This is an interesting piece, but I would have liked more background information. Why were Blacks given tribal citizenship in the late 1800s? Are there parameters for tribal membership today, such as geographic residence or participation in certain tribal votes or events -- and if so, are the Blacks participating adequately? Is there a deeper reason, beyond financial gain, for the Cherokees to withdraw this agreement -- such as maintaining the integrity of the tribe from a historical, cultural, and linguistic perspective?

I'm not ready to be outraged without a few more facts. Off I go to Google.

Well one major question as a Native woman, is do these Black Indians actually have Cherokee blood. I'm assuming that the people being expelled do not have Cherokee blood otherwise they would be tribal members. Of course I'm not Cherokee and don't know the full story here.

In further reading on this news story, it appears the Blacks who were given tribal citizenship had previously been slaves owned by the Cherokee. (Now there's a piece of history I wouldn't have guessed.) The Federal government mandated their integration into the tribe after the Civil War.

And the Cherokees not only voted to expel Blacks, but also mixed individuals (the children of White and Native, for example).

Greed and racism clearly play a part in the Cherokees' decision, as health benefits and gambling proceeds were being given to individuals who are not full Cherokee blood. It is unclear if the government will intervene on behalf of those recently ousted from the tribe.

Let's also not forget that the racism was (is?) primarily perpetrated against all these groups. so really calling the tribes decisions racist is only part of the story. there are other forces that are playing into why this is happening that are of course difficult to say briefly. But we might ask, 'why do they feel they need to expel anyone?' 'what kind of pressures are they feeling now, and what is the development/history of those pressures?'
Just a few thoughts.
Fabian (European-American)

As an enrolled member of a tribal nation, I am disappointed to hear that the Cherokee voters voted as they did. What I don't agree with in the previous comments is that the United States government should intervene and overthrow the decision of a tribal nation. The United States has been intervening in the elecions of many nations, both within the landmass of the US and in countries such as Venezuela and Brazil. Do we (United Statesians) look to the US government to protect the rights of Venezuelan citizens when their elections determine policies that we don't agree with? Some do. But on a macro level, these kinds of interventions further perpetuate the notion that the United States has the inherent power to control the governments of other nations, which it does not.

If an intervention is necessary to maintain the rights of descendants of freed slaves, then that should come from WITHIN the Cherokee Nation, NOT FROM THE OUTSIDE. Looking to the colonizer to remedy this situation will only cause future problems pertaining to tribal sovereignty.

PirateCaptain, thanks for the extra info. I should have been more explicit that those expelled from the tribe are the descendants of slaves owned by some Cherokee.

Also, I want to raise up the comment from LadyIndigenous. When I talked about government intervention, I meant to underscore the complex dynamics that come into play when the politics of race and the politics of sovereignty collide... Discrimination - Bad. Intervention - Bad. Who decides which is worse and how to proceed?

I'm sad to hear that after over 140 years the Cherokees have decided that these Black people aren't worthy to be included in the tribe. Obviously there's more to the story. But one thing I know, after this many years, there was definitely mixing of blood. It's not possible (or highly unlikely) that descendants of African slaves are not mixed with other groups after 6 or 7 generations.

I'm sure these people that were recently ousted by the Cherokees had, over the years, intermarried with the Cherokee. BTW, the Cherokee have, over the years, intermarried with the white people, and one commenter mentioned that these folks are being booted off too.

The voting sounds like a less violent method of ethnic cleansing.

Another thought: If the American voters had been allowed to vote whether Black people could be citizens, I wouldn't be a citizen. If there was a vote to decide whether it was legal to teach me to read, I wouldn't be writing this.

Folks, it doesn't work to allow people to vote on whether or not people (always other people) get to have rights.

I am of Black and Cherokee heritage and I find this whole thing ridiculous. The majority of Indians who have Black blood as well are not out to receive funds from the gaming and gambling casinos. Personally, I don't want monies gotten from gambling ventures. It is recognition in the Cherokee Nation that we desire. Just recognition to exist within our ancestors heritage-what is wrong with that? Nothing. It is only Chad Smith using his KKK connections to do some kind of wrapped ethnic cleansing he is trying to perpetrate within the CNO. The sad thing about this is that the Five Tribes may go along with all of this. Many of us were not relatives of the Freedmans and listed in the Dawes Roll, but some of us like myself have Native American Blood more than 1/32nd because our relatives decided to marry Blacks and stay in the South working in sharecroppers fields, etc.