Blood Feud
I read this sad tale of racism in the most unexpected of places, in the latest Wired magazine [see Blood Feud, available online on Aug. 29th]. It all began a long time -- when blacks were freed of slavery in America with the 13th amendment to the US constitution. Natives, who had also kept some black slaves, freed their slaves -- and those blacks, continued to live as part of the native tribes they belonged to -- marrying, living and becoming part of the tribes. The black-natives voted in elections, sat on tribal councils and received benefits. Everyone got along. Then in 1906, US senator, Henry Laurens Dawes, in an attempt to "civilize" native territory, set up what became known as the Dawes Roll. A commission of white clerks from Washington descended on Oklahoma and set about to give 160-acre plots of land to natives. The commission was deluged by applicants -- and surprisingly, some were whites and blacks, claiming to have native heritage. The clerks, mostly by sight, determined who were natives and who were not, putting them into two distinct groups. There were the natives on the Dawes Roll, and those that looked African, labeled "freedmen" and were not considered to be native, on the Freedmen Roll -- even if they were of native descent. In some cases, siblings were placed on differing rolls.
The Dawes Roll eventually slipped into history and all was good for almost 90-years, when the US government granted the sovereign native nations, the rights to set up and govern casinos on their territory. Suddenly all natives were no longer equal. All natives were to benefit from the profits of the casinos, except those that were visibly mixed. The Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma -- the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole -- suddenly found history. They found the Dawes Roll and they changed their laws. If you could prove you were a descendant from someone on the Dawes Roll, you would gain citizenship in their nation. If you came from the Freedman Roll, you were no longer native, regardless of what you looked like, or how much native ancestry you had in you -- regardless of whether your family were considered natives for generations, and could trace your lineage back to the 18th century with your tribe. The descendants of the Freedmen that wanted back in turned to the courts for help, but the US judicial system decided they couldn't interfere in the native issues that were governed by native laws. So the Freedmen descendants appealed to genetics. DNA testing to be exact.
In a recent presentation to the Descendants of the Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes conference, on genetic testing in a small sample of black-natives, there was a surprise. The Descendants didn't really get the undeniable proof they were looking for. The small sampling had 4-76% African ancestry, 0-62% European ancestry and 0-30% Native ancestry, averaging in at only 6% -- the same amount found in other African-American populations. Their native ancestry wasn't that unique. However, and this is where it really got surprising -- it may be the European ancestry that really matters. The Descendants averaged in at 18% with European ancestry, and that may be roughly the same amount of European mixing that could be found in the so-called pure-blood natives, who have had encounters with Europeans since the 17th century. Other black populations show a lower average European ancestry.
One thing that genetics keeps reminding us of is that we're all the same. We're no different from each other. Here's another example that topples another myth -- that of the pure-blood. Who is pure anymore? None of us are, especially those claiming to be pure -- and therefore having some level of superiority over another group. The shocker of this whole article was the stance taken by the Five Civilized Tribes. It amounts to nothing more than discrimination of their own people -- people who are genetically similar to them, but just happened to have looked different to a bunch of white clerks back in 1906.
Related links:
The Dawes Roll eventually slipped into history and all was good for almost 90-years, when the US government granted the sovereign native nations, the rights to set up and govern casinos on their territory. Suddenly all natives were no longer equal. All natives were to benefit from the profits of the casinos, except those that were visibly mixed. The Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma -- the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole -- suddenly found history. They found the Dawes Roll and they changed their laws. If you could prove you were a descendant from someone on the Dawes Roll, you would gain citizenship in their nation. If you came from the Freedman Roll, you were no longer native, regardless of what you looked like, or how much native ancestry you had in you -- regardless of whether your family were considered natives for generations, and could trace your lineage back to the 18th century with your tribe. The descendants of the Freedmen that wanted back in turned to the courts for help, but the US judicial system decided they couldn't interfere in the native issues that were governed by native laws. So the Freedmen descendants appealed to genetics. DNA testing to be exact.
In a recent presentation to the Descendants of the Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes conference, on genetic testing in a small sample of black-natives, there was a surprise. The Descendants didn't really get the undeniable proof they were looking for. The small sampling had 4-76% African ancestry, 0-62% European ancestry and 0-30% Native ancestry, averaging in at only 6% -- the same amount found in other African-American populations. Their native ancestry wasn't that unique. However, and this is where it really got surprising -- it may be the European ancestry that really matters. The Descendants averaged in at 18% with European ancestry, and that may be roughly the same amount of European mixing that could be found in the so-called pure-blood natives, who have had encounters with Europeans since the 17th century. Other black populations show a lower average European ancestry.
One thing that genetics keeps reminding us of is that we're all the same. We're no different from each other. Here's another example that topples another myth -- that of the pure-blood. Who is pure anymore? None of us are, especially those claiming to be pure -- and therefore having some level of superiority over another group. The shocker of this whole article was the stance taken by the Five Civilized Tribes. It amounts to nothing more than discrimination of their own people -- people who are genetically similar to them, but just happened to have looked different to a bunch of white clerks back in 1906.
Related links:
Trail of Tears -- the forced removal of the Cherokee tribe by the US Government.
Who Is a Seminole, and Who Gets to Decide? -- NY Times
Genetics, Culture and Identity in Indian Country [PDF]
Red Bird, Oklahoma: An Investigation of an All Black American Town [PDF]
The Cherokee Removal and the Fourteenth Amendment
Declaration of Indigenous Peoples of the Western Hemisphere Regarding the Human Genome Diversity Project
Andy, that's a really interesting post. I was completey unaware of this piece of history. And you are right: we are the same. Well said. By the way, I have always wondered what floccinaucinihilipilificate means. Or does it mane anything?
ReplyDeleteFloccinaucinihilipilificate ... from Floccinaucinihilipilification ... generally means, a complete waste of time. That's me! You can find out more about the word from Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteIf that's true, then Floccinaucinihilipilification should be the name of my blog too.
ReplyDelete