When the Past Meets the Present - Part 1

 

While the above quote applies to humanity as a whole or to nations of people, I believe it also applies to us as individuals. It's why I believe the study of our own personal history is important. We all have family stories, and while that might be fine and good for sitting around the dinner table, if those stories are inaccurate or untrue, and we allow them to become engrained into our very being, they could lead us to make poor decisions based on lies and deception. Over time, that can become problematic and harmful. This harm is magnified if one who has been influenced by false family stories becomes a leader of a nation of people and he allows those false stories to play a role in the decisions he makes for that nation of people.

***

In 1896, a family group of approximately 54 people applied for citizenship in the Cherokee Nation and were rejected. They appealed to the US Northern District Court and were again rejected. That should have been the end of it, but it wasn't. In 1907, they filed Eastern Cherokee applications, attempting to get some of the money due the Cherokees for their land in the east. Once again the family was rejected. Still, this was not the end of it. To this day, though they have not one iota of proof to support their false claim, this family still says they are Cherokee. While we Cherokees are used to this type of claim and tend to roll our eyes when we hear these claims and then go on about our business believing the claim is more annoying than it is harmful, we can't do that this time. 

This time, the false claim is being made by our very own chief, Bill John Baker, and his mother, Isabel Baker. While Baker has Cherokee ancestry on his father's side, he has none on his mother's side but that doesn't stop him from claiming he does, according to sources who wish to remain anonymous. It also doesn't stop his mother from claiming it, as you can see in this comment she made in September, 2012, on Facebook:

In the 1896 claim that was appealed to to the US courts, in the case known as RM Walker v the Cherokee Nation, the ancestors of Isabel Baker claimed descent from a Cherokee man named John Rogers. They were very specific about which John Rogers they claimed.  He was white and well documented. They don't descend through him. 

By the time of the Eastern Cherokee applications, Isabel Baker's family were still very specific about which Cherokee John Rogers they claimed, but this time, it was a different John Rogers. He was a chief and also well documented. They don't descend through him either, but ironically, Cara Cowan Watts, Cherokee Nation council woman, does. (Yes, you read that correctly. Chief Baker's mom's family falsely claimed to descend through Cara Cowan Watts' ancestor!)

The Cherokee people have watched this administration closely and often wondered why our chief refuses to defend our sovereignty in these perilous times when the number of fraudulent groups are growing each day; when the BIA is considering weakening the federal recognition process; and when states consider giving fake tribes state recognition.

Stay tuned as we explore the ancestry of Chief Baker, through his mother's line, and examine whether Isabel Baker's family's false claim of Cherokee ancestry from the past has influenced her son's ability to make good decisions concerning our Nation's sovereignty today.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Then and Now: Greed v. Sovereignty

In 1832, a white man named William Beard went to the home of Cherokee Nakey Brown. He claimed her possessions, saying the state of Georgia gave them to him when he won the lot in the land lottery. He threatened to use force against her if she didn't quietly surrender what was rightfully hers.

In 2013, a white couple, Matt and Melanie Capobianco, want to go to the home of Cherokee Dusten Brown. They claim his daughter, saying the state of South Carolina gave her to them when they won the child in a court case. They are threatening to use force against him if he doesn't quietly surrender what is rightfully his. 

***

In 1832, Georgia was trying to give away something it had no right to give away - Cherokee land. The Cherokee Nation had not given up their right to the land. They had not surrendered it in any way. 

In 2013, South Carolina is trying to give away something it has no right to give away - a Cherokee child. The Cherokee Nation has not given up their right to the child. They have not surrendered her in any way.

***

In 1832, in Worcester v. Georgia, the US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall said the Cherokee Nation remained a separate, sovereign nation, independent of Georgia. He came down hard on the state of Georgia and said the Cherokee Nation had the right to live free from the state's trespasses.

Georgia ignored that U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Nakey Brown's rights as a Cherokee citizen were ignored by the state of Georgia, not because Georgia didn't realize the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign nation, but instead because the Cherokees had something they (and William Beard) wanted...land...and they were going to do anything they had to do to get it.

In 2013, in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, the Supreme Court held that Veronica Brown was an Indian child and that the Indian Child Welfare Act's adoption placement preferences could come into play. That meant that if the state of South Carolina did not allow her to stay with her father, then Veronica's placement should follow the hierarchy of preferred placement for Indian children.

South Carolina ignored that U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Veronica Brown's rights as a Cherokee citizen are being ignored by the state of South Carolina, not because South Carolina doesn't realize the Cherokee Nation is a sovereign nation, but instead because the Cherokees have something they (and Matt and Melanie Capobianco) want...a child...and they will do anything they have to do to get it. 

***

Two historical events, 181 years apart, but eerily similar. In 1832, white Americans trespassed into  the Cherokee Nation; wrongfully dispossessed many Cherokees of everything they owned; and the legal system allowed them to do it. Now in 2013, it would be illegal for them to come into our homes, force us out, and steal our possessions, but as appalling as it is, white Americans can now sneak around; wrongfully dispossess us Cherokees of our children; and the legal system is allowing them to do it. 

The more things change, the more they stay the same.


Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2013, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

The Two Faces of America: Elizabeth Warren v. Baby Veronica

America, as a whole, clearly does not understand sovereignty or how it applies to Indian tribes. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs website,

"federally recognized tribes are recognized as possessing certain inherent rights of self-government (i.e., tribal sovereignty) and are entitled to receive certain federal benefits, services, and protections because of their special relationship with the United States."

How does this apply to Elizabeth Warren and Baby Veronica?

It applies because, time and time again, Americans repeatedly want to make both situations about race when they aren't. While many Americans said Warren had a right to claim her purported Cherokee ancestry, even if only a drop, and had a right to "check the box" based on family lore, many Americans are now saying Baby Veronica only has a "drop" of Indian blood, therefore, it isn't enough to matter.

When it was Elizabeth Warren claiming to have Cherokee ancestry, even though she couldn't prove it, there were plenty of Americans who spoke out in her defense, calling anyone who stood up against her false claims "a racist." Her supporters believed a drop was enough for her to claim, even though she couldn't show she actually had "a drop" of Indian blood.

Now that the focus is on Baby Veronica, a child with documented Cherokee ancestry, Americans have a different perspective. They say the little girl only has a drop of Indian blood and it isn't really enough to matter. They claim anyone who supports the idea she stay with her biological father and tribe is basing the opinion on race, when she really isn't "enough" to be considered an Indian.

Ah...the two faces of America. In one case, they want to tell us Cherokees we should accept someone who isn't, because her claim is good enough for them, yet in another case, they want to tell us who we should not be able to claim because that claim isn't good enough for them. Hmm...

But guess what. America's opinion doesn't matter. The sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation  does.  

Federally recognized tribes are recognized as possessing certain inherent rights of self-government (sovereignty) and are entitled to receive certain protections because of their special relationship with the United States.

That is key. The Cherokee Nation, a federally recognized tribe, decides its own citizenship. The Cherokee Nation is allowed to decide this because of its inherent right of SOVEREIGNTY. We define ourselves based on our criteria, not America's. By meeting the citizenship criteria defined by our nation, our citizens are entitled to certain protections. Baby Veronica is entitled to such protections, (i.e. the Indian Child Welfare Act,) while Warren is not, (i.e. Affirmative Action programs.)

But still, America doesn't seem to get it. The "two faced" remarks by Melissa Harriss-Perry is a perfect example.

In discussing Elizabeth Warren's claim, possibly politically motivated, Harriss-Perry said, 

"If candidate Warren grew up thinking she is Native American by heritage, who are we to say she is not?"

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And then later, when discussing the importance of the Indian Child Welfare Act...

"there is one group that does have a right to feel actual threat and concern about that and that is in the context of this country and Native Americans."

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Props to Harriss-Perry for getting it right the second time around, but she, like others in America, is still talking out of both sides of her mouth. First, she basically said we (Cherokees) had no right to say Warren wasn't "Native American" (remember, because she claimed us, we were speaking out, but MSNBC ignored that fact), and then, she turned around and said if anyone has a right to feel a threat in this country, it would be Native Americans. Well no kidding! That is why we were protesting against Warren in the first place! We were trying to protect OUR identity as citizens of the Cherokee Nation......for our children that non-Indians keep trying to take away from us.


Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2013, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Warren and Her Direct Attack on Our Sovereignty

I am highly disturbed at how the Democrats are crying racism when it is their candidate, Elizabeth Warren, who has usurped an identity that didn't belong to her and continues to double and triple down on that claim, still, without proof. If they want to stand up for American Indians, it should not be done by yelling racism but instead, by pointing out sovereignty and treaty rights. We are sovereign Indian nations and we have the right to determine who is or is not a member of our nations, not them. By the standards they are using against Scott Brown, his misunderstanding of Indian identity, they are also guilty.

Warren has had ample opportunity to admit she made a mistake. She refuses to do it, which means she has no respect for us as Indian Nations. She sees us as a race of people instead. Now the Democratic political machine is using us, as a race, the generic Indian, to play the race card. What I see is not racism, but instead, race baiting by Warren and her supporters. Because she claimed to be us, by default, she and her supporters are now using us, the Cherokee people, as their reason to claim racism. It isn't racism.

It is an attack on sovereignty by Warren and her supporters because they think they can tell us who is Cherokee, or who should be, based on race. By this philosophy, our nation, the Cherokee Nation, would be booting out the freedmen descendents. Warren and her supporters disrespect Indian Nations as sovereign nations. We are not one group - Indians - but instead individual nations who determines our own citizenship. Warren claims to be Cherokee and her supporters, the media and many others give her the benefit of doubt. That is where they get it wrong and that is where they disrespect us. We say she is not Cherokee, so she isn't. Cherokees decide who is Cherokee. Not the media. Not the Democrats. And not Elizabeth Warren.


Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet