Cherokees vote out slaves' descendants

[wifezilla]

"Cherokee Nation members voted Saturday to revoke the tribal citizenship of an estimated 2,800 descendants of the people the Cherokee once owned as slaves."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070304/ap_on_...s_freedmen_vote

[abifae]

"Cherokee Nation members voted Saturday to revoke the tribal citizenship of an estimated 2,800 descendants of the people the Cherokee once owned as slaves."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070304/ap_on_...s_freedmen_vote

that was entirely over my head. so if a cherokee was a slave, their descendents are not allowed the cherokee rights anymore? (i mean, unless it gets overturned?)... what is the difference in slaves that it even came up?

abi

edit: Cherokee.Org... this explains it better. it wasn't a vote against the slavery descendents, per se. it was a vote "restricting membership to descendants of Indians listed by blood on the Dawes Rolls has passed." so that makes more sense.

[AirMarshall]

Well, the headline sure sounds dramatic doesn't it? Kind of puzzling at first, but it makes sense.

The original treaty listed by name everyone in the Cherokee community in three groups. Cherokee Indians, whites married to Cherokee, and former slaves. Clearly, whites married to Cherokee are not Cherokee, and neither are former slaves. Anyone who is isn't descended from someone listed on the treaty isn't considered Cherokee. I suspect the conflict is that there are people who's families have lived in the Cherokee community for generations, share the culture, but ultimately are not true blood descendents.

a.m.

[wifezilla]

You guys are right...but it still feels kind of like watching an endangered Prebles Jumping Mouse getting eaten by an endangered Peregrine Falcon. Your brain doesn't quit know what to do with the information! LOL