The Cherokee Nation’s New Battle – TIME.
“Who is Cherokee? What is identity?”
Before the question of historical land ties can be answered, we must try to define the people with these ties. Identity is complicated by modernity and even more so for fragmented groups like the Cherokee. Must someone have x amount of Native American ancestry to be considered a proper Indian? Before someone can claim a land as their own, they must figure out what constitutes their community and who becomes insiders or outsiders. Even today, the Cherokee continue to struggle with their identity as they must decided who can be a citizen of the Nation. Ironically, this splitting of hairs among the Cherokee parallels their own struggle with the United States government in the early 1800s. They attempted in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia to be labeled a foreign nation and therefore be exempt from the discriminatory laws Georgia was enacting against them. The US Supreme Court dissected the Constitution and the meaning of ‘state’ only to declare the Cherokee a ‘domestic dependent nation.’ This meant that “while they had rights to the land, they ‘occupy a territory to which [the US government] assert[s] a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases'” (Perdue and Green 82). Here, like the ambiguous Freedman,a mix of black and multiracial people, ejected from the Nation, the Supreme Court is revoking the Cherokees ‘foreignness’ but not necessarily their nationhood. The Cherokee enter into a liminal state, just like the Freedman. They were both inside and now outside previous boundaries.
The Times article, by Jeninne Lee-St. John, details whether or not the federal government should have a more active role in determining who belongs in Native American tribes. The conflict surfaced after the Cherokee nation booted the Freedmen from their ranks. This removal brings into conflict whether or not the Cherokee were in violation of their treaty with the US government If a violation has occurred, the government can and will overrule the Cherokee’s sovereignty and withhold federal dollars. Once again, if the federal government has the power to take away the Cherokee ‘nation’ status then how truly powerful is this Native American tribe? What is their classification?
Beyond the power dynamics, it also brings into question the complications of identity as Native Americans continue to define themselves in the modern era. Many people saw the booting of the Freedmen as a reinstatement of the “one-drop rule,” that one must have Indian blood in their ancestry to be considered Native American, as opposed to being absorbed into the ranks or having a more historical connection with the group. The connection between the Cherokee and blacks is complicated, but many agreed that they both shared a similar history of suffering. The issue of “What is Cherokee?” becomes relevant. For David Cornsilk, interviewed in the piece, he states that being Cherokee is about being a “part of a recognized community.” The concept of community, or of a political designation that declares inclusion in a community, as opposed to a strictly racial identity, challenges the notion of organic jurisdiction when it comes to the Cherokee. An organic jurisdiction, with its connection to cultural ties and its supposed establishment before ‘the laws of man,’ would seemingly not need a political entity to grant admission into its boundaries. It may sound odd to place such a community outside of organic jurisdiction, but the mediation of inclusion by a governing body severs the purely cultural citizenship. The Freedmen, with their close ties to the Cherokee and their shared pasts, could easily claim a bond to the group and be within its organic jurisdiction. Being connected racially or culturally seems to transcend synthetic boundaries – one could be Cherokee in Alaska or Maine, as long as one had the adequate racial distinctions or cultural knowledge.
However, if bearing a political, communal moniker of Cherokee is the intent then it would be more difficult to leave the synthetic space of ‘Indian territory,’ as ascribed by the US government and reaffirmed by the current Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee have transformed from a culturally banded group across four states to a highly structured government given sovereignty over a 7,000 square mile area. Without the ascribed community or the political structure, then how is a person a ‘Cherokee’ without such institutions to define oneself? While race is used to define inclusion into the tribe as a person must show ancestry on the Dawes Roll by blood, the Cherokee have been redefined by the spatial area given to them by the US government and the heritage conveyed by a US government-mandated roll of citizens. Many Native Americans resisted being included on the Dawes Rolls. Now, citizenship is further piped through the synthetic jurisdiction of the federal government once more. The US drew the boundaries of Indian Territory on the map and the limitations of Cherokee citizenship with the Dawes Roll, which many decry as incomplete and a transgression on the Native Americans. Lee-St. John states that “it is ironic that the tribe wants to use the Dawes Rolls, which discriminated against Native Americans collectively, as a tool of discrimination against a group of blacks.” This concept of community, furthermore, feels in opposition to an organic tie to land as it ignores a more cultural or historical bound to a people and a land.
Nearly “half a million people [..] identified themselves on the last census as being of Cherokee heritage but not belonging to the Cherokee Nation” (Lee-St. John). These people do not have the official, political label of “Cherokee” but still racially define themselves as such. Perhaps their ancestors did not wish to be listed on the Dawes Roll or these census takers cannot adequately prove their Cherokee ancestry. They cannot vote in any tribal elections or reap any of the benefits of being a tribe member. This number feeds into the assertion that many across the South and across the US claim Native American heritage. It calls into questions whether or not two jurisdictions exist for the Cherokee: one in the political realm and one in the cultural. The notion of a unified territory or jurisdiction for the Cherokee is fallacious, but still relevant when looking into how people define themselves and codify the standards for such identities.
Cherokee Nation: Historical & Modern Territories 