Gov. May Not Recognize Cherokee Election

I had incorrectly assumed that the rationale for kicking African Americans out of the Cherokee tribe was based on solely on them lacking Native American Blood in their lineage. However, this article states it it's related to a treaty signed by the Indian Nation and the Federal Government that granted citizenship to former slaves owned by wealthy Native Americans, despite their lack of Native American Blood.

Full story here: http://news.yahoo.com/cherokee-indians-not-dictated-u-010110913.html

 

Which is why I completely do NOT understand why the Cherokee did this. They have LONG accepted those tribal members descended from former slaves. I remain clueless as to their reasoning - I have yet to see that properly elucidated. :-(

 

I doubt the restaurant would do this based on race in Atlanta - it would be VERY bad for business and bad publicity. But the idea that men should be forced to give up seats for women is a vestige of chauvinism, and should NOT be policy.

I would always give up a seat to the elderly, disabled, or visibly pregnant regardless of gender because it's POLITE to do so. But based solely on gender, this is discrimination against men, and it's wrong. It's also patronizing to women to suggest we're not capable of standing.

 

Cherokee Nation Makes Deal Allowing Freedmen Vote

Cherokee Nation Makes Deal Allowing Freedman Vote
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
September 20, 2011
Just as a federal judge was about to get involved, the Cherokee Nation reached an agreement Tuesday to allow descendants of slaves once owned by the Oklahoma tribe's members to vote for its principal chief.

Attorneys for the slave descendants, called freedmen, said the agreement calls for extending balloting for this Saturday's special election until Oct. 8 so that those qualified to vote can be notified and participate.

The agreement came during a hearing in federal court in Washington, where U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy was poised to deliver his ruling on whether Saturday's election could continue without the freedman participation. Freedmen attorney Jon Velie asked the judge for a 15-minute recess to negotiate over a proposal made by the tribe. After more than an hour huddling in the hallway with his clients and discussing the proposal with other attorneys, Velie returned to court to announce the deal.

Kennedy gave the parties until 10 a.m. Wednesday to submit a written agreement.

The agreement is a temporary reprieve in the long-running debate over whether the freedmen should be given full membership rights in the one of the country's largest tribes. But the lawsuit brought by the slave descendants — to keep their right to vote and other tribal benefits after tribe members voted to cut them off — will continue in federal court.

"The main thing is to have an election that doesn't violate tribal or federal law," Cherokee Nation Acting Principal Chief S. Joe Crittenden late Tuesday. "This order should re-establish the status quo as it existed during the June and July elections."

The freedmen also are suing the U.S. government, citing an 1866 federal treaty with the Cherokee Nation they say guarantees their tribal rights. An attorney for the United States, Amber Blaha, told Kennedy at the hearing that the Interior Department believes they have the right to full citizenship rights under the treaty and an election without their participation would be illegal.

Saturday's special election was ordered by the tribe's Supreme Court after recounts from a flawed election in June were reversed several times, with the longtime chief and his challenger each being declared the winner twice. Tribal experts believe the freedmen could swing the vote to new leadership of one of the country's largest tribes.

Chad Smith, who was chief until a temporary replacement was named after the June election, has actively campaigned for the last decade to remove non-Cherokee freedmen from the tribe's voter rolls. His challenger, longtime tribal councilman Bill John Baker, also backed their removal but not as vocally and is believed to have the support of many freedmen who voted.

Baker and Smith issued statements late Tuesday blaming each other for the election mess.

Baker said Smith and others had "bungled" the freedmen issue and told supporters it was "time to end this sad chapter in our history of Smith and his Supreme Court tarnishing the Cherokee name."

Smith countered that the agreement was "in direct violation" of the tribe's highest court ruling that freedmen are not citizens of the Cherokee Nation. He accused Baker's attorney of pressuring the tribe's election commission to give the freedmen "special treatment in this election."

Although no official breakdown exists, attorneys for the freedmen estimate that between 330 and 500 freedmen voted during that election. The tribe initially announced Smith had won by 11 votes, but subsequent tallies had the margins at seven, 266 and five votes.

After ballots were counted a fifth time from the June election, the tribe's Supreme Court said it couldn't be sure the tally was correct and ordered a new election.

But in the meantime, it upheld a 2007 vote by tribe members to revoke the freedmen's suffrage rights after three-fourths of voters favored doing so.

Tribal Attorney General Diane Hammons told Kennedy the agreement would basically return the freedmen to the "status quo" before the Supreme Court ruling by allowing those who were qualified then to participate now.

The Cherokee Nation has about 300,000 members, making it Oklahoma's largest tribe and one of the largest tribes in the U.S. About 2,800 freedmen held tribal rights after fighting for years to regain citizenship privileges that they believe were granted to them under the 1866 treaty, which gave the freedmen and their descendants "all the rights of native Cherokees."

Amid mounting pressure from the federal government, which included the freezing of $33 million in Cherokee funds by the Housing and Urban Development Department, the tribe's election commission decided to allow freedmen to cast provisional ballots for chief, but said those votes would only count in the event of a court order.

Tuesday's agreement would count those votes and stipulate that a letter go out to other freedman by Thursday notifying them of their right to participate. Blaha said that it would also require the tribe to submit its election procedures immediately to the U.S. government for review and that no ballots be counted until the end of the extended election period.

 

It's off the subject but, That's one of the things I like about you TreePixie. You have given me a different view of feminism that I had not had. You seem to truly believe in being equal, unlike others who only use feminism when it's to their advantage.

Speaking about Altanta, that's just how it is in the south. Men usually give up their seats to women, if it's crowded and there are no seats. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, that's just the way it is.

 

Thanks. I do believe in equality, in fact I don't think women ever will have equality unless they are willing to give up the privileges inherent in being female - like a policy that forces men to give up seats. The only times when they were offered to me on subways and buses that I accepted were when I was post-knee surgery and on crutches, and third trimester pregnancy, when I was big enough to fall over just standing still ;-)

For the record, in the middle of a hot muggy Boston summer, the only time in the third trimester when a man offered me a seat was the morning a young gang-banger type instantly leapt to his feet and offered me his. The businessmen around just hid behind their newspapers and ignore the little woman who looked like she was about to explode. I was 8 months pregnant at the time.

 

I'm with you on that, madam. While I do appreciate it greatly when a stranger is nice enough to offer me his seat, I don't think it should be required anywhere. It happened to me a few times on packed buses here in Houston, but the only time I would accept is if I actually needed a seat (lots of heavy art supplies and books, or when if I was in a lot of pain) and even then if I saw someone who needed a seat more than me I'd be up and offering as quickly as possible.

I don't get mad if someone doesn't instantly adhere to an ancient system, but if someone chooses to let me go first, or take their seat, it is still flattering. I just hold on to those moments when people forget about being rude and decide to do something nice for someone else, though. It reminds me that not everyone is as evil as people make me believe, sometimes.

I also offered my seat to guys if they looked tired, or had a lot of stuff to carry. I hated seeing anyone standing on the bus if they looked like they needed to sit down. It's just so bumpy and when it gets crowded it's impossible to be comfortable standing even if you're in peak health.

 

Exactly. About the only other exception I ever made was for an elderly man who immediately stood up and offered me his seat. He looked fragile as hell, and I declined, but he insisted - and it became clear to me that it was a matter of pride and dignity to him. I decided his dignity was more important, and took the seat. I wasn't comfortable with it, but it was so obvious he *needed* to do that for himself that I let him.

 

The Govt are forcing them to bring the Blacks in the tribe. Now I hope that tribe does not do any funny business.

 

They are racist...
Why is that so hard to understand?
Is it because they're not white??

 

No, it's because the Cherokee have long recognized the descendants of their slaves as citizens of the tribe. It seemed an odd switch out of nowhere to me.

There are still black members of the tribe who have Cherokee blood - the only ones they were trying to dismiss from the tribe were the group known as Freedmen - former slave descendants who did not have any Cherokee blood.

I did post something here today or yesterday whereby they are in fact allowing them to vote in the election.