Obama position on Cherokee issue builds ties with Native Americans

From THE HILL
By Kevin Bogardus

Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Barack Obama’s support for the Cherokee Nation in its controversial battle with the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) is helping him win support from Native American leaders.

That support has translated into votes in Democratic primaries, and could also help the Illinoisan in a general-election fight with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Obama has weighed in against legislation supported by other CBC members that would cut off federal funds to the Cherokee Nation. The CBC is upset with the Cherokee for excluding Freedmen — descendants of slaves once owned by tribal members — from tribal membership.

Obama has said that he disagrees with the decision, but opposes cutting off funds to the Cherokee, saying tribes have a right to be self-governing.

To most black lawmakers, the move by the Cherokee Nation smacked of racism and discrimination. But many Native Americans see tribal membership as an issue of sovereignty and resent any federal intrusion.

Chairman Joe Brings Plenty of the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe in South Dakota said if Obama had sided with the CBC on the issue, it would have weighed on Native American voters’ minds.

“It would have been costly,” Brings Plenty said. “If Congress is allowed to step and just rearrange the constitution, what is going to happen to our constitution? The seriousness of the issue is that comes down directly to interfering with the nations.”

Obama easily won the two South Dakota counties where Brings Plenty’s reservation is located on Tuesday, although it wasn’t enough for him to win the entire state. He also benefited from strong wins in Indian counties in Montana, where he did defeat Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

According to Obama’s advisers and supporters, a number of states might go Democratic in this year’s general election because of Native American votes. They cite Montana, a state where more than 6 percent of the population is Native American. It has voted Republican in the last several presidential campaigns, but Obama trails McCain by an average of only seven points, according to polls monitored by RealClearPolitics.

Another example cited by Obama’s supporters is North Carolina. While its population is only a little more than 1 percent American Indian, it is seen as a swing state where Obama might be able to edge out a narrow victory.

If Obama had sided with the CBC, Brings Plenty, who has no position on the substance of the Freedmen dispute, said he would not have retracted his endorsement but would have requested a meeting with the senator to offer his perspective on the issue.

Brings Plenty isn’t alone in praising Obama’s position on the Cherokee issue. Indian Country Today, a Native American news service, praised him for meeting “Indian issues head-on, even where they could put him at odds with other voters.”

“It was smart of Obama to put out a position. I’m glad he’s on the record. This is something tribes definitely want to hear,” said Lillian Sparks, a member of the Rosebud Sioux and executive director of the National Indian Education Association.

The CBC reaction has been less positive.

In an op-ed in The Hill, Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.), who endorsed Clinton for president, said the Democratic front-runner’s statement on the Freedmen shows he is without “a clear understanding of the issue.”

“What Sen. Obama fails to understand is that the Freedmen issue is about treaty rights, not tribal sovereignty,” wrote Watson.

Obama has taken other positions to win over Native American voters. He backs more education and healthcare funding for tribes, and has promised as president to hold an annual meeting with tribal leaders and to hire a senior White House aide to handle Native American issues.

“At the heart of his campaign is the need to be inclusive, particularly for communities that have felt they have been left out. For Indian Country, that resonates,” said Keith Harper, a Cherokee member and partner at Kilpatrick Stockton who heads up the Obama campaign’s 50-member Native American policy advisory committee.

Obama has met with tribal leaders in five states so far, including Tuesday’s Democratic primary states, according to his campaign. He also held a conference call with tribal leaders from across the nation in July 2007.

Brings Plenty soon started hearing from Obama campaign aides in October 2007 about an endorsement, although his nearly 16,000-member tribe is based in South Dakota and was not voting until June.

“I was surprised because he had knowledge of native issues even then,” said Brings Plenty about Obama when listening in to the conference call. “When I found out [former Sen. Tom] Daschle [D-S.D.] was one of his advisers, I knew that’s why he knows.”

Brings Plenty endorsed Obama personally in November 2007 and later had a tribal resolution passed officially supporting the senator in February this year.

Kalyn Free, a member of the Democratic National Committee and Oklahoma superdelegate, was disappointed when Obama did not attend an August 2007 Native American forum also skipped by several other candidates. But she’s since endorsed Obama, whom she said plans to attend a national tribal leader forum she’s organizing this summer.

Free aims to hold the forum in New Mexico, “the most purple of battleground states,” Free said. “Indians are and can be the pivotal and the deciding factor on who wins the White House.”

Questions about Race, Indigeneity, and Photography

Given the debate surrounding the proposed ban of "mixed-blood" marriages among Dominica's Caribs, and the unexplained assertion that 1,000 "full blood Caribs" remain there, added to assertions made in the Taino Revival book that contemporary Tainos are really black people trying to deny their blackness by choosing a Taino identity, there seems to be a whole bundle of very contentious ideas, and some of these are re-provoked by the New Old World photo exhibition reproduced by the National Museum of the American Indian (see the earlier post about this here).

Arguments made in the Taino Revival book might apply with greater force in the case of the approach taken by Chief Williams, when it is almost impossible at this point to argue that anyone in Dominica is a "full blood Carib," and where asserting purity in the face of persistent mixture becomes really questionable. Had the contributors to the Taino Revival book directed their criticisms at concrete cases such as this, then I might have agreed with their arguments.

In the case of many of the Tainos I see online, please forgive me for being crass and superficial, but it is just not clear to my eyes by what definition or criteria they should be seen as "black" -- unless the blackness that is asserted is carelessly racial shorthand for something deeper, that is cultural rather than biological. Anyway, it is not my job to fix their argument for them. The notion that Tainos are really just black people strikes me as taking the one-drop rule to the extreme, and without any reference to anyone's actual genealogy. Even in the U.S., where we are commonly told that a slight wave in the hair might qualify someone as "black," it is still not clear to me how one would view the Tainos and conclude that, really, they are black. By the way, I am sure that "wave in the hair" is an exaggeration, since by that rule most Italian immigrants would have been reclassified as black. All I am saying is that I do not see how and why the blackness issue would surface. And what I do believe is that a person who "looks" fully black to most North Americans, with their ethnic and racial biases and criteria, could still be entitled to call himself/herself Taino, because indigeneity is not about race, and apparent blackness does not erase multiple ancestries, and different ways of life that do not correspond with superficial appearance.

But when one mounts a photo exhibition showing continuing indigeneity in the Caribbean, that is when we will run into some of the problems raised in the Taino Revival book. I am very familiar with at least one, arguably two, of the communities depicted in the photographs, the Caribs of Trinidad and Dominica. What I noticed is a tendency to show the full face of those persons whose appearance would meet the stereotypical expectations of what a "real Indian" should look like, while others, perhaps "too mixed", are photographed behind smoke, with their faces down. This can be a subtle, perhaps not deliberate, perhaps unconscious, way of conveying shame, embarrassment, and an attempt to disguise.

Face, full front, the real Carib

Face down, covered by smoke, the unreal Carib

No shame here -- any of a number of images of Cristo Adonis online,
facing the camera straight

I don't like it and I do not want to waste time making excuses for someone else's work. I think it humiliates people I know and deeply admire, people who are proud to show their faces and would not want to be seen face down like they were bowing and hiding. It masks their identity, and obscures their self-identification, and thus offends them indirectly, but in public, online. This photographic approach surrenders to everything the Taino Revival authors have argued, and Museums and photographers working with indigenous peoples today ought to be more sensitive, more cautious, and decidedly more conscious about their practices.

The presentation of photos at the National Museum of the American Indian also speaks to the power of the photographic image in Western culture. What I mean is that it reaffirms and fortifies it, as does the Museum itself which of course bases its practice on all that which is tangible, physical and visible. In the end, it's Western culture, Western media, and Western technology that win.

The problem with that is that indigeneity is often not reducible to the observable, to the body, the face, that which can be seen. Thus one form of visibility comes at the expense of acknowledging that which is rendered invisible by photography, or the head bowed away from the camera. The bigger problem here is that attempting to photograph indigeneity can reduce it to a physical substance, and reaffirm racial ideas in the process.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Discussing Chief Williams and Intermarriage

For those who might be interested in following or adding to the discussion, we are currently talking about Chief Williams and the Associated Press article in the Indigenous Caribbean Network.

Please see the post and discussion there.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Africans are not "foreigners" (but racists are racists even if they are Caribs)

For a decade now I have personally known about the racial views of today's Chief of the Dominica Carib Territory, Charles Williams, and was quite willing to keep debates and discussions that we had in private, until I saw the Associated Press possibly tarnishing the image of all Dominica's Caribs among those who might mistakenly think that the Chief speaks for all Caribs.

Chief Williams, who does have Internet access and an email account, is very welcome to post his response on this blog, and I commit myself to publishing it. Again, I wish to reiterate that the views expressed below are entirely my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my fellow CAC editors.

I believe that the most respectful way to behave, as an anthropologist, is to speak frankly and directly (as I did in person back in 1998), and to even argue with one's hosts and collaborators, rather than write about them behind their backs, which I have not done and am not doing now. I will reiterate what I said in 1998, in what was otherwise a very warm gathering at which Carib senator Kelly Graneau, James Frederick, and Irvince Auguiste (a former chief) were also present.

I do so, quite plainly, to distance myself from views that I think are completely reprehensible: the Caribbean does not need any more racism, and it especially does not need any racism to be reinforced by those who suffered some of its worst effects for the longest.

Africans in the Caribbean, in Dominica, are not "foreigners."

Africans did not choose to be in the Caribbean, they are not tourists, they are not invaders. Africans were stolen from their homes, and would most likely never have chosen to be in the Caribbean, or to remain, were it not for the fact that their homes were destroyed and return proved impossible.

Africans literally spilled their blood on Caribbean soil, labouring, toiling, and fighting for freedom. They have a place in the Caribbean not just because they have been born there for generations, but because they have earned that place like few other people anywhere on Earth can claim.

Africans and Caribs, who merged to form the people we know today as the Garifuna, the last speakers of the Island Carib language (not spoken in Dominica), have long had mutually supportive relationships, have long intermarried, have shared their cultures, have adopted each other's customs and practices, and have fought together for freedom.

One does not turn one's back on such a history in the name of anything--not in the name of a quick buck made by selling baskets to tourists, not in the name of possibly seeking to boot families out of the Carib Territory, and certainly not in the name of "racial purity."

I ask that Chief Williams reflect on the destructive impact of his messages, that he reconsider, and that he publicly apologize for seeking such odious legislation and withdraw his comments.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Ottawa to Appeal Expansion of Indigenous "Status"

As expected, the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper plans to appeal a recent Canadian provincial high court ruling that struck down a long-standing restriction on legal recognition of indigenous identity.

For more on this see Bill Curry's "Appeal of native ruling likely, Ottawa says," The Globe and Mail, Tuesday, June 19, 2007.

Canada: New Developments in Indigenous Status

The past week in Canada has seen the promise of some major new transformations in the current position of Aboriginal peoples. For those readers not too familiar with the Canadian situation, it is important to note that there are two basic "classes" of Aboriginals: (1) those officially registered as "status Indians" who have legal rights to residence on reserves, with individual reserves referred to as "First Nations"--the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is tied to this backdrop; and, (2) people who self-identify as Aboriginal, but who are "non-status" because they had a mother or grandmother who married a non-native--the Congress of Aboriginal People, which rarely receives anywhere as much media attention as the AFN, is tied to this population.

In Canada, the law had descent reckoned through the paternal line, even when this went against particular aboriginal societies' custom of reckoning descent through the maternal line. As a result, a vast number of Aboriginals lost the right to reside on reserves, and most ended up in cities. In the meantime, Aboriginal men were entitled to marry non-native women, and those women obtained the right to reside on reserve, so that some persons with "status" may not even be Aboriginal. This double-pronged erosion of reserve-based nations may be coming to a final end. (The Indian Missions of Trinidad were regulated by an even more severe version of this system--where all "mixed race" offspring were officially de-Indianized and lost rights to collective lands that had been granted to their parents and grandparents. Both Trinidad and Canada were governed by the British for a period of time.)

On Saturday, June 16, 2007, Bill Curry writing in The Globe and Mail ("Indian status can be traced through mother, court rules"), tells us the following:

The B.C. [British Columbia] Supreme Court has wiped out one of the most contentious aspects of the federal Indian Act, striking down part of Ottawa's definition of a status Indian and opening the door to hundreds of thousands of new applications for native services.

The court rejected part of the existing legal definition on the grounds that it discriminates against Canadians who trace their aboriginal roots through their female relatives rather than their father or grandfather.

The ruling alters the federal law that has long created two classes of aboriginals in Canada: the 767,000 who fit the definition of status Indian and the several hundred thousand more who don't.

The 2001 census found 976,000 Canadians who self-identified as aboriginal and more than 1.3 million who said they had aboriginal ancestry.

Many aboriginals who failed in their requests for status will now have a much better chance of success, said Beverley Jacobs, the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada.

"This opens the floodgates," she said. "I don't think we could have asked for a better judgment."

Aboriginals with status qualify for prescription drug coverage and can apply for postsecondary assistance.

The Federal Government of Canada disingenuously claimed that it previously addressed the issue of patriarchal discrimination in the Indian Act by passing Bill C-31 in 1985. What was the "major change" of that Bill? It simply pushed the cut-off line to second generation offspring of unions between natives and others, and still reckoned descent along paternal lines. That minor change did however return status to 175,000 individuals. This latest court ruling has the effect of nullifying Section 6 of the Indian Act, that section which pertains to who can claim to be an "Indian" (the subject of an upcoming seminar in Montreal).

In the same week, the Federal Government committed itself to setting up, in conjunction with the Assembly of First Nations, an impartial tribunal for resolving the more than 800 land claim cases that remain unresolved in Canada, that on average have been the subject to legal disputes lasting 20 years, with some much longer than that (see The Globe and Mail, June 13, 2007, "New land-claims process in works"). This would mean that the Federal Government could no longer act as defendant, judge, and jury all at the same time. While there is no way of predicting future rulings on so many cases, if one were to assume that there will be much more land added to the current land base of First Nations reserves, but also many more persons with status as outlined above, the net effect might be bigger numbers on all fronts, but not necessarily more land per person. If, on the other hand, the current size of the reserve land base were to remain roughly the same, but the numbers of persons with status vastly increased, it could serve to effectively crush reserves under their own weight. The situation where a boon becomes bane is not all that uncommon in Canada, as in the case of select reserves suffering from high rates of alcoholism and substance abuse suddenly finding themselves awash in cash from settled claims or other compensation packages, precisely at the time that those particular Aboriginals can least handle the new resources, and where the temptation to squander is higher than it might otherwise be.

Who Is An Indian? Race, Blood, DNA, and the Politics of Indigeneity in the Americas

Thanks to support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and University of Toronto Press, an international seminar will be hosted in Montreal this August, for a project titled: Who Is An Indian? Race, Blood, DNA, and the Politics of Indigeneity in the Americas.

The aim of the project is as follows:

The contributors seek to develop a comprehensive framework for understanding and explaining racial approaches to indigenous identity at the intersections of colonialism, state governance, and indigenous political resurgence, by way of a cross-cultural and comparative analysis of indigenous cases from across the Americas. Secondly, they explore the theoretical and conceptual bases for conceiving a unified problematic—the bio-politics of indigeneity—which has at least three manifestations: “race” at the broadest level but also involving culturally specific valuations of particular phenotypical traits in accordance with local norms of racialization; blood quantum measurements and the calculus of identity; and, DNA testing. Their third goal is to examine the social possibilities and cultural contours for an indigeneity that exceeds or transcends the criteria of bodily markers, and for disciplinary reformulations.

Participants include:

JOSÉ BARREIRO
SMITHSONIAN MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN
ALICE BARTELS
DENNIS BARTELS
SIR WILFRED GRENFELL COLLEGE, MUN
PHIL BELLFY
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
JULIA COATES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS
MAXIMILIAN FORTE
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY
MARÍA ELENA GARCÍA
TUFTS UNIVERSITY
EVA MARIE GARROUTTE
BOSTON COLLEGE
BONITA LAWRENCE
YORK UNIVERSITY
JOSÉ ANTONIO LUCERO
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
DONNA PATRICK
CARLETON UNIVERSITY
KAREN STOCKER
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, BAKERSFIELD
KIMBERLY TALLBEAR
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
JONATHAN WARREN
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE

The seminar is organized and hosted by CAC editor, Maximilian Forte. For more information, please see:

http://www.centrelink.org/seminar/index.htm

Cherokee Citizenship Deceptions By Anglo Saxons

[Ed: This letter was submitted on the condition that it be published anonymously. I have decided to do so simply because it reflects the very strong opinion of someone who has had to live with these problems of race and citizenship. The author of the letter lives in Colorado Springs.]

History has proven that whenever the Anglo Saxons came into a place that was new to them, they not only took over, but drew up all kinds of Laws and Treaties that they themselves had no intentions of honoring, at at the same time made darn sure - ( like they do in this day and age ), their family and generations to come are covered, and to deceive is the way that Anglo Saxons, some make their living!

It's a sad situation to look at the many people of various Indian Tribes suffer needlessly because there are those who are in a position of authority, who are stealing from the tribes, and actually have no rights to such benefits, but because there are wicked cooks stirring the stew, only those foolish enough to be a part of such wickedness benefit from such deception. I believe after all these years that because many are being confronted about such
deception, these people scramble by deceptive practices, with some tribal members included, to maintain that deception so that their families can maintain the quality of life that is refused to those that truly deserve to be recognized, can have a better quality of life that many Anglo Saxons are used to.

Anglo Saxons were not taken out of their homelands, stripped of their culture, denied the basic freedoms and rights that rule the land - ( laws that they made, they didn't honor, but they received the most benefit from such laws, while denying others their basic rights, and at the same time stating, the best kind of Indian, is a dead Indian! ) Good grief don't people recognize that when these people live over a 100 yrs. ago, that before they died, they groomed the generations that were alive to carry on in such mass deceptions? The KKK is a fine example of such because they teach their generations the same message, generation, after generation!

What I recognize in all of this is greed! Anyone whose Ancestor has Citizenship within any tribe, and such can be traced to a manipulated roll, such as The Dawes Rolls, should be allowed to maintain that citizenship, whether by blood or not! If one's ancestor has Citizenship within the Cherokee Nation, what is really the big deal, especially since the Cherokee Nation is supposely proud of their mixed nationalities within, and that family filed all the paperwork during the 1900's to prove such, considering the history that wicked and greedy Anglo Saxons were the one's behind such deception, and I believe such is the case today!

Many Native Americans were black, and what's so chilling about that? Many Native Americans do not have the same texture of hair or skin color, which does not signify that they aren't Native Americans! What is wrong with people? Oh I believe I'm getting it, if you can't prove either way, you're done! If one can't prove their ancestor's citizenship, and or a bloodline, then all efforts of proving such is a lost cause, and many in a position who can not prove such...have lost completely, unless by the grace of God, something is found to verify their families history has been recorded, not to mention The Dawes Final Rolls is not a perfect account because, how can you approve the children and leave out the other siblings and or parents, bloodlines are listed elsewhere, and if one doesn't know this fact, that's also a loss, because if one examines the rolls they will see where some bloodlines are listed for their family members, and some bloodlines are listed, but it's mixed up, one has to do extensive searches to find the truth, and one more thing...Misspelling People's Names! The name in some cases is the same Person, but misspelled...what a mess those Anglo's have created, but God always fights the battle, especially if you're a true believer!


*The hottest places in hell are reserved for those in moral crisis who remain in netural.
- President John F. Kennedy

How can a few deny many, when they themselves are subjected to the same kind of abuse of power that they so honestly serve, knowing that what they do is not right, but to keep peace with the Devil they continue to look the other way while deceit destroys their souls, killing'em everyday because they don't recognize today, America by the Anglo Saxon was established upon deceit, deception, and corrupt Anglo Saxons who misrepresent their authority and even today, twist the truth where such will benefit them and others who have the same spirit of...I could care less, I'm getting mines!!!!!!!! How sickening!

P.S. Since everyone is under the authority of Laws made by Anglo Saxons, why allow their mindset to destroy the legacy of a people who deserve to have what truly is theirs, especially since they're being stripped of all things, except the opportunity to pray. Many other nationalities are compensated for oppression suffered at the hands of Anglo Saxons. Why are people so down on the Black Indians, Slaves, and others who are a part of such a people? Why?

Cherokee Nation News Release

Cherokee Nation Special Election Results

March 3, 2007

See: Cherokee Nation: official site

TAHLEQUAH, Okla. – A Cherokee Nation Constitutional amendment restricting membership to descendants of Indians listed by blood on the Dawes Rolls has passed.

Cherokee voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the Cherokee Nation Constitution in a special election Saturday, March 3, by a decisive vote of 6,693 (77%) for the measure to 2,040 (23%) against. The amendment limits citizenship in the Cherokee Nation to descendants of people who are listed on the Final Rolls of the Cherokee Nation as Cherokee, Delaware or Shawnee and excludes descendants of those listed on Intermarried White and Freedmen rolls taken at the same time.

“The Cherokee people exercised the most basic democratic right, the right to vote,” said Chad Smith, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. “Their voice is clear as to who should be citizens of the Cherokee Nation. No one else has the right to make that determination. It was a right of self-government, affirmed in 23 treaties with Great Britain and the United States and paid dearly with 4,000 lives on the Trail of Tears.”

Smith added that the number of voters who turned out to vote on the constitutional amendment was actually more than the approximately 6,700 who approved the Cherokee Nation Constitution four years ago.

“This was an unexpectedly high turnout, considering it was a special election with nothing else on the ballot,” Smith said. “I think that reflects the idea that this is an issue that has been close to the heart of the Cherokee people and an issue they have thought about carefully before voting.”

The special election was brought about by a petition of registered Cherokee voters, and was an historic event for the Cherokee Nation, as its first ever stand-alone election to vote on a Constitutional amendment.

Election results are unofficial until certified by the Cherokee Nation Election Commission, but percentages are not expected to change significantly.

Cherokee Nation Revokes Citizenship of Freedmen

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - The Cherokee Nation vote this weekend to revoke the citizenship of the descendants of people the Cherokee once owned as slaves was a blow to people who have relied on tribal benefits.

Charlene White, a descendant of freed Cherokee slaves who were adopted into the tribe in 1866 under a treaty with the U.S. government, wondered Sunday where she would now go for the glaucoma treatment she has received at a tribal hospital in Stilwell.

"I've got to go back to the doctor, but I don't know if I can go back to the clinic or if they're going to oust me right now," said White, 56, a disabled Tahlequah resident who lives on a fixed income.

In Saturday's special election, more than 76 percent of voters decided to amend the Cherokee Nation's constitution to remove the estimated 2,800 freedmen descendants from the tribal rolls, according to results posted Sunday on the tribe's Web site.

Marilyn Vann, president of the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes, said the election results undoubtedly will be challenged.

"We will pursue the legal remedies that are available to us to stop people from not only losing their voting rights, but to receiving medical care and other services to which they are entitled under law," Vann said Sunday.

"This is a fight for justice to stop these crimes against humanity."

Cherokee Nation spokesman Mike Miller said Sunday that election results will not be finalized until after a protest period that extends through March 12. Services currently being received by freedmen descendants will not immediately be suspended, he said.

"There isn't going to be some sort of sudden stop of a service that's ongoing," Miller said. "There will be some sort of transition period so that people understand what's going on."

In a statement late Saturday, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chad Smith said he was pleased with the turnout and election result.

"Their voice is clear as to who should be citizens of the Cherokee Nation," Smith said. "No one else has the right to make that determination. It was a right of self-government, affirmed in 23 treaties with Great Britain and the United States and paid dearly with 4,000 lives on the Trail of Tears."

The petition drive for the ballot measure followed a March 2006 ruling by the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court that said an 1866 treaty assured freedmen descendants of tribal citizenship.

A similar situation occurred in 2000 when the Seminole Nation voted to cast freedmen descendants out of its tribe, said attorney Jon Velie of Norman, an expert on Indian law who has represented freedmen descendants in previous cases.

"The United States, when posed the same situation with the Seminoles, would not recognize the election and they ultimately cut off most federal programs to the Seminoles," Velie said. "They also determined the Seminoles, without this relationship with the government, were not authorized to conduct gaming."

Ultimately, the Seminole freedmen were allowed back into the tribe, Velie said.

Velie said Saturday's vote already has hurt the tribe's public perception.

"It's throwback, old-school racist rhetoric," Velie said.

"And it's really heartbreaking, because the Cherokees are good people and have a very diverse citizenship," he said.

Miller, the tribal spokesman, defended the Cherokees against charges of racism, saying that Saturday's vote showed the tribe was open to allowing its citizens vote on whether non-Indians be allowed membership.

"I think it's actually the opposite. To say that the Cherokee Nation is intolerant or racist ignores the fact that we have an open dialogue and have the discussion, he said.

Cherokee Nation Expels Native Citizens with African Ancestry

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Native American Cherokees voted to expel descendants of black slaves from their tribe nation in a special election that has prompted charges of racism, according to returns made public early Sunday.

But a vote of 77 percent to 23 percent, the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma adopted Saturday an amendment to their constitution that strips membership from so-called "Freedmen," those descended from slaves once owned by Cherokees, blacks who were married to Cherokees and children of mixed-race families.

"The Cherokee people exercised the most basic democratic right, the right to vote," Chad Smith, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, said in a statement. "Their voice is clear as to who should be citizens of the Cherokee Nation. No one else has the right to make that determination."

However, opponents of the amendment say it was a racist project designed to deny the distribution of US government funds and tribal revenue to those with African-American heritage, US media reported.

"This is a sad chapter in Cherokee history," Taylor Keen, a Cherokee tribal council member who opposes the amendment, told the New York Times.

"But this is not my Cherokee Nation. My Cherokee Nation is one that honors all parts of her past."

Advocates of changing the 141-year-old treaty rules defining who is a Cherokee say the tribal nation has a sovereign right to decide citizenship and that other tribes base membership on blood lines.

The Cherokee Nation, which ranks as the second-largest tribe behind the Navajo, has some 250,000 to 270,000 members and is growing rapidly. Members are entitled to benefits from the US federal government and tribal services, including medical and housing aid and scholarships.

Cherokees, along with several other tribes, held black slaves and allied themselves with the Confederacy during the US civil war. After the war, the federal government in an 1866 treaty ordered the slaves freed.

In 1983, the Cherokee Nation expelled many descendants of slaves as members but a Cherokee tribunal ruled last year that the Freedmen were fully-fledged citizens with voting rights. That court decision prompted Saturday's special vote.

Native American tribes recognized by the United States government have the right to self-determination and authority similar to US states.

Election results will remain unofficial until certified by the Cherokee Nation Election Commission, but officials said percentages were not expected to change significantly.