions, groups, or individuals. It is a right and responsibility solely owned by the citizen as an individual to be surrendered only by voluntary act of the citizen.
I am a descendant of Choctaw slaves. My grandmother carried a Choctaw name and my family made sure I understood our origins as Choctaw slaves. I am not a Choctaw citizen and don't wish to be so I probably will always see the Cherokee issue different from you. But I would prefer as a U.S. citizen not to recognize any Native Nation that engages in dis-enrolling lawfull citizens of their nation, regardless of whether they are real Indians or not. The Hunters had a legal status as Pechanga citizens and that it where I back them 100%.
It doesn't matter to me whether or not they are or were real Indians.
They were real Pechanga and by legal right of recognition still are real Pechanga citizens. that right just has to be enforced by federal jurisdiction, most likely Congress. You must be too tired for it to be laughable anymore.
Allen L. Lee

Tyrant said...

See once again you come full circle back comparing the Pechanga and Cherokee when they are not the same things nor even remotely related. Pechanga disenrolled members based on greed, so the remaing members could get a bigger cut of the casino profits. The Cherokee disenrolled members that were not even Cherokee, nor even Native American. They were in fact African Slaves, don't see how you can even say that Africans somehow have some form of claim to being Cherokee. Once again you are either born indian or not, really no two ways about it. You can keep on skirting around that fact with all kinds of useless information and it will not change the simple fact.

The Slaves were African, the fact that they were African makes it an impossibility that they could claim any kind of Cherokee or Native Blood.

Oh and I am sad to say that Tribes do seem to have the ultimate Authority otherwise the Federals would of jumped in already for the peoples of the various tribes that were illegally disenrolled. So until you can come up with some other point other than they were slaves owned by the Cherokee and this somehow makes them Cherokee you are just spitting the same rhetoric and not convincing me, however since you might be convincing some other poor misguided souls feel free to continue. However if you do, for the love of good seperate your paragraphs.

Born Cherokee=Native American
Born African=Non-Indian

Seems simple huh?

Allen L. Lee said...

o tyrant,
Now it's getting to be fun. You must know I am not separating the paragraphs by now on purpose.
Anyhow, On the principle of presumed legal rights which you and your family possessed as members/citizens before the faction of Shoshone's tried to dis-enroll you and your family, I would have to defend you, on principle, not on personal desire, Even if I didn't like you, and knowing that you wouldn't do the same for me, the principle would have to be defended. I just hope the faction you are dealing with isn't bogged down with deciding whether you are a "real Indian." I have the notes on "plenary powers" over Indian tribes and it may actually be inacted regarding the Cherokee case, but I promised myself not to do an overkill, since I know that bothers you worse than not separating my paragraphs.
Good Luck to you Tyrant.
Allen L. Lee

Tyrant said...

Not bothering me really, just kind of makes you look laughable trying to spout all that useless and irrelevant information and having it all merge into one long paragraph. I have been posting online and on a lot tougher boards than this since 98 so trust me nothing you can think, do, or say is going to do anything more than cause me to laugh uncontrollably at you, which I and we have been doing lately.

So while you are out defending the rights of non-indians to be a part of a indian tribe please know that I would never solicit nor accept any help or support from you. I, unlike the Freedmen can prove my ancestors were Paiute and Shoshone. If my family was disenrolled I am quite sure people would know about it as it would be a lot more militant, maybe it has to do with us being from a rural area, who knows.

If you want to be an advocate for Native rights then march, or protest, or write a book, or anything that will help Native Americans. The only you and those of your ilk are doing is eroding the Tribal right to self-governance. Any tribe should be able to remove any member that is not a descendent from whoever they use to determine their tribal affiliation. So Mr. Smart guy you are encouraged to post even more, it does kind of suck having to wait to laugh at you, your pathetic attempts to turn Africans into Indians just gets us rolling.

Allen L. Lee said...

OK Tyrant,
Try this for intellegence. Once people who used to be living on the African continent left Africa and became members of another society, they ceased being Africans. The slaves you affectionately refer to as Africans living in American became members if not citizens of the society where they were enslaved.
So again,and try to follow along, If Africans are residents of Africa, then what are the people called who live in communities and territories of the Cherokee?
Christopher Columbus's ghost and the BIA must be very happy that you still believe there is an Indian race, but you must be reading with your blind eye or listening with the deaf ear, because the issue is not about racial definition but national identity. At least let me know if you understand the difference, even if you don't agree because I think I've covered this several times.
Absolutely intent on eroding any government power that violates the human rights of its own citizens or the citizens of another nationality. No governing body on this earth is presumed to have the sovereign right to commit crimes against its own people, including tribes, so if that what it comes to, I intend to have an impact on tribal self determination. And you have the gumption to recommend militancy against your tribe if it happens to you, sounds hypocritical. I doubt that would be a real threat for someone who doesn't even have the courage to use an authentic name on a blog.
Indian as a racial construct is out-dated, but if you and the Cherokee need race-based nations do so without the
assistance of the people that don't fit your racial approval. Don't ask then to engage in any government to government relations with you. Isolate yourself like the rest of the survivalist and be gone. I promise I won't try to buy anything from your race-based country.
No need to be an advocate for Native Rights. I am an advocate for Human Rights which would include indigenous people through-out the globe. I don't see a racial bias need for Indians or Africans, (putting it in a way that you understand0 but a collective concern for Human Rights which the tribes are equally entitled to and equally responsible to protect.
Allen L. Lee

Tyrant said...

Blah, Blah, Blah. It is to the point where I don't even have to read your pathetic posts. It all goes back to the same thing, you trying to turn someone that was not born Native American into a Native American. I figured it was only a matter of time before you tried the ol we all came from the same stock BS. You remind me of another Lee over at TvT.

You can try and twist and turn it any way you want, the bottom line is the freedmen were AFRICAN slaves and not Cherokee Indians. The CN is perfectly within their rights to remove people that it deems don't meet membership requirements, especially when they are not descendents of Cherokee rather descendents of slaves of Cherokee.

As always I encourage you to continue, it is hysterical watching you scramble to come up with more laughable proof as to why African Slaves are in fact Native Americans.

Oh an another thing Mr. Lee if that is in fact your name, just becaue YOU don't know who Tyrant is trust me when I say a lot of people do. Do not make the mistake that the only people that read this blog are the only ones that post. You want to know who I am, just ask, don't try to turn it into some kind of secret. I am a hardcore online gamer, my gamer tag is Tyrant, I post online as Tyrant. The only peole that I care about know who the person behind the Tag Tyrant is, everyone else I could give a Sh*t about.

Also I am sure they are happy that I still consider there is a such thing as Native American, funny how the Federal Government believes the same thing. I just want to see how far you are gonna try to go to prove your laughable point, now you are saying there is no such thing as Native Americans. Please continue. There is nothing you can say that will magically change African Slaves into Native Born Cherokee Indians, but please continue this is hillarious.

stand your ground said...

Allen... please continue with your post, it's informative and educating to me. Many things that you've mentioned i was not aware off. You must have been one hell of a teacher at UCLA. Just one question... what do you think of Mark Macarro now??? What a change from 20 years ago...

Allen L. Lee said...

To Tyrant,
The blissful feeling that often accompanies those afflicted with ignorance is known to cause them to laugh at things that other might deem serious. You may have heard the term "ignorance is bliss."
Native American is a fairly modern, P.C., term. Technically, indigineous people on this continent were not considered American citizens if they were not taxed state citizens(living on the rez.,)until the Snyder Act around 1924. If you'll read the now famous 1866 Cherokee Treaty in dispute you'll notice the language is that of "native Cherokee," not Native American. The recognition of the Cherokee was that of a political sovereign state, not a race nation.
Anyhow, some people prefer to dodge uncomfortable truths with blissful ignorance where they can simply laugh themselves away from the real issues.
Some of the most poignant militant stands have been masked behind comedy, maybe you can combine the two if the day comes and you actually end up dis-enrolled.
I'll still defend the principle.
Allen L. Lee

Allen L. Lee said...

Hello "Stand Your Ground,"
Thanks for the confidence. I was a research assistant hired by the state of California and stationed at the University of California, Riverside. The majority of the work had to do with atmospheric chemistry(smog)and pesticide regulation. I was never a teacher at UCLA
I knew Mark and several other native people through a social relationship that started with the first Medicine Ways Conferences held on the campus. There are other names I could mention, but I'll let them speak on their own terms. I can say that I attended several "Bird Songs" on and off the rez., when he and I were both in attendance.
Mark was an idealist for his people and I was proud when he asserted his idealism with action.
One problem that I feel affects acadamians is their inability to reconcile their acadamic ideals with the reality of human beings.
Donald Rumsfeld as an acadamian mis-read Iraq. Chad Smith, the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation has a Ph.D. in law, mis-read the Freedmen fall-out, and Mark mis-read the difference between assertive idealism and
bi-partisan compromise.
Had the stronger faction in the Pechanga conflict seen to it that the weaker faction never saw anything better than a job as the tribal dog-catcher, it may have been unfair but still been internal tribal business. The moment that recognized tribal citizens were removed and in affect made "refugees" from there nation, it becomes the business of all other sovereign nations/states affected by the refugee population.
The International Covenant on Human Rights is clear about the rights of citizens to retain their citizenship. Forcing someone to re-qualify their citizenship on the status of an ancestor is not in keeping with the spirit of international human rights. There are people in the Southland who can help Mark and others understand this, but they'll have to get over this sovereign privilege thing, sit at the fire like OPEC, NATO, the OAS and other international conferences and talk the truth and more importantly consider what the elders would have done, because from what I've learned, the dis-enrollments do not conform to traditional ways.
Allen L. Lee

Tyrant said...

Keep Trying....NEXT!

'Amo'kat said...

Mr. Lee, Mark Macarro an idealist?

How idealistic is it to testify to a congressionsl committee that the tribe was not going to do any development on land that was going to be put into trust?

A few years later, after the tribe had gotten the land in trust status, they tore up the hills around the Great Oak tree and they put a golf course there.

Macarro said during his testimoney on April 17, 2002 to the United States congress Resources committee that the Pechanga tribe wanted to protect ireeplacable resources of the Pechanga and Luiseno people and that there was going to be no changes of any kind done to this land.

Here is the link to the congressional record that has his testimony.


While it is nice that Mark is involved with the Bird Songs, it still doesn't excuse the fact that he led the way to fooling congress and the Dept of Interior to get this land that by his own admission was land that was of culturaal significance to the Pechanga and the Luiseno people.

Those irreplacable cultural resources have now been destroyed forever!

Sir, read the testimony in the congressional record.

The land Mr. Macarro speaks about keeping as is is now where the Pechanga golf course sits and this is a fact!

I suppose Mark could get out of being charged with lying to congress by saying he didn't know the tribe was going to develop it and that he was overuled but I believe he knew that this was going happen but even so, shouldn't the tribe itself be liable for falsehoods to the federal government?

Maybe we have seen another side of Mark, the side that caused him to have temper tantrums in the government building and to send E mails and blackberry messages full of profanity.

Too bad we don't have a video of one of Mark's tirades.

'Amo'kat said...

Add on to my last post, Mr. Lee if Mark Macarro was an idealist he would have never let what happened to us happen.

He could have led the people into prosperity and unity but instead he has chaired a period of "Paper Genocide!"

Funny how the tribe wanted us when they didn't have a casino and when they likely got more federal dollars for having a bigger tribe.

They also wanted us when we went out and worked to help get those propositions passed legalizing gaming on California reservations.

I used Macarro's testimony in front of congress as a comparison as to how our citizenship cases were handled.

While the content and context were different the methods of operation were the same.

The difference is the congressional record is something that is in the public record while tribal records are not.

We weren't even allowed to take notes at citizenship hearings and to have copies of transcripts as well as to have legal representation attend our hearings with us.

People like Macarro cite custom and tradition but in reality it is just a way to sweep what they did under the rug.

Allen L. Lee said...

I agree with you 100% that a drastic change has occurred once Casino days came. Greater people than Mark have failed when brought to the helm of such a huge transition of society. Make no mistake about it, the "dis-enrollments" represent one of the greatest failures in this transition to me. I made an attempt to access your link , including re-constructing the URL but was unable, however your word is good with me. If you could simply post the statements in quotes with the link as an e-biblio, I would appreciate it.
Somewhere along the way he lost the most important part of the idea and in my opinion traditional idealism has taken a backseat to western race and economic values.
I know about The Great Oak, been out there a couple of times, I don’t live in Cali., anymore though. It used to be part of Erle Stanley Gardner’s ranch . I was able to access the National Congress of the American Indian and their proclamation endorsing the transfer of the ranch to reservation land. They also endorsed the purchase as a reclaiming of Pechanga heritage lands including burial grounds.
“WHEREAS, the Great Oak Ranch is home to numerous culturally
sensitive, historical and archaeological sites including tribal burial sites,”
I mention the NCAI because they have been solidly in support of the current Cherokee governments actions. Perhaps they should be made aware that they have lent their organizational weight to this misrepresentation as well.
I haven’t spoke to Mark for a few years. I’ve tried to contact him regarding the dis-enrollments but no on answers, not even a form letter response. I can find so many examples of government leaders who take the helms of transitional societies while every one is starry eyed and as the years progress and the challenges of humanity come, the starry-eyes often end up filled with tears. Two leaders come to mind, Castro of Cuba, and Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
There comes a time when transitional leaders need to let go and let the people determine the future course based on the merits of the ideas and not the charisma or personality of the leader.
There are physical wrongs that can’t be made right, but social or behavioral errors can be made right by changing the behavior.
Although tantrums are known to be used strategically for political manipulation, it could also represent an inability to provide rational leadership. Mark has to comes to term with the fact that he made a mistake and rectify it. It’s not a matter of whether you have the right to do it, but whether it was the right thing to do. Unfortunately he may have backed himself into a corner of reactionary defense of himself personally even though he may know that the act was wrong. Sacred lands to golf course, un-cool!
What is yours by right must be returned to you, but those who have wronged you must be protected by the same rights of citizenship that your are entitled to.
The dis-enrollers and the dis-enrollees have to be brought to the table by the right arbitrator either voluntarily or pressured. A few candidates for me would be the National Congress of the American Indian, a lobby group, the Congressional Native American Caucus, members of the U.S. House of Reps. the U.N. Human Rights Commission, who has already heard from the dis-enrollers side of the story regarding sovereign rights, they haven’t heard from the refugees. You’d think they would want to hear that side of the story as well. The Snoqualmie issue in the Northwest and even the Seminole case a few years ago was approached so differently by the BIA than they did with Pechanga and the Cherokee, they all should have been handled the same. You fracture or amend your Native Nation to the point that it no longer resembles the Nation on the federal registry, than you get scratched from that registry and have to start justifying your right of recognition all over again. That’s my opinion.
It would be nice if everyone could come to a peaceful resolution, but for some the knife of lies and deception or in too deep and to pull it out would be more painful than to just leave it there and start anew. I can’t speak or those people whose ancestors may have been Pechanga but chose to move away from the territory and tradition, but for those who remained and were recognized as Pechanga until they were removed by the government, their right to be Pechanga is inalienable. Those rights are reinforced by an international treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory. As I said in an earlier post, any human rights violations that occur in territory which the federal government has jurisdiction over, the U.S. government is ultimately accountable for. That’s why the Feds enforce the Major Crimes Act on Native Nation lands.
Allen L. Lee

'Amo'kat said...

Mr. Lee, I am not sure what you mean about posting the link.

However, I will try to post the link to the cultural resources congressional committee that has the link I tried to post.

The date of the hearing in which Macarro testified is April 17, 2002 and you can get to it by scrolling down the page of the link I am posting here, hope it works.


Allen L. Lee said...

Hello 'Amo"kat,
Providing the base address helped me access your original link.
I was able to figure out it was the 107 Congress but couldn't get to the record.
That was one interesting day, both Brad Carson and Chief Chad Smith were there on similar business.
I'll post the statements I believe are in question.


before the





April 17, 2002

Mr. MACARRO. [Greetings in native language.] My name is Mark
Macarro. I am the Tribal Chairman for the Pechanga Band of
Luiseno Mission Indians, and I simply said greeting in our Luiseno
language. Hello, and it is good to be with all of you here today.
Thank you for being here, and hi to all my friends and relations
from here, and fellow Indians.
...] For the people of Pechanga, returning
these lands to our reservation is paramount. The rugged, undeveloped landscape
of the Ranch is rich with spiritual, cultural, and archaeological sites. This
Ranch is Pechanga’s legacy.
...As outlined in the application, the Tribe’s intended use of the property involves
the continuation of existing agricultural activities, maintenance and use of
three existing residences on site, and maintenance and preservation of the existing
Luiseno Indian cultural resources found throughout the site. [See Exhibit B]
Our property is home to many irreplaceable resources—both cultural and natural.
The primary goal in acquiring the parcels of land covered by the trust application
is to preserve and protect the ancestral homelands and cultural resources of the
Tribe, including many sacred sites, archeological sites, and items
...It was underneath these great branches that Pechanga members
held sacred ceremonies eons more than a hundred years ago. As we sit at the dawn
of a new century, the people of Pechanga are once again gathering under the canopy
of the Great Oak.
...We believe the resources found on the Great Oak Ranch should be preserved and
remain within the Ranch. The sole purpose of the acquisition is the preservation
and the protection of Luiseno people’s natural and cultural resources. The Pechanga
Band is committed to protecting and preserving the invaluable and irreplaceable
cultural resources of the Pechanga and Luiseno people. The cultural resources located
within the Great Oak Ranch provide the Pechanga Band with the unique opportunity
to protect and preserve such resources on property owned by the Tribe
itself. These words spoken by the Federal Government validate the emotion in our
hearts that the Great Oak Ranch should come home to its native family.
Once the Great Oak Ranch property is accepted into trust by the United States,
it will become part of the Pechanga Reservation. The Tribe will exercise powers of
self-government, including civil regulatory jurisdiction, to protect the unique archaeological,
biological and cultural resources, as well as the historic and sacred sites
on the Great Oak Ranch...."

On a different note. A fairly reliable source to me who has been in Washington D.C. stated that that the Pechanga dis-enrollees were invited to be a part of the of the legislation that would also affect the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, and the Pechanga dis-enrollees declined, is that a correct statement. I know that the attorney is the same in both cases and communicates with D.C. legislative counterparts, I also am one of those that proposed that the Pechanga dis-enrollees be defended by the house bill directed at the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. it concerns me when people make statements that the Freedmen advocates care about no one but themselves or Black people, so I think it important to have this position clarified. Thanks 'Amo"kat
Allen L. Lee

'Amo'kat said...

Mr. Lee, below are questions asked of Mark Macarro by the committee in which Macarro says there is going to be no development on the Great Oak Ranch property.

Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Mr. Avery.
Chairman Macarro, does the Pechanga Tribe have any plans
for development of any kind on the Great Oak Ranch property?
Mr. Macarro. No, we don't. As stated in our application to
Interior/BIA, we stated or have designated there is no change
of use in the property, and the intended use and purpose is to
preserve and protect the resources that are there.

Mr. Hayworth. Without objection, we would welcome that.
Just one follow-up, and for purposes of the record, Mr.
Chairman, does the tribe plan to use the Great Oak Ranch for
gaming purposes or any purposes other than what you have just
Mr. Macarro. No, the tribe does not.

Mr. Lee, At that time in 2002 the Electric company wanted to put transmission lines through the Great Oak Ranch property.

Do you think the Pechanga tribe could have gotten the land put into trust and could have kept the electric company from putting their transmission line through it if the governement knew a golf course was going to be put on the land?

As far as us being asked to be part of anything that the Freedmen were doing, I have never heard anything about that.

I think it is something we would have considered.

I suppose some of us could have been approached, that I don't know, I just know I don't know anything about it.

Allen L. Lee said...

Hello 'Amo'kat,
It isn't that important that I have an answer. Just wanted you to know that there are many others who are not Pechanga who are fighting for you, like myself, that you might not be aware of.
I equate converting that land to a golf course the same as willfully giving a sacred tribal object to an outside museum. It needed to remain in it's traditional, indigenous state as the ancestors would have used the land and that use be taught to the descendants.
It's a sue bet the ancestors weren't playing golf on that land.
Do you have any before and after photos of the site. I see an additional opportunity to present a serious flaw in implementing and understanding what is truly traditional.
When the time comes for you to be returned to your nation, I would suggest a move to re-structure the Pechanga government so that no one person has such overwhelming power or responsibilty. Just a thought.
Allen L. Lee
Allen L. Lee

Anonymous said...

I suppose I am commenting on this article rather late. The only comment I have is that it is a sad thing for Native American tribes nowadays. Soon enough in the future, there will be no real, pure Native Americans left. Being full Native American, to me, is a very special gift creator has given. It is very unique. It's a shame, that the pureness is going extinct. Have a great day!