African-Native American Genealogy Forum
Re: Who Speaks for the Children of Slaves?
In Response To: Re: Who Speaks for the Children of Slaves? ()
Good morning David,
Your words are encouraging to read, as it has appeared that blood has been somehow the dominant argument both for and against the freedmen, when citizenship should be the basic issue.
You indeed have been pointing out issues of citizenship over race, where others cannot get beyond race, in spite of Cherokee history, culture, and tradition.
It has been disturbing to see the lack of interest for those who were indeed enslaved as part of Cherokee history, who are seemingly ignored, bypassed and discarded even by those who claim to be advocates for the Freedmen. The institution of slavery was a part of the history of the Territory, and part of the history of the nations that later had "freed" men and women. No doubt there were some persons who were free before the Civil War, but to suddenly make them the majority when historically the slaves were the majority is to play into a concept of the enslaved being of less human value.
The argument about who has the blood and who doesn't especially in a nation where even the leaders are themselves thinly blooded, is indeed ludicrous. Somehow the blood discussion is ignoring the fact that slavery is what brought many people who were later labeled Freedmen into the nation. To downplay that historical fact is to treat the enslaved themselves as persons less than worth. Sadly, the defense for the descendants of the slaves has been dragged down to such a level.
Your advocacy for ALL of the Freedmen of the nations is appreciated, and should be lauded for the recognition of human value and dignity.
The concept of Indian blood for the Freedmen being the more "important" argument is an isult. And without an insult level, there is no fit for dignity.
Keep up your work and advocacy.