Second-Largest U.S. Indian Tribe Expels Slave Descendants

Steve Olafson, Yahoo! News, August 23, 2011

The nation’s second-largest Indian tribe formally booted from membership thousands of descendants of black slaves who were brought to Oklahoma more than 170 years ago by Native American owners.

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.

{snip} When many Indians were forced to move to what later became Oklahoma from the eastern U.S. in 1838, some who had owned plantations in the South brought along their slaves.

Some 4,000 Indians died during the forced march, which became known as the “Trail of Tears.”

“And our ancestors carried the baggage,” said Marilyn Vann, the Freedman leader who is a plaintiff in the legal battle.

Officially, there are about 2,800 Freedmen, but another 3,500 have tribal membership applications pending, and there could be as many as 25,000 eligible to enter the tribe, according to Vann.

{snip}

“This is racism and apartheid in the 21st Century,” said Vann, an engineer who lives in Oklahoma City.

{snip}

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.

{snip}

Removal from the membership rolls means the Freedmen will no longer be eligible for free health care and other benefits such as education concessions.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    What a tangled web we weave. How about we just get rid of free everything for Native Americans?

    Meanwhile, I think the expelled blacks will not miss their “education concessions”, unless that is code for free money.

    Note that the tribal nations have the luxury of US border control, in a way that the US itself does not have. How about some illegal immigration into the tribal lands? What would be their policy? Amnesty? Doubt it.

  • GetBackJack

    The Cherokee have finally come to the proper conclusion that they must stop the freebies because with blacks, it is a never-ending story. I’m sure those freedmen and their descendents have been well compensated for “carrying those bags,” Marilyn; but not quite as much as they’ve been compensated by whites for picking our cotton.

  • Blaak Obongo

    ““This is racism and apartheid in the 21st Century,” said Vann, an engineer who lives in Oklahoma City.”

    Oops, I guess dealing the Racism card didn’t work this time. Don’t those Cherokee know that they’re supposed to be wracked with White…er, Red Guilt over their precious African-Americans…er, African Native Americans…er, whatever?

    “The move to exclude the Freedmen has rankled some African American members of Congress…”

    I’ll just bet it did. It’s probably the first time that the Congressional Black Caucus has ever been told “No.”

    “Removal from the membership rolls means the Freedmen will no longer be eligible for free health care and other benefits such as education concessions.”

    Were those on top of the ordinary freebies and set-asides they get from Whitey just for being black? Well, don’t take it too hard, “freedmen,” you’ll manage somehow without “free health care and other benefits such as education concessions.” I had to.

    Good work, Cherokee. Now when do we get to do the same thing?

  • BannerRWB

    It appears the Cherokee have the guts to maintain what they have left of their world without giving in to political correctness and the death embrace of sycophantic Africans.

  • Anonymous

    This is an absolutely stunning decision giving legal weight to blood birthright.

    In the same manner, whites must assert their legal birthright with regards to Asian, Arab and Mexican squatters.

  • Anonymous

    How do they expect to be a competitive and successful nation without their blacks?

  • sbuffalonative

    When many Indians were forced to move to what later became Oklahoma from the eastern U.S. in 1838, some who had owned plantations in the South brought along their slaves.

    I love how these little tidbits of truth are revealed. It’s good to know this fact is being shown to a wide audience.

    Removal from the membership rolls means the Freedmen will no longer be eligible for free health care and other benefits such as education concessions.

    If I were a cynic I might speculate that the Cherokee grew tired of supporting their own welfare leeches.

  • Tricia in Ohio

    This is old news. NONE of the “freedmen” have ONE DROP of Cherokee blood. Why should they get the benefits? And they didn’t “vote” to allow them in, it was required by the Federal government, and has been a sticking point to MANY REAL tribal members.

  • Bill R

    They probably want to get rid of them for all the usually seen reasons. Low intelligence, prone to violence, constant demands, having their hands out constantly, couldn’t care less about the tribe, only care about their race and what’s in it for THEM.

    Gee. I wish WE could vote to kick the blacks out!

  • Anonymous

    “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.”

    The blacks getting handouts from every race on this planet. When will they start giving back to other races, if ever? Actually, hard times are coming for them as tax dollars start diminishing as the whites increasing become the minority. Present day blacks have this fantasy everyone owes them something because of so called slavery.

  • Kingoldby

    Stand back and watch liberal heads explode. Two minority groups, both ‘victims’ of white oppression and therefore beyond reproach in all matters, clashing in a way that is politically incorrect and can’t be blamed on whites.

    This is also a warning for blacks, as whites become a minority the blacks will find that the other races will not be nearly so interested in pandering to them.

  • Unacknowledged Cherokee

    Hey, if you don’t have 1/32 Cherokee blood, you’re not Cherokee!! I’m 1/16 but can’t prove it, due to the fact that my MO ancestors, who married Cherokee women, had their wives’ ethnicity expunged from the local records. I see no reason why blacks should receive Native American benefits when they aren’t Native American!! Hell, I AM Native American, and I can’t get the benefits — so why should they?

  • Anonymous

    The Marxists always count on Whites to be the “racists,” and so an incident like this leaves them twisting in their collective seats. What this controversy should do is expose to everyone the absurdity of the whole concept of “racism” at its very foundations.

    Yes, every group has legitimate concerns for their own people–that doesn’t make them evil or “racist”. And yes, sometimes that concern has involved the use of both legal and physical force to remove one group from the midst of another. This has occurred thousands of times over world history–and yes, that includes Whites being expelled and enslaved too.

    No one has a monopoly on victimization. There is no “right way” of defending your racial and cultural integrity.

    Regardless of what steps you take to do so, whether through “legal” means or by force, you will from then on been seen as “evil” and your “victims” will be seen as “noble.” However, no people will ever survive unless they are willing to be labelled “evil” and just do what you have to do to preserve what they value.

  • fred

    This will be glossed over. The only people who care are the leftists and they’re more interested in attacking whitey than stirring up a feud between blacks and injuns. Of course, as the percentage of whites decreases their little coalition will fall apart. Then it will be every group for itself.

  • Jeddermann.

    The sovereign American Indian nation exercising their sovereign rights to determine who is and who is not a member of the tribe and a member of the nation.

    Their right! Whether for good or bad, right or wrong, it is their right.

    And my understanding is that the black Cherokee were actually escaped slaves that found refuge among the Seminole in FLA and fought with the Seminole in their three wars against the U.S.

    Matters not, your blood is not Seminole, so you can never be Seminole.

    American Indians enjoy rights and a relationship with the U.S. that unique among all other peoples of the world. Are both citizens of the U.S. and also citizens of their respective sovereign American Indian nations. They can be a citizen of your nation but YOU cannot be a citizen of their nation. And don’t you forget it!!

  • Mike

    The Cherokees are disgusting hypocrites of course. Their ancestors owned the freedmen’s ancestors just as whites owned black slaves. Lord knows that whites have been paying the price for that ownership but the poor persecuted minority Cherokees seeem to want to weasel out of it.

    The Cherokees here in Oklahoma are a weak bunch. They survive off of casinos and indian smoke shops but of course they also get the amenities of the welfare state such as medical care and housing assistance. This vote to exclude the freedment show them just to be another bunch of tribal racists not worthy of government assistance but being mooches themselves they will continue to feed at the federal trough.

  • Anonymous

    I predict that the blacks will win in this situation. Tremendous pressure and sanctions will be put on the indians until they relent. This is Black-Run America after all.

  • ex-Indianapolis

    It is well documented that Indian and Black slave owners were generally a lot more vicious towards their slaves than White owners. I’m not Cherokee nor do I have any known Indian blood, but I would like to take my hat off to this group. Should I ever run across one of the tribal leaders, I would gladly buy him a beer.

    Hasn’t trillions in every entitlement program under the sun more than paid for reparations?

  • Truthseeker

    “Hey, if you don’t have 1/32 Cherokee blood, you’re not Cherokee!! I’m 1/16 but can’t prove it, due to the fact that my MO ancestors, who married Cherokee women, had their wives’ ethnicity expunged from the local records.”

    Have you ever considered doing any DNA ancestry tests? An autosomal and/or mitochondrial test might reveal something distinctive enough to be of use in making an application. I know there’s a company in Houston that does lots of these kinds of tests. Maybe they could help you.

  • Anonymous

    A disgraceful display of Red Privilege.

    Eric ‘my people’ Holder should get on this, pronto!

  • Ben

    @ 11

    However, African Americans think that the old tricks will work.

    They are going to wish they had THE MAN to blame.

    They aren’t the largest majority.

  • WR the elder

    11 Kingoldby: This is also a warning for blacks, as whites become a minority the blacks will find that the other races will not be nearly so interested in pandering to them.

    It appears that Elizabeth Wright’s prophecy has already started to come true.

  • Alexandra

    I’m supposedly about 1/32 Cherokee (at most) myself. No way would they let me in their tribe. No biggie, I consider myself white anyway.

    That having been said–good on the Cherokee!

  • AM

    I suspect this tribe expelled the blacks because they’re gearing up for a push for legalized indian casinos in Oklahoma. Here in Calif. the tribes suddenly became very finnicky about what constituted a true Indian when Indian “gaming” (read gambling) was legalized. You see, the casino profits are divided among all members of the tribe. When the free money was coming from the U.S. government, they didn’t care who declared themself to be Indian; when the number of tribesmen cut into their share of the gravy they became obsessed with exact lineage.

  • RegvlvsSeradly

    But hey Freedmen, it isn’t all bad. Thanks to Obama, there will “always be work at the post office” (and everywhere else in the Federal government; even NASA! No spaceflight though, can’t really afford it the way we could in the ’60s).

    Racism in the 21st century? Surely these Freedmen know that ONLY WHITE PEOPLE CAN BE RACIST! The Cherokee can’t be shaken down for racism- by definition they are not white.

    This is a victory for a small “nation” against the Zeitgeist of the post-modern world. What if a larger nation, the WASP nation, were to stand so steadfast?

  • David

    Maybe the most patriotic Indian tribe, the Cherokees have successfully proved they are pro-American in their interests again. I, too, like several other writers have Cherokee blood but cannot qualify, but I am proud to say I am Cherokee with their atypical pro-Americanism

  • Anonymous

    As a matter of principal, we should support the Indians on this. I identify with the Indians casting themselves free on this, we need to do the same. We Whites can make friends with people of goodwill in other races.

  • Anonymous

    8 — Tricia in Ohio: “NONE of the “freedmen” have ONE DROP of Cherokee blood”

    The Cherokee Nation is a tribe for which the blood quantum requirement is zero. One does have to show a line of descent from someone once enrolled — could be from a quarter-breed — but that is it. That is right, one can be enrolled in the Cherokee Nation and have no detectable “Native American” blood whatsoever. A quick look at many “Cherokees” will make one suspect that they are virtually 100% racially White. This is in fact the case. They were one of the first tribes to mix with Whites and did so with a gusto that was viewed unfavorably by many other tribes. I read an account written in the 1700s which said that even back then a full-breed Cherokee was hard to find. Some also mixed with Mexicans. And I have read accounts of them officially marrying Blacks.

    IMHO “Cherokees” of all races should be free to celebrate whatever ethnic traditions they choose, but shouldn’t get a dime of Uncle Sam’s money.

    Here is an interesting article saying that it is rude to ask a Cherokee what percent Cherokee he is. It always confirms that one can belong to the Cherokee Nation and be zero percent Cherokee.

    http://goo.gl/ywK8E

  • Tricia in Ohio

    Actually, #12, to get benefits, you must be an enrolled tribal member, and the only way to be enrolled is show proof of descent from someone on the Dawes Rolls. They had to have lived ON the reservation. By leaving, your ancestors were never counted as Cherokee.

  • shaunantijihad

    “Freedmen”. Uh, the sexism! Only the men? Hehe…

    Anyway, who freed them from their Indian masters? What about all the blacks mercenaries who worked for the Spanish who kept Indian slaves all over the Caribbean, Central and South America?

    For that matter, what about my Irish ancestors enslaved as Indentured Servants? Boo hoo, I want my compensation!

    But hey, why ruin a good compensation scheme with inconvenient truths? Like, in New Orleans Blacks were 40 times more likely to own black slaves than Whites! Oh the racism! Where’s Al Sharpton? http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

    Hey, wait a minute! Blacks are still enslaving blacks in Africa, and especially where Islam justifies it according to the Moon Dog, I mean Moon God, sorry, of the Arab Paedophile PBUH.

    Still, let’s just agree that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association are genuine rights, then let all races who don’t want to live with blacks and constantly subsidise their stupidity and laziness be permitted to do as they please. It’s called FREEDOM. One day, I’d like to taste it, ‘cos right now, I’m enslaved to a tax system that taxes my work so blacks and Muslims can have so many children they will steal my country and Africanise and Islamize it.

  • Sardonicus

    The Cherokee have every right to define who qualifies for tribal membership. I can’t understand white liberals who complain about how Indians were persecuted by white settlers over one hundred years ago and yet treat Indians’ descendants like pariahs and racial criminals because they won’t conform to Political Correctness. The United States Government has been the real enemy of Indigenous Americans, not your average fair-minded white person. When “our” govenment hasn’t exterminated them, it has turned them into welfare dependent wards of the state.

  • olewhitelady

    It’s ironic that any member of the Congressional Black Caucus would complain about this, given that they have a record of excluding some black Republicans and refusing to admit any non-black legislator, even those who represent largely black districts.

    People of any pride, whether black or other, graciously accept that sometimes they are not wanted. Many blacks, however, constantly chafe over every real and imaginary rebuff. If they actually do believe that blacks are so constantly maligned and rejected, they should then wonder why.

  • Rebelcelt

    Of course the blacks always say race doesn’t matter…until they start talking affirmative action.

    The Cherokee have shown some sense..

    I can’t wait till we whites do..

  • tim Mc Hugh

    If I was Black I`d Sioux the Cherokees…

  • Anonymous

    More than a dozen Native American tribes joined the US Civil War. Some allied with the Union, some with the Confederacy, some (such as the Cherokee) had internal divisions and allied with both. Anyone who considers Native American tribes to be nations must concede that the US Civil War was an international war, fought for many reasons among all those involved. Slavery, yes, and other reasons as well.

    Article 9 of The Treaty Of 1866 states: “The Cherokee Nation having, voluntarily, in February, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, by an act of the national council, forever abolished slavery, hereby covenant and agree that never hereafter shall either slavery or involuntary servitude exist in their nation otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, in accordance with laws applicable to all the members of said tribe alike. They further agree that all freedmen who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former owners or by law, as well as all free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months, and their descendants, shall have all the rights of native Cherokees: Provided, That owners of slaves so emancipated in the Cherokee Nation shall never receive any compensation or pay for the slaves so emancipated.” Something to keep in mind during discussions of violations of Native American treaties. The Cherokee volunteered to take in the Freedmen, and now have cast them out.

    Slavery is abhorrent. The cost of slavery will be paid for centuries to come. A triumph of Western civilization is the abolition of slavery – something I hope the Muslim world can catch up to some day. Muslim nations are among the last to abolish slavery in law, and many still practice slavery. When was slavery made criminal in the Muslim nation of Mauritania? Four years ago, in 2007.

    Wikipedia:

    Native Americans in the Civil War

    Cherokee in the Civil War

    Cherokee Freedmen

    Abolition of Slavery Timeline

    Slavery in Mauritania

  • Boondoggler

    When all is said and done, segregation is still the answer. The Cherokee know it and the vast majority of people on the planet, at least deep in the recesses of their minds, know it, too. As Abe Lincoln once said, “Never do for any man what he is capable of doing for himself.” The Cherokee have obviously decided that they are ready to take care of themselves. Orientals have always seen their duty as taking care of themselves and taking the opportunities of education to do so. Hispanics, too, are very capable of the possibilities within their grasp. Only blacks, exercise the middle ground, where their grasp is eclipsed by their reach.

    Sad that White America feels the need to ‘take care’ of everyone else.

  • Anonymous

    “This is racism and apartheid in the 21st Century,” said Vann, an engineer who lives in Oklahoma City.”

    How is this “Apartheid?” I suppose anytime a black is unhappy with his lot in life it’s due to racism & apartheid.

    No. “21st Century Apartheid” is what Whites have endured the past 15 years or so…where a MINORITY is somehow legally empowered to dominate and subvert the rights of the MAJORITY.

  • Solutrean

    Now if we can just get the AMERICAN INDIANS to concede that they are in no way NATIVE to this continent.

    The Solutrean cavemen populated North America.

  • Snow Walker

    If the Cherokee can do that, why can’t we? What was the nation of Liberia created for again?

    The headline would then read:

    U.S. Expels Slave Descendants

  • DoppelGangbanger

    The benefits of being considered a Cherokee are really very limited – there’s some free health care if you live in a few geographical spots, there are some limited scholarships, and there is preferential treatment in hiring in a few limited places, such as particular hospitals or casinos in a few locales. What’s funny is, blacks already possess all of these benefits but on a very wide scale – everywhere in the country – so why should they even care about measly tribal perks?

  • Anonymous

    12 — Unacknowledged Cherokee wrote at 7:28 PM on August 24:

    “Hey, if you don’t have 1/32 Cherokee blood, you’re not Cherokee!! I’m 1/16 but can’t prove it, due to the fact that my MO ancestors, who married Cherokee women, had their wives’ ethnicity expunged from the local records. I see no reason why blacks should receive Native American benefits when they aren’t Native American!! Hell, I AM Native American, and I can’t get the benefits — so why should they?”

    I thought that the federal rule was 25%. But apparently, tribes can adjust it according to how they feel at the time. I have seen stories in the past about some being kicked out of tribes because they were considered white. That, and I am guessing, this story has more to do with gambling casino rights and revenues than anything else.

  • Unacknowledged Cherokee

    #19 Truthseeker — NO I didn’t know about that!!! I’d be very interested to hear which company (name, address, phone#) does work with DNA ancestry, because it’s me, my brother, and my 4 grand nephews who would be most impacted. Thanks!

  • Jeddermann.

    “The Treaty Of 1866 states: “The Cherokee Nation having, voluntarily, in February, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, by an act of the national council, forever abolished slavery, hereby covenant and agree that never hereafter shall either slavery or involuntary servitude exist in their nation”

    Kit Carson led the New Mexico volunteers and their Ute allies against the Navajo at the same time the American Civil War was waging. The Navajo were noted for their slave catching raids against the Pueblo Indians. Slaves sold to the Plains Indians, Commanche, etc. Kit put a stop to that AS A SIDESHOW TO THE WAR!

    Kit was either an illiterate or a near illiterate but an intuitive general officer and an outstanding military commander. Brutal when he needed to be, but magnanimous in victory too.

  • SKIP

    Has anyone besides me ever seen the Piquot Indian museum in Groton, Conn. The museum scenes and the contemporary photos of the “indians” simply do not match!!

  • Anonymous

    It begs the question if the Cherokee tribe had been operating any profitable Indian casinos? The freeloaders would have been jumping up and down looking to score some tribal cash if that were the case.

  • Anonymous

    I think it’s great that a Native American tribe has the guts to stand up to the African American people, who always have their hands out. They get enough freebies from Caucasians. Native Americans have a tough time getting anything – look at Shannon County, SD, the poorest county in the U.S. I think the African Americans should be ashamed trying to get money from an ethnicity poorer than they are.

  • Anonymous

    43 — Jeddermann. wrote at 7:26 PM on August 25:

    “The Treaty Of 1866 states: “The Cherokee Nation having, voluntarily, in February, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, by an act of the national council, forever abolished slavery, hereby covenant and agree that never hereafter shall either slavery or involuntary servitude exist in their nation”

    “Kit Carson led the New Mexico volunteers and their Ute allies against the Navajo at the same time the American Civil War was waging. The Navajo were noted for their slave catching raids against the Pueblo Indians. Slaves sold to the Plains Indians, Commanche, etc. Kit put a stop to that AS A SIDESHOW TO THE WAR!

    Kit was either an illiterate or a near illiterate but an intuitive general officer and an outstanding military commander. Brutal when he needed to be, but magnanimous in victory too.”

    I highly recommend the book, “A Fate Worse than Death,” by Michner (husband and wife historians). Kit Carson was married to an Indian, and was a far different man than typically cast. In fact he was a remarkable man. The book is a history of Indian atrocities against whites using actual historical documents and interviews of surviving victims, their rescuers and often Indian witnesses as well. For those who would disbelieve the accuracy of the reports of victims, the authors do a good job of conveying the attitudes of the period where even admitting the sorts of atrocities that nearly always came with capture, i.e., rape and sexual battery, was a huge shame in white society and it was actually more likely that more reports were repressed due to shame than actually reported or recorded. Also, the government awarded compensation to victims so they were reluctant to automatically accept reports without investigating. Because of that, many more events were likely never accepted because not enough proof could be found. You can imagine the limits of forensic investigation in those days and the bureaucratic tendency to dismiss on technicalities. Most accepted victims never did get compensated, or only decades later. One item also to note was the greatly shortened lifespans of most survivors. Men were not typically captured, but killed outright. Once a raid on a homestead began, the men would often flee, knowing that they would be killed outright, hoping that the raiders would leave the women and children alone, which they sometimes did, but not that often. What I found really puzzling is that the men would be out working in the fields without any firearm near. So when the raids came, the weapons were at their homes and all they could do was hide. These seemed most often to be newly arrived Europeans who had been raised on notions of the noble savage. The Indians who they were friendly with, often arrived later to kill them after gaining access via the settler’s naive trust.

    Another remarkable book is GA Custer’s, “My Life on the Plains.” He is eloquent and provides a strikingly and for some surprisingly fair history of attempting to manage the growing problems of Indians and increasing numbers of settlers that the government encouraged to settle on new treaty lands. To any who may pooh, pooh, the book, it is regarded as one of the most valuable, detailed, and accurate accounts of history during that period by the Library of Congress. Anyone who thinks that Custer was a dumb hick will be embarrassed to find that his writing ability informs otherwise, and displays a far more complex man than is popularly believed. Wife Libby’s book, “Boots and Saddles” is remarkable as well as it gives a woman’s point of view. She noted for example the skinny arms of the male Indians that were due to the fact that the women did all the work.

  • Anonymous

    Isn’t it interesting that so many whites place more value on a rumored or even proven Indian ancestry as low as 1/16? I can’t decide if this is due to the “One Drop” rule of white racial purity or that so many whites think it is so cool to “be an Indian.” I’ve laughed in the face of a few women I’ve known, blond and blue eyed, who insist that they are Cherokee. But the problem is the view that European ancestry has so little value to whites themselves, while blacks and Hispanics are constantly attempting to lift themselves up by making associations via name (blacks like French sounding names, while Hispanics try to legitimize themselves as Latin people).

    I do think that DNA testing is good to do in these cases, because I suspect that many claimed Cherokees are really Irish (and other) late 19th century settlers of Oklahoma who took on the region’s appellation. Every white I have known who claims Cherokee background has been from Oklahoma or has a family history there. But I’d be happy to learn more of other’s experiences.

  • SKIP

    My former wife is 1/2 Cherokee with a role number on her father’s side. He was a Cherokee chief of some sort in North Carolina and died in the mid 70s over 80 years old. At the funeral services his TWO (2) wives showed up, each with EIGHT (8) children by him with alternating years of birth!! Government dignitaries were at the funeral and all of these VIPs witnessed the cat fight between the two wives in FRONT of the casket with all of the military decorations he had earned in WWI as neither knew of the other! Anyway, my then wife took pictures and very entertaining they were too!

  • s

    The Cherokee decision had an ease to it. The slaves were not imported by them. Why should they carry around with them, in a community based upon nativity?

    It therefore must be useful to really study the old slave trade, as many good points can be made, as how large is the percentage imported by the french?

  • Super Dave

    Indian/black conflict doesn’t fit the cultural Marxist script. Further, the American Indians were the embodiment of tolerance, courage and all good human qualities according to the leftist narrative. That these saintly people are expelling descendents of African slaves must have the radical leftist spin doctors in the mainstream media twisting themselves into knots.

  • Anonymous

    48 — Anonymous wrote at 3:27 PM on August 26:

    Isn’t it interesting that so many whites place more value on a rumored or even proven Indian ancestry as low as 1/16? I can’t decide if this is due to the “One Drop” rule of white racial purity or that so many whites think it is so cool to “be an Indian.” I’ve laughed in the face of a few women I’ve known, blond and blue eyed, who insist that they are Cherokee. But the problem is the view that European ancestry has so little value to whites themselves, while blacks and Hispanics are constantly attempting to lift themselves up by making associations via name (blacks like French sounding names, while Hispanics try to legitimize themselves as Latin people).

    ——————————

    How right you are! I have noticed that for years! You would think all of us White folk have “indian” blood in us and should be oh, so proud….it is a complete MYTH that so many Whites think they have Indian blood coarsing through their veins…the same goes for mulattos. it is their black blood they celebrate and detest their white blood. (well, I detest their white blood also). It should never happen in the first place.

    Having Pure White blood is to be shunned at all costs to these morons.

    As for these Indian tribes in the USA, why is it they are allowed to vote, get welfare, their own casinos, taxpayer dollars, etc. WHILE claiming they are a sovereign nation at the same time????

  • BTW where by did that odd anthro pony come from?