[dc]G[\/dc]et this:\u00a0\u00a0 The descendants of slave-holding Native American plantation owners (yes, that’s right) have\u00a0ejected the descendants of the African-American slaves from the tribe.<\/p>\n
The Cherokee nation voted after the Civil War to admit the slave descendants to the tribe.
\nBut on Monday, the Cherokee nation Supreme Court ruled that a 2007 tribal decision to kick the so-called “Freedmen” out of the tribe was proper.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nSo there’s that. The problem comes in when people start calling this “21st century apartheid”, when the whole point of a federal tribal system is to protect Native Americans and not other sorts of Americans.
\nOn the other hand, there’s a good argument that the “Freedmen” have earned a place in the tribe:<\/p>\nSome 4,000 Indians died during the forced march, which became known as the “Trail of Tears.”<\/p>\n
“And our ancestors carried the baggage,” said Marilyn Vann, the Freedman leader who is a plaintiff in the legal battle.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So the question here is much larger than it seems: is it possible to work your way into a tribe? More to the point, since people obviously have worked their way in, is membership a form of property, or term of a contract, which may be protected as other forms of property under contract or other law? Or may that membership, granted in recognition of shared work and suffering, and perhaps to strengthen the tribe’s numbers at a critical time, be withdrawn summarily?\u00a0 Thanks, but we’re good now, get out.<\/p>\n
\u00a0 While the tribe has a right to determine their own laws and so forth, there is a shared border between US citizenship and tribal membership. An action on one side can have impact across the fence, so to speak.<\/p>\n
The U. S. Government is of course not in a position to complain overmuch about the actions of tribes. But the Freedmen certainly seem to have a case.<\/p>\n
Enter our unhelpful Congress:<\/p>\n
The move to exclude the Freedmen has rankled some African American members of Congress, which has jurisdiction over all Native American tribes in the country.<\/p>\n
A lawsuit challenging the Freedman’s removal from the tribe has been pending in federal court in Washington, for about six years.<\/p>\n
As a sovereign nation, Cherokee Nation officials maintain that the tribe has the right to amend its constitutional membership requirements.<\/p>\n
Removal from the membership rolls means the Freedmen will no longer be eligible for free health care and other benefits such as education concessions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
That should help. Perhaps we can make this a women’s issue, too.<\/p>\n
\r\n\r\n \r\n <\/i>\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/span>\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n <\/i>\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/span>\r\n<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"[dc]G[\/dc]et this:\u00a0\u00a0 The descendants of slave-holding Native American plantation owners (yes, that’s right) have\u00a0ejected the descendants of the African-American slaves from the tribe.<\/p>\n
The Cherokee nation voted after the Civil War to admit the slave descendants to the tribe.
But on Monday, the Cherokee nation Supreme Court ruled that a 2007 tribal decision to kick the so-called “Freedmen” out of the tribe was proper.<\/p>\nSo there’s that. The problem comes in when people start calling this “21st century apartheid”, when the whole point of a federal tribal system is to protect Native Americans and not other sorts of Americans.
On the other hand, there’s a good argument that the “Freedmen” have earned a place in the tribe:<\/p>\nSome 4,000 Indians died during the forced march, which … Continue reading