Boettcher, James. “Internal Minorities, Membership, and the Freedmen Controversy.” Social Philosophy Today 25 (2009): 91-106. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 June 2013.
by Elizabeth Williams
In the academic journal article, “Internal Minorities, Membership, and the Freedmen Controversy,” author James Boettcher’s critical agenda is to provide readers with possible theories to solve the controversy revolving around the membership status of freedmen descendants within the Cherokee tribe. The journal article focuses on the 2007 Cherokee Nation constitutional amendment “revoking the citizenship rights of descendants of the freedmen, persons of African descent held as slaves before eventually being adopted as Cherokee citizens after the U.S. Civil War” (91).
Boettcher examines different political theories concerning the freedmen controversy through the lens of both the Cherokees and freedmen. He concludes, “while no single approach is adequate for fully acknowledging the competing claims of the tribe and freedmen descendants, the balance of reasons drawn from these approaches shows expulsion of the freedmen to be unjust” (92).
The Cherokee tribe is one of the largest Native American tribes, and held the largest number of slaves compared to the other indigenous American tribes. They did not keep their hands out of the slavery coffer by any means. The Cherokee tribe, a minority group in the United States, took part in oppressing another minority group, African Americans, and continued doing so even longer than the United States. They had suppressive slave codes, anti-miscegenation laws, and also practiced plantation slavery (93).
Oppression and removal is not foreign to the Cherokee people; “in the 1830’s slaves and free blacks walked and died along the Trail of Tears during forced removal to Indian Territory” (93). The Cherokee people are aware of the injustices that can occur to a group on the wrong side of the argument. James Boettcher discusses the importance of understanding colonial history, how the new European settlers first interacted with indigenous Americans, and how race-based injustices have influenced federal law and policy. Boettcher continues through a sociohistorical context:
Examining the controversy simply as an illustration of a membership dispute or the internal minorities problem may fail to convey the importance of this history. Cherokee political choices have been made against the backdrop of both an ongoing struggle for survival as a people and a U.S. racial hierarchy premised on the fundamental binary opposition between white and black (103).
Understanding this fear of government is vital to making sense of the importance placed on membership of the Cherokee Nation. Not only are they fearful of being on the wrong side of the government again, but also they are fearful of losing their sense of identity, culture, and self-determination. Boettcher argues whether the wellbeing of freedmen is subordinate to the Cherokee’s self-determination, preservation of tribal government, and the tribe’s collective best interest (98).
“Membership in a federally recognized American Indian tribe secures…assistance and social services provided by the federal government, benefits ranging from education and health care to agricultural assistance and resource management” (93). As a descendant of a freedman in the Cherokee nation, the individual has more than government benefits to lose if they should have their membership revoked. Socially the tribe itself will shun away freedmen if they are no longer part of their exclusive group. Even if the person should have more Cherokee “blood” and appearance, this does not mean they will be recognized socially as a member. “Cherokee social identity at the local level is constituted by a complex and dynamic constellation of social markers; most Cherokees will not socially recognize others as Cherokee strictly on the basis of their blood ancestry” (99).
Freedmen will lose a sense of cultural identity if they should no longer be allowed membership in the Cherokee nation, but will still have government benefits and rights as citizens of the United States. James Boettcher reminds readers that even though freedmen experience internal minority racism, they do have other options outside of tribal affairs. Still, the psychological effects and lost sense of belonging are unjust effects of the 2007 efforts to remove freedmen descendants from the Cherokee tribal roll. Boettcher concludes that the importance of the individual’s well being is more important than the tribe’s self-determination and self-governance.
by Elizabeth Williams
In the academic journal article, “Internal Minorities, Membership, and the Freedmen Controversy,” author James Boettcher’s critical agenda is to provide readers with possible theories to solve the controversy revolving around the membership status of freedmen descendants within the Cherokee tribe. The journal article focuses on the 2007 Cherokee Nation constitutional amendment “revoking the citizenship rights of descendants of the freedmen, persons of African descent held as slaves before eventually being adopted as Cherokee citizens after the U.S. Civil War” (91).
Boettcher examines different political theories concerning the freedmen controversy through the lens of both the Cherokees and freedmen. He concludes, “while no single approach is adequate for fully acknowledging the competing claims of the tribe and freedmen descendants, the balance of reasons drawn from these approaches shows expulsion of the freedmen to be unjust” (92).
The Cherokee tribe is one of the largest Native American tribes, and held the largest number of slaves compared to the other indigenous American tribes. They did not keep their hands out of the slavery coffer by any means. The Cherokee tribe, a minority group in the United States, took part in oppressing another minority group, African Americans, and continued doing so even longer than the United States. They had suppressive slave codes, anti-miscegenation laws, and also practiced plantation slavery (93).
Oppression and removal is not foreign to the Cherokee people; “in the 1830’s slaves and free blacks walked and died along the Trail of Tears during forced removal to Indian Territory” (93). The Cherokee people are aware of the injustices that can occur to a group on the wrong side of the argument. James Boettcher discusses the importance of understanding colonial history, how the new European settlers first interacted with indigenous Americans, and how race-based injustices have influenced federal law and policy. Boettcher continues through a sociohistorical context:
Examining the controversy simply as an illustration of a membership dispute or the internal minorities problem may fail to convey the importance of this history. Cherokee political choices have been made against the backdrop of both an ongoing struggle for survival as a people and a U.S. racial hierarchy premised on the fundamental binary opposition between white and black (103).
Understanding this fear of government is vital to making sense of the importance placed on membership of the Cherokee Nation. Not only are they fearful of being on the wrong side of the government again, but also they are fearful of losing their sense of identity, culture, and self-determination. Boettcher argues whether the wellbeing of freedmen is subordinate to the Cherokee’s self-determination, preservation of tribal government, and the tribe’s collective best interest (98).
“Membership in a federally recognized American Indian tribe secures…assistance and social services provided by the federal government, benefits ranging from education and health care to agricultural assistance and resource management” (93). As a descendant of a freedman in the Cherokee nation, the individual has more than government benefits to lose if they should have their membership revoked. Socially the tribe itself will shun away freedmen if they are no longer part of their exclusive group. Even if the person should have more Cherokee “blood” and appearance, this does not mean they will be recognized socially as a member. “Cherokee social identity at the local level is constituted by a complex and dynamic constellation of social markers; most Cherokees will not socially recognize others as Cherokee strictly on the basis of their blood ancestry” (99).
Freedmen will lose a sense of cultural identity if they should no longer be allowed membership in the Cherokee nation, but will still have government benefits and rights as citizens of the United States. James Boettcher reminds readers that even though freedmen experience internal minority racism, they do have other options outside of tribal affairs. Still, the psychological effects and lost sense of belonging are unjust effects of the 2007 efforts to remove freedmen descendants from the Cherokee tribal roll. Boettcher concludes that the importance of the individual’s well being is more important than the tribe’s self-determination and self-governance.