Race, affiliation and
sovereignty '08 Posted: June 24, 2008
by:
Keegan King
Race has been and will continue to be an issue
in this year's national elections. But now it seems that tribal affiliation
can be added to the list of candidate policy positions. It was recently
reported that Sen. Barack Obama attempted to clarify his position on the
rights and affiliation of Cherokee freedmen. Freedmen, the descendants of
mixed Indian and freed African people, have filed an injunction to prohibit
the Cherokee tribe from ousting them from tribal rolls.
Sen. Obama made it clear that in the dispute between the Cherokee Nation and
Cherokee freedmen, he supports the tribe's right to determine tribal
affiliation. He also said that he did not agree with the decision, but
''tribal sovereignty must mean that the place to resolve intertribal
disputes is the tribe itself.'' This is just the latest iteration of a
storied battle for tribal self-determination within the Cherokee Nation. The
conflict resulted from the Congressional Black Caucus attempting to get
presumptive Democratic nominee Obama to support their efforts to prohibit
the Cherokee Nation from disenrolling freedmen by withholding treaty
obligations.
House Bill 2824, a bill that seeks to ''sever United States' government
relations with the Cherokee Nation'' until full tribal citizenship is
restored to Cherokee freedmen, was introduced in 2007. Supported by 35
members of the CBC, H.R. 2824 was a reaction to Cherokee freedmen's appeals
to U.S. lawmakers to weigh in on their removal from the Cherokee tribal
roll. This new conflict over tribal sovereignty and what it means to be part
of a tribe finds its roots in the relocation and allotment policies of the
19th century.
During the mid-1800s, the Cherokee people were forcibly removed from their
homelands in the Southeastern U.S. in what is known as the Trail of Tears.
Their expulsion to reservation territory in Oklahoma was a policy
implemented to make land available in the East for European settlers. During
the removal, the Civil War was raging and several tribes had sided with
either Confederate or Union forces. New treaties were forged between the
U.S. government and newly relocated tribes during Reconstruction. And tribes
that had kept African slaves up until then were forced to free them. With
the freeing of slaves, who had been deeply involved in the culture of
traditional Cherokee life and who spoke the language, there were many
marital unions formed between Cherokees and blacks.
As it had been for hundreds of years, the Cherokee accepted these new
in-laws and children of mixed heritage as full members of the tribe
regardless of the foreign concept of ''race.'' Formalized through treaty
documents, the self-determination of tribes in matters of enrollment were
left to the tribal governments. During this time, Cherokee ''freedmen''
became prominent business owners and leaders within the tribe. The age-old
system of adoption and cultural inclusion was successful and functioned as
it always had.
But as Indian policy morphed from removal to assimilation, the U.S.
government introduced a new paradigm - blood quantum. Quantum was an attempt
to influence tribal self-determination. By and large, the tribes had been
fairly homogeneous; and in cases like that of the freedmen, the Cherokee
Nation had accepted outsiders that had already been initiated into tribal
culture. But by introducing this new concept of race, a system based solely
upon ancestry, the U.S. government had devised a way to whittle down the
tribes and their subsequent obligations to them over time.
Faced with what appeared to be an arbitrary requirement, the tribes adopted
blood quantum requirements. And at the time, many tribes required that
individuals have one-quarter or one-half ''Indian blood'' to be a tribal
member. In this way, the criteria for tribal enrollment came to be based
solely on ancestry.
The fallacy of blood quantum has had tremendous repercussions over the last
century. In many ways, it has divided tribes and created a class system
where a person's degree of ''Indian blood'' is what determines their status
in a community. Before quantum, tribal members were accepted based on their
willingness to sacrifice for and support the tribe and leaders were chosen
because of their values and character rather than racial purity.
Due in no small part to the assimilation policy of blood quantum, the
Cherokee Nation first started discussing whether Cherokee freedmen should
have rights as citizens in the early 1980s. The combination of a forced
paradigm shift, off-reservation populations that weren't as connected to the
cultural aspect of the tribe, and a century of racist federal policy
targeting blacks and dwindling resources culminated in the 1990s with the
first real attempts to oust Cherokee freedmen from the rolls. And in 2007,
the Cherokee Nation, through an election fraught with voter
disenfranchisement, passed a referendum that prohibited Cherokees designated
as freedmen from being enrolled members.
The CBC and other lawmakers have attempted to make the case that this is a
treaty issue and not one of sovereignty. They believe that because freedmen
were ''granted'' the same rights as Cherokees in treaty documents, this
should carry through to their descendants today. I find it humorous that the
same government that has implemented these policies is now trying to find
fault with them.
I agree with Sen. Obama in that the Cherokee freedmen should continue to be
recognized by the tribe but that the decision should come from the Cherokee
Nation. He put it this way: ''Our nation has learned with tragic results
that federal intervention in internal matters of Indian tribes is rarely
productive - failed policies such as allotment and termination grew out of
efforts to second-guess Native communities. That is not a legacy we want to
continue.''
As our world becomes smaller, tribal nations will find that we have tribal
members with African, European, American and even Asian descent. Tribal
sovereignty must be respected and, as Sen. Obama has said, the tribes must
not be interfered with in their process of determining membership. But the
termination policies of the past, including blood quantum, must be abolished
or they will continue to divide and conquer our communities, family by
family.
It is time for us to make a change. It is time to for our tribal nations to
evolve, back.
Keegan King, Acoma Pueblo, is the director of New Mexico Youth Organized,
an organization that gets young people involved in politics in the state. He
can be reached at keegank@gmail.com.
© 1998 - 2008
Indian Country Today. All Rights Reserved To subscribe or visit go
to:
http://www.indiancountry.com |