(no subject)

[deckardcanine]

The Cherokee Nation just reversed a decision from March 7 of last year. According to their official online poll, 76.6% of voters favored amending the Nation's constitution so that the 2,800 descendants of slaves owned by Cherokees -- that's right; even some indigenous tribes used to keep Black slaves -- are no longer tribal citizens. A spokesman contended that the fact that citizens got to vote on it was a sign that the Nation is not racist.

I first learned the bulk of this from an Express article. Unfortunately, it does not go into the rationale for the vote's direction. Nor does it mention the voter turnout -- a mere 3.2%, according to Wikipedia. Not enough initiative in drawing people to the poll website, I guess.

And I can easily believe that that percentage is predominantly racist. The spokesman might have made a better argument than hinted in my sources, but what I do read falls very flat. Imagine if Texas contended that it wasn't anti-gay because it let the citizens make decisions on gays' legal rights. However you may feel about the issue, you have to admit that the argument is far from impressive.

For a little while, I thought that maybe these voters weren't so much racist as confused. Maybe they didn't realize that this was to determine not just ethnic distinctions but the privileges conferred upon the forebears of people who unwillingly were a big part of Cherokee culture. Then I read about claims that the slaves were too insignificant to the Cherokee heritage. Honestly, it gave me the impression of last-century segregationists' attitudes. But at least Blacks had become citizens in the U.S., however unequal.

I wish this hypocrisy were getting more coverage.

Comments

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

Hawaiians descended from natives are trying to push through a similar measure, they want independence and a ruling only natives may decide the future course of the country. I thought we were past the rights-depend-on-race philosophy, but apparently I was mistaken.