September 8, 2011 — vol. 47, no 5
Frank: HUD shouldn’t give funds to Cherokees
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank has asked the federal government to cut off housing funds to the Cherokee Nation and restore tribal citizenship to black Cherokees.
The Massachusetts Democrat made the requests in Aug. 26 letters to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Department of Housing and Urban Development after the tribe’s top court ruled earlier that descendants of Cherokee Freedmen were not entitled to citizenship, despite the language of an 1866 treaty that granted those rights to the descendants of the tribe’s slaves.
“I do not believe the federal government should continue to fund the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma if it is blatantly violating the rights of some members,” Frank wrote to HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, whom the congressman asked to “act appropriately to prevent any funding from the federal government for tribal housing.”
Elena Gaona, a HUD spokeswoman, said Tuesday that the $29 million in housing funds that the Cherokee Nation was slated to receive this fiscal year has not been released and will not be until the freedmen citizenship issue is resolved.
Frank’s other letter asks Larry Echo Hawk, head of the BIA, to “take appropriate action to protect the rights of the Cherokee Freedmen.”
In a brief interview, Frank explained Echo Hawk has “the authority to enforce the rights of the Freedmen. BIA should be taking an active role in forcing the Cherokee to treat them as full members of the tribe.”
BIA spokeswoman Nedra Darling did not respond to an emailed request for comment.
A few years ago, the Cherokee Nation lobbied hard to block efforts by members of the Congressional Black Caucus to cut off funding to the tribe over the freedmen issue.
On Aug. 22, the Cherokee Supreme Court ruled that a lower court did not have the authority to overturn a 2007 referendum approving an amendment to the tribe’s constitution that stripped nearly all freedmen descendants of citizenship or eligibility for it.
The Freedmen’s Association estimates only 10 percent of 28,000 descendants retain their rights because an ancestor with Cherokee blood was identified in a federal census taken early in the 20th century.
The court also ruled that a provision of the 1866 treaty did not grant citizenship to the tribe’s freed slaves, but a constitutional amendment later that year did. Since the tribe granted citizenship, the majority in the 4-1 decision argued, the tribe could take it away.
The treaty restored sovereign relations between the United States and Cherokee Nation, whose government at first supported the Confederacy before switching sides. Some Cherokees continued to fight alongside southern forces; the last Confederate general to surrender was a Cherokee.
Provisions of the treaty freed the Cherokees’ slaves and declared that they and their descendants “shall have all the rights of Native Cherokee.” That clause has long been interpreted as the equivalent of the 14th Amendment, which granted American citizenship to the country’s freed slaves.
The Cherokee Supreme Court disputed that traditional interpretation, arguing instead that the provision conferred protection to the freedmen under federal law. At the time, they were not American citizens, nor were Cherokees by blood.
The decision came about a month before a replay of a Cherokee election for chief. The first one in June between then-Chief Chad Smith and challenger Bill John Baker was so close that several counts could not determine the winner. The supreme court ordered a new vote on Sept. 24.
Smith has actively opposed freedmen citizenship. Baker has not publicly taken a side on the issue, but has the support of two blood Cherokees who are prominent advocates of freedmen rights.
Frank told Donovan and Echo Hawk he was particularly troubled because the court’s decision appeared designed to influence the election’s outcome.
Asked why he is involved with the issue, Frank replied: “From my earliest days in politics, I’ve considered race one of the single most important problems. I think fighting racism is important.”
Lawyers for freedmen descendants filed a lawsuit Sept. 2 in Washington, D.C. asking a federal judge to issue an injunction to stop the Cherokee Nation from denying their tribal rights and holding any chief’s election that excludes them as voters.
The lawsuit also seeks an injunction against Interior Secretary Ken Salazar requiring him to halt federal funding to the Cherokee Nation, withhold recognition of any chief’s election and sever sovereign relations with the tribe until it restores freedmen’s rights and until Salazar reviews its election procedures under a federal law. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is part of the Interior Department.
A hearing on the lawsuit is scheduled Sept. 20, four days before the election.
“Federal Courts have held consistently from 1895 through 2010 in the Vann decision in the D.C. Court of Appeals that the freedmen were granted citizenship under the Treaty of 1866,” said Jon Velie, lead attorney for freedmen descendants.
The Muskogee (Okla.) Phoenix quoted the Cherokee attorney general, Diane Hammons, as saying numerous issues about the court’s jurisdiction remain before the case can be heard.
| Sep 11 7:24am by KM [69.171.163.104] | |
This is so crazy. First off, every freedmen was not a slave or without cherokee blood. The whites applied the 1 drop rule to those who were clearly half cherokee and black during the dawes. They were not ALLOWED to put ANY blood amount, they were automatically enrolled as freedmen. If the people on here knew their history, they would know why cherokees do not enroll based on blood quantum. Many full blooded cherokees lied about blood amount on the dawes because they feared whites would consider them ignorant. For that reason, if cherokees based enrollment on blood quantum like other tribes, there would be no cherokee nation. That being said, probably 80% of the tribe would'nt qualify as having any or enough cherokee blood to claim cherokee. Yes there are blacks and whites in all tribes, so what's your point? If your ancester on the dawes had 1/8 blood on the rolls, then had decendants with someone with no indian blood. How much cherokee blood do you think you have left in your body?...none. So that sound rediculous to say, "we want our tribe to remain pure indian blood". Why then put out the people, amoung everyone else, considered citizens too? The dawes is not a reliable source to maintain your tribe as "only indians", people lied about blood amounts and anyone with a drop of black were considered freedmen. If the cherokee can look over blood quantums, then they can also look over a label given unfairly to some freedmen, who actually had indian blood. We dont know who did or did'nt have indian blood, just like we don't know exactly how much blood anyone actually had during those times. So why look over one aspect and ignore the other. My personal feeling, this is all about money on the cherokees side. I'm not speaking to anyone who actually has cherokee blood presently running through their viens. Many who are talking do not have ANY cherokee blood left in their bloodline, they're just reaping the benefits of their ancestors. Freedmen should also be allowed to do the same. Thats why this appear racist, but I think it's about money. So, I'm glad to hear that the federal gov. is stripping benefits (money), even if temporarily. That's the best way to show how it feels. I'm sure it don't feel good or fair. |
|
| Sep 9 5:54am by Charles [209.135.141.57] | |
I'm an enrolled tribal Cherokee Citizen and I find it wholly out of line and inappropriate for Barney Frank to make comments on which he has no knowledge of the situation. We have many African-American Cherokees enrolled within our tribe because they have at least one Indian ancestor on the Dawes Rolls. I think that Indians should have INDIAN blood, these people aren't Indian, I don't think it's fair just because they don't get to be Cherokee they want to make it where nobody else can be Cherokee either....call me crazy, we've been through a lot and Barney Frank is a joke compared to what we've faced in the past, attempted genocide, being kicked out of our lands etc. My Dad said it best "with all the history why wouldn't the Indians be the first ones to see a stoppage in funding?" I am a College student and am able to attend without having to worry about loans or other debts creeping up on me for years to come. I have cousins on the other hand who only get to go to School because of their enrollment in the Cherokee Nation, thousands of Cherokee students would no longer be able to attend school...seems kind of hypocritical to claim to want the well-being for all and not actually practice it! I think it's sad that Barney Frank (and most Democrats for that matter) claim to be for helping lower classes and minorities but fail to stick up for the biggest minority and the ethnic group with the most poverty and health problems, American Indians. Please watch this video before believing the lies and hateful speech that comes from the hypocrite Barney Frank. Chad Smith is not a racist that's a ridiculous comment, he's saved the Cherokee Nation from the brink of disaster because of the lies and deceit of Joe Byrd and Bill John Baker.
Thank you...God Bless |
|
| Sep 8 14:47pm by GWY Lady [98.172.4.195] | |
Rep Frank says fighting racism is important but he ignores the obvious racism in the United States continued assaults on the collective rights of the Cherokee Nation. The rights of indigenous peoples are not based on race or color, but they are protected by several international treaties including the International Convention to End All Forms of Racism, which the US has ratified. In 2008, in response to shadow reports from Indian participants, including the Cherokee Nation, the monitoring body for the ICERD instructed the US to use the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a guide to their legal obligations under the ICERD. The Declaration clearly states that all indigenous peoples have the right to exist as a distinct people and the right to determine their own identity. The foremost expert on indigenous rights in the world, Mr Patrick Thornberry, a member of the ICERD monitoring body, called congressional attempts to interfere with the Cherokees' rights "alarming." He knows where the true "racism" is in this case. In his remarks on the floor during the debate on the NAHASDA bill, Mr. Frank claimed he ia all about "enforcing a treaty." Funny, I don't see him leading the charge to enforce the Treaty of Ruby Valley and protecting the Shoshones' right to their land. Or the Treaty of Ft Laramie and enforcing Lakota rights to the Black Hills. Or even enforcing all the provisions of the Cherokee Treaty of 1866, which would mean giving back 14 counties in Northeast Oklahoma to the Cherokees! If Rep Frank would live up to his responsibilities as an elected member of Congress, he would take the time to truly learn the history and the law. He would know that the Cherokee Nation is not a state and has a legal right not to have a foreign model of government forced on them. He would know and expect all Americans, regardless of color, to uphold indigenous rights. Because infringing on the rights of an Indian nation because you want something they have is the oldest form of racism on this continent. |
|
| Sep 7 21:09pm by Gwedi dawodohi [65.67.213.45] | |
Great story, Chad Smith is behind all of this, he is racist along with all his supporters. I would much rather have someone who looks more white or someone who looks more black for Chief than to have a lying cheating indian as my chief! I am full blood Cherokee and proud of it, but not proud of someone who should be standing by all Cherokees, but is instead against them, cause of his racism!! |
|
