COMMENTARY | The past few months provided an unusual amount of news from the Cherokee Nation with disputed elections and an effort to remove descendants of slaves (freedmen) from the tribal roles. As a Cherokee by heritage (who is not enrolled in the tribe), I have been watching the events with some interest and it seems that the actions of the Nation, the freedmen, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs leave something to be desired.
The tribal leadership appears to be embarked on a divisive political course in efforts to resolve the disputed election results. While it is unclear what the impetus for these efforts might be, what is clear is the efforts to remove the freedmen from the nation's roster are based both in politics and in race. However, according to the terms of the continued existence of the Cherokee Nation imposed by the U.S. federal government, the issue must be one of race. The very definition of the nations of the original inhabitants of the continent, at least those that survived, are based on racial and ethnic definitions. While the current effort to remove the freedmen does not seem to be warranted by anything other than internal politics and an increasing level of competition, the move might be legal.
The freedmen, though, also have a point. Enjoying full membership rights for generations, efforts by the Cherokee to remove them are particularly hurtful. Still, as mentioned above, it is a question of race and always will be. No federal or local regulation can decree membership in an ethnic group. That is gained by genetics and upbringing. And by federal definition the Cherokee Nation is an ethnic group. If it were up to me, I would say that the decades of precedent should be upheld and the freedmen should stay. But that does not change the basic ethnic definition of Cherokee.
And for the BIA, let me just ask: Really? You are willing to go to court to uphold the conditions of a treaty? Why this one and not the hundreds that have been ignored? While there might be good reason to defend the rights of the freedmen in this case, it would seem that enforcing treaty provisions could open a different can of worms. I can think of several treaty obligations that were violated by the federal government since the 1820s, and that is just for the Cherokee. Let's not even mention of the hundreds of other tribes and their own grievances. Based on this precedent, I would love to see enforcement of the Seneca's right to three-fourths of New York State, the Cherokee right to most of the southern Appalachian, and the many other lapses in federal compliance with these treaties that occurred while the U.S. was engaged in its nineteenth century policies.
It is sad to see the Cherokee Nation cave in to the BIA pressure, but it is to be expected. Despite the increasing relevance of the Cherokee Nation in the lives of its members, the federal government still calls the shots. More important for the Nation, the Cherokee must examine their own motivations for removing the freedmen and rise above bigotry and petty political squabbling. This is how we got to Oklahoma in the first place.
285 comments