Thursday, June 12, 2008

Whites Only Group Supports Cherokee in Freedmen Dispute.

NICE Backers! Look who you have for supporters:

To advance the interests of persons of traditional European ancestry in the United States.
To educate such persons about news and issues of importance and relevance.
To provide a social network that promotes social intercourse among members through a system of local chapters and special project groups and to encourage a friendly community spirit among members.
To support the preservation and advancement of the two-parent European American family.
In keeping with America's first immigration laws and the intent of the nation's founders, to limit United States citizenship to persons of wholly European descent who have irrevocably surrendered claim to citizenship in any foreign nation.

More: Black Congressmen Pushing Bill To Shakedown Cherokee Nation

A coalition of blacks, non-voting delegates, and some of the more screwball white Democrats, are sponsoring a bill to shake down the Cherokee Nation.
The bill would require the Cherokee Nation to accept blacks who allege their ancestors were once owned by Cherokee slaveholders. Calling themselves “The Cherokee Freedment”, blacks demanding membership in the tribe would also be entitled to governmnent benefits and casino profits. The Cherokee Nation voted last year not to accept blacks as tribe members.
The bill in congress would suspend entitlements to the Cherokee Nation and freeze casino operations until the so called “Cherokee Freedmen” get a piece of the action for themselves. The bill also contains vague language allowing the “Cherokee Freedmen” to sue for alleged damages, meaning that these opportunists are seeking a very large piece of the pie indeed.
The Treaty of 1866 came about during Reconstruction. The Federal government declared that the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, and Creek tribes had violated their treaties because of alliances with the Confederate Government. The government nullified all treaties with these tribes. Since the Cherokee owned significant numbers of Negro slaves, when the Federal government wrote the new treaty it declared the Negroes free and citizens in the Cherokee Nation. The negroes were listed as Cherokee citizens on all Indian cenuses.
In 2007, the Cherokee Nation voted by a 77% majority in favor of a referendum that denied freed slaves were ever Cherokee citizens, and any blacks who had falsely claimed Cherokee membership were expelled. The heart of the controversy is money and jealousy. Blacks had been joining because of lucrative Federal entitlements and casino profits.


'Amo'kat said...

This group, whoever they are, uses falsehoods to advance their goals.

Two are very apparent.

The most obvious one is they say that the Cherokee alledgedly had slaves.

That is not alledged, it is a fact that the Cherokee had slaves and all sides agree on this point.

Secondly, the Cherokee nation already has black members, those who are of mixed blood who are on the Dawes rolls.

So keeping the Freedmen out of the tribe wouldn't keep blacks out of the tribe.

But it is my understanding that a lot of the Freedmen do have Cherokee blood but they are just not on the Dawes rolls and even those that do not should be part of the tribe if they have been part of the people for almost 150 years.

Tyrant said...

Wrong! I used to think the same way, they have been in the tribe for a looooong time so let them stay. We have the same problem in our tribe where 3 families that were not indian slid in back in the 60's. They are all 100% non-indian, at the time they helped the tribe and the people at the time thought it would be nice to include them, 40 years later these 3 families now have 25 members taking up valuable money and resources that other tribal members could use. Imagine if this went on for over 100 years.

There are indians that are not considered indian because they cannot prove a link to the Dawes Rolls. Every tribe has their determination as to what they use to prove tribal membership.

The Cherokee are not getting rid of blacks because they are black, they are getting rid of people that they deem don't have the necessary requirements to be actual members. Seems that a lot of the people at least on here that are speaking out against the Cherokee are victims or know victims of disenrollment. I feel sad for anyone that does actually think that what is happening to Pechanga is the same thing as the Feedmen issue. The only thing you all are advocating is the loss of tribes rights to handle their own affairs.

'Amo'kat said...

Tyrant, I was making the point about this white supremecy group advocating keeping blacks out of the tribe and they wouldn't like it if they relized that there are black people who are on the Dawes rolls who also have some Cherokee blood who are in the tribe but would not be kicked out if the Freedmen lose their case.


I did say that if a lot of the Freedmen do have Cherokee blood and they can prove it, then they should be allowed to stay.

The situation at Pechanga is that while the tribe doesn't dispute that we are still Indians, they claim, wrongly, that we are not Pechanga and that is where our dispute is.

But the tribe uses your exact reasoning wielded as a club against us that they are exercising their right to handle their own affairs even if they did not even follow their own laws in doing so BUT WHO CAN MAKE THEM FOLLOW THEIR OWN RULES IF THEY DON'T?


They claim that our family, the desecendants of Paulina Hunter, are really San Luis Rey Indians, which is another local Luiseno tribe that is not federally recognized.

But our family are listed in the first census records of the Pechanga reservation during the late 1800's as living on the Pechanga reservation and it is documented that our family were also living in the Temecula village, the place where the Pechanga people lived before they moved to the area that became the reservation.

We don't trace our family to the San Luis Rey tribe anymore than other Pechanga people do other than we are all Luiseno which means San Luis Rey.

Additional information: There are seven tribes who are considered the Luiseno people including both the non recognized San Luis Rey tribe and the Pechanga tribe.

The others are Soboba, Rincon, Pauma, La Jolla, and Pala (Pala also has people known as Cupeno).

Tyrant said...


My response was to the last paragraph. But feel free to yell and try and make it sound like I was putting words in your mouth. LoL As far as I have read there are a lot of so called freedmen that are still members of the tribe as they did prove ancestry.

I will say it again for the cheap seats, while it is tragic what is happening around Indian Country with disenrollments, the Freedmen issue is not in the same ball park, hell its not even the same league or even the same game. I find it so ironic that a Tribal Nation kicked out a bunch of non-indians and here you have indians attackig them. Just because you were disenrolled from your tribe doesn't mean you should blindly go to the defense of everyone that claims they were disenrolled wrongly.

The Cherokee were basically forced to accept the freed slaves as members, they are righting a wrong as they see it. Also whether you like it or not, the club I am swinging was given to all the tribes by the Federals. Short of the Hunters becoming Militant you are never going to be back in the Pechanga. Sucks but that is probably the case, maybe you should petition for forming a new tribe, maybe you can join in with the Freedmen and form the United Arfian Hunter Tribe.

You need to face the facts, noone that is in a position to help cares about the disenrollments. My family faced a similiar disenrollment attack, so don't think i don't take disenrollments seriously.

'Amo'kat said...

Tyrant, I responded to your lastest comments on the other Cherokee thread.

I just got them mixed up.

One thing I have to say and that is I am glad you keep coming here and presenting your views even if you don't agree with us all of the time so keep coming back.

Tyrant said...

LoL, do not worry just because I don't see eye to eye with you on some things and with other people on other issues the simple fact remains that I FULLY support the Hunters and so does the members of my family in the Owens Valley. The back and forth that we all do serves one purpose above all else and that keeps the topic fresh and relevant. I certainly hope that none take any ill feelings away from anything I say, I am usually pretty careful to make sure that there are no "Personal Attacks" or to severely limit them. We all have our opinions on the subjects that are well presented here, and the fact that we can all freely put forth our opinions and not be censored goes lengths to show the quality of the website we are on.

In the very end when I am done on this site I don't harbor any ill feelings or anger towards anyone that puts forth their opinion as they see it, and I hope that no one takes anything I say to heart. I guess I should of clarified a lot of this, I guess I forget that I don't post on here as much as I do on other sites and so I am not as well known nor is my shall we say weird sense of humor and temper.

Ann said...

"The Cherokee were basically forced to accept the freed slaves as members, they are righting a wrong as they see it."

SO, the Cherokee were *forced* to enslave black people in the American South?

The Cherokee were forced to leech off the free labor of enslaved black people?

Who forced the Cherokee to enslave black people?