Guess those dumped from the rolls weren't "cherokee enough". Or, were they perhaps, "acting Black"?

Starbucks "can no longer be allowed to taint China's national culture,"

One needs to ask the question whether a "Native American" tribe with an admixture of 90% white...

Really deserves treatment as a Native American Nation.

Clearly, Americans of African descent can exercise their free will to abstain from contributing to the coffers of the Indian casinos.

It is very clear.
We are Africans first; we must understand what that means in today's world; and then, we must have our strategy to deal with the other cultures within our own legacy.
Euro-Americans are visiting Europe in large numbers, and claiming their ancestors in large numbers. Even the Klan now use - Euro-Americans, stating that word white is historicaly dead.
We better look at these developments very carefully, for once their cyborgs and robots are built; black folks may be even more disposalable.
The Truth Is Opaque - Great Literature and Art Does Reveal.

The article on China seem out of place at first by then:
"The Forbidden City is one of the non-tradable products as its value cannot be measured with money," Jiang said. "As long as it (Starbucks) stays in the imperial palace, it poses a challenge to our traditional culture."

If we as Africanam took our traditional culture serious, we would have a museum in Coney Island, NY, not allowed the slave quarters to fall apart in Chareston, South Carolina, the list could go on and on.
We are taken serious because, we do not fight for our culturial legacy as much as we fight for the lastest toy and bling

The article on China seem out of place at first but then:
"The Forbidden City is one of the non-tradable products as its value cannot be measured with money," Jiang said. "As long as it (Starbucks) stays in the imperial palace, it poses a challenge to our traditional culture."

If we as Africanam took our traditional culture serious, we would have a museum in Coney Island, NY, not allowed the slave quarters to fall apart in Chareston, South Carolina, the list could go on and on.
We are not taken serious because, we do not fight for our culturial legacy as much as we fight for the lastest toy and bling, as a people.

The entire institution of slavery was the brainchild of a sick person and all the problems we face in America as blacks are fruit of those seeds planted long ago. Of course we are facing problems that involve poor education, poverty, distorted values, and being cast off by any and every other race in America. Look at the circumstances our ancestors were brought to America under. The institution of slavery was meant to abase blacks to the lowest form that a human being could be, present no hope of freedom for future generations, and purge us of all our cultural identity, leaving us with no pride, no honor, no value. That was slavery's intentions. We are reaping what the ambitious Europeans settlers sowed. That's why being black is almost viewed as having a handicap. Let's give blacks a month to celebrate their history just to pacify them and show that the lowest race in the food chain can be appreciated for their accomplishments. When a white or asian does something great race is not a factor. But when a black does something great, the word black draws immediate attention because black is a handicap. It's like saying that a world class athlete won a triathlon. Who cares, that's to be expected of that person. But say that an amputee won a triathlon then it's "wow, amazing, I didn't know those kind of people could do that". That's why I don't like black history month. I don't like handouts, I don't need favors because I'm black. Being black is not a handicap but everybody treats it like so. That's why the Cherokee don't want any affiliation with us even if we is some of us share the same bloodlines as they.

I hope this will stop so many African-Americans from claiming (falsely for the most part) that they have "Indian in them". Why can't these people just admit that they are African-American, that the had White people in their background and that there is nothing special about being related to Indians? Also, I hope that the next time the Native American community comes looking for allies in their fight for social justice, they keep on walking past that Black community. Maybe they should call Jack Abramoff for help.

it's time for dark people to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that no other group wants to identify with us. and that we must make this journey alone, like we have been doing since we were brought here.

This sets a dangerous precedent for the Native American community. I remember in my early years of school I was always taught to believe that the Native Americans and freedmen shared a special relationship. Now, I can see, as with most of what I was taught in grade school that this was incorrect, nothing more than an exaggeration of a partial truth. In my phase of anger, and later irrationality, as a story like this causes me, it leads me ask the question as to whether or whether not Native Americans “deserve” their current status. Why don’t the rest of us, non-Indian American citizens, exercise your right to vote, and deprive the Native Americans of their “Indian privilege,” which I would argue has become more about money and greed than preserving their heritage.

The relationship between blacks and Cherokees has always been problematic - an I wouldn't look at it as a issue with other tribal groups.

The problem started in he early 1800's when the Cherokee decided assimilation was the best alternative. They encouraged intermarraige with white, and supported wars against their neighboring tribes the Creek and Seminole.

The tribe split during the Civil War, with one group under Stand Waite joining the confederates (and challenging Chief John Ross for leadership), and the other becomming the foundation for the "Indian Guard" in the Union Army - initially led by John Ross as confederate troops (Drew's Regiment).

In August 1862, Stand Waite overthrew Ross as Chief exiling him to Delaware. Nearly 2000 Cherokee joined the Union side in response. Within 8 months Waite would be decisively defeated, although he would hold out until 2 months after Lee's surrender at Appomattox - being the last confederate officer to surrender.

Cmoney, you're wrong here. I have a grandmother with Chickasaw blood. Am I supposed to deny/repudiate my family.

How do you know that most blacks' claims of native american blood is false? I would correct that this contention is "unconfirmed" rather than "false". It's clear that most of us are not of pure african blood.

Have the Cherokee done what many whites and others wish they could do?

More evidence of the dangers of Black folk in America becoming irrelevant.

keto: No need to deny your heritage. If you want to believe Wikipedia, 40% of African-Americans have some Native American ancestry. I personally believe that figure is overblown, considering Native Americans make up about 1.5% of the US population and African-Americans make up approximately 13%, yet were are to believe that 1.5 % of the population has populated 40% of the genetic pool of a group 10 times its size. It doesn't make sense unless those genes are spread around pretty thin. I don't doubt that there is a significant amount of Native American blod in the African-American population (my own my mother claims Indian heritage and I dont doubt it since my grandmother clearly has Indian features) I just think its overblown. Heck, I have an Irish great grandmother, but you won't see me at the St. Patties Day parade and the Irish probably wouldn't want to see me there acting like I'm Irish. Most African-Americans are mixed with European blood to some extent. That is more logical given the legacy of slavery and the sheer numbers. I never said Blacks and Indians didn't mix. They just didn't mix as much as we like to claim because there weren't that many Indians and we often claim Indian heritage to deny our European heritage because admitting European heritage brings up the horrors of slavery.

So, what's the point here? Regardless of whether one has Cherokee or any other kind of American Indian blood, what does that validate? Nothing, in my mind, unless one lives the Native way.

I'm not losing any sleep over the Cherokee situation.

It dosen't suprise me one bit that the Cherokee would do something like this, infact nothing suprises me, LOL!

Anyways, i grew up with a lot of these natives, of various tribes, and I can honestly state that they don't like Blacks and their additude seemed more inline with your average white racist.

And even though i'm suppose to have native blood in me and they are (where) historical figures
dosen't mean a pile of pills to me. I don't like them and never will.

I'm into my Black blood, our heritage is far greater and we where in this country just as long as they where, if the truth must be told.

Maybe the freedman should sue the Cherokee Nation for reparations. After all, the Cherokee Nation is not the Federal Government.

I have no doubts the Cherokee action will turn around on them.

RonnieB wrote:
More evidence of the dangers of Black folk in America becoming irrelevant.

Overall, Americans are becoming irrelevant on the global stage, Blacks will feel the effects harder if they choose to stay on the sinking ship waiting for America to give them something...

"I'm into my Black blood, our heritage is far greater and we where in this country just as long as they where, if the truth must be told."

Uhm, I'd be interested in where you got that information?

This may be the most IRRESPONSIBLE post ever made on this blog. But first I want to comment on some earlier posters comments.

CMONEY, YOU SAID:
Also, I hope that the next time the Native American community comes looking for allies in their fight for social justice, they keep on walking past that Black community. Maybe they should call Jack Abramoff for help.
----------------

As BT clarifies above, this action reflects the ideas of the LEADERS of ONE TRIBE, the CHEROKEE, and none other--and not even a consensus at that. I wouldn't declare this representative of black-native american relations.

ANONYMOUS, YOU SAID:
it's time for dark people to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that no other group wants to identify with us. and that we must make this journey alone, like we have been doing since we were brought here.
---------------

By dark, I suppose you mean black. I am not sure black people want to "identify" with any other group necessarily so I don't understand this statement. Groups seek their own beneficial interests independent of others.

KETO, YOU SAID:
Cmoney, you're wrong here. I have a grandmother with Chickasaw blood. Am I supposed to deny/repudiate my family.
------------------

You should definitely recognize your blood whatever it is. I think Cmoney was highlighting the troubling exotication of any thing different among some in black american culture. This may very well involve only those whose judgment is lacking anyway but it happens. The irony is that people often times claim a heritage that is not particularly impressive. Also, the reality of America, a majority of hispanics (even white) and many others are not pure blood. Its just not as big deal as we make it out to be a lot of times.

PROFESSOR OVERTON SAYS:
What if the United States as a whole exercised its “right” to self-determination, amended its constitution (which would require more than a popular vote), and expelled former slaves?
-------------

PROF, if there was ever a more paranoid, extreme and outlandish question to ask, I have not come across it. What truly is the point of this question??? You put "right" in quotes, which would imply a legal basis for such a move by the U.S. government and of course, there is NO SUCH basis in the US constitution, even by implication. In fact, during times of far less reason, recognition of this fact led to creation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It is one thing when Lani Guinier argues (correctly) that blacks are undercut in the political system in what amounts to the "tyranny of the majority” but to entertain discussion about black expulsion--an idea that is as IMPOSSIBLE as it is IMPROBABLE--is squarely in the realm of conspiracy theory and out of place in a blog such as this.

They Came Before Columbus is as good a place as any to start....,

CHEROKEE VOTE
-----------
What legal support the Cherokee vote itself stands on remains to be seen, but on every other level the idea that people once held in subjugation and denied self-determination by the Cherokee themselves, in particular those with ACTUAL cherokee blood, would be expelled is clearly racist and unacceptable. A particularly perverse aspect of this whole thing is that Cherokees with white blood are conveniently not implicated by this vote! We should all note the professor's exhortation to contact congress.

Cmoney,

It seems to me that you have a real problem with black people who recognize their native american blood. I think people should be free to embrace all aspects of their heritage. I find it curious that many people are comfortable with European looking natives but less accepting of African looking natives. The reality is that European, African, and Native peoples mixed in throughout this hemisphere. Only the United States pretends that 3 descrete groups exist without overlap. Cmoney asked how can so many African Americans claims native heritage when natives comprise a mere 1.5% of the US population whereas African Americans comprise 13%. The answer is simple.
First, today's demographics don't reflect the demograhics of North America 150 years ago. Many of you would be shooked to know that Africans and Natives out numbered Europeans in this hemisphere until the end of the 19th century when European immigraiton spiked. Also, Historically, many Native Americans were enslaved and classified as mulattoes. These enslaved natives intermarried with African slaves in Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, etc. Only Natives who lived outside the white and black american community maintained their identity with the exception of the Cherokee who converted to Christianity. Many African American runaways took up residence in maroon communities that were mixed with Native people at the fringes of American or colonial society. Many Africans joined the Pequot nation in Rhode Island. Africans ran into the swamps of Florida and fought with the Seminoles.

I find it unfortunate that this rift now exists but I understand that when money shows its face, people find a way to exclude the most vulnerable of their group.

No matter how you feel about the Cherokee issue, the truth is that the early history of African-Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries is linked to Native American history. Moreover, it is not an overstatement that 40% of African-Americans carry some Native blood. I suppose just as many have European blood as well if not more.

Shame on the Cherokee for desinfranchising their brothers. If Native membership were based solely on blood percentages, their numbers would be far fewer than 1.5%.

I've pointed this issue out in another threat here a few days ago, and I am glad Prf. Overton took it up in such an eloquent manner.

It is extremely important that we do not let this one slip by us. Ricardo says:"Shame on the Cherokee for disenfranchising their brothers". Well, in actuality the Cherokee are disenfranchising OUR brothers and sisters.

However, this is MUCH more than a disenfranchisement. The Cherokee have expurgated our brothers and sisters from that nation entirely. As far as the Cherokee Nation is concerned THEY DO NOT EXIST. And that is a form of legal genocide.

If we fail to exert our considerable power on behalf of our brothers and sisters at a time that one of our own is running for President of the United States, we should be ashamed and pack our bags and go back to the plantation.

If this were to happen to Jews, the Cherokee nation would cease to exist as a viable economic entity the next day.

What we have to do are two things: (1) Organize a nation-wide boycott of all of the businesses of the Cherokee Nation.

(2) The Cherokee don't just have casinos, they've got manufacturing companies which do business with the federal government. These contracts have to be abrogated because the Cherokee are discriminating against U.S.citizens on the basis of color. Thus a legal challenge needs to be mounted.

(3) Since the Cherokee feel that hey do not have to recognize the status of our brothers and sisters as Cherokee, the Cherokee themselves should not be recognized as a sovereign entity. Thus a legal initiative must be launched to have the US derecognize them.

We successfully fought for the end of apartheid for brothers and sisters thousands of miles away. We MUST fight for the rights of our brothers and sisters right here in our midst.

Don't let Fredrick Douglass, Harriett Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T., WEB Dubois, Marcus Garvey, Martin and Malcom down.

Ricardo: I have a problem with Black people who run away from their African heritage. For once, I want to hear an African-American say: "I am of African descent and I have some (fill in the blank) ancestry" instead of being everything else but Black. It's really sad to see a person darker than Miles Davis going on and on about some distant Indian in his past without even acknowledging his Black parents or other African ancestry. Many of these people have never met an Indian, been on a reservation or speak any Indian language yet want to be recognized for their alleged Indian heritage. How many Whites or Native Americans run around boasting about their Black ancestry? Many are mixed, but will never admit it. Who wants to be a part of a people who aren't even proud of who they are? Like I said above, one of my grandmothers had some Indian blood, a great grandmother was Irish. But I am African-American. My culture is African-American. I am not an Indian nor am I an Irishman. When we stop running away from our African-American ancestry and behaving like a proud people, we will have Cherokees and others begging to be recognized as part of our tribe.

This shouldn't be surprising. Getting rid of the Black folks increases their CHECKS, people! They're getting nice Casino money, on top of the other benefits they get. Kicking out the Blacks, makes it so that their share increases.

And, we should note:

Only the BLACK-mixins were thrown out.
The WHITE-mixins could stay.

Uh huh.

I just don't see how it is tolerable to have votes on whether some citizens should lose their citizenship. Citizenship is or at least should be an inalienable right.

Even if I cared for the native people, I would never, ever claim brotherhood with the Cherokee's. They are, in my view, the most traitorous save for the Crows. The Crows however did not have us as slaves. Therefore the Cherokee are in par with their white brothers.

I'm with you cmoney. I know some Klans men who will be more then to let Ricardo who he is, LOL.
The Indians that i will reconize are our real Black brothers and sisters in Australia and India: namely, the Untouchables, Dravardians, the Sidi's, and the others who claim their blackness and African lineage. And most importantly want to unite with us Blacks in this coutry.
And I'm am all for Boycotting the Cherokees. Tomorrow i'm going to email one our local and nation wide radio station concerning this issue.

“Cherokee Expel Black Cherokee”

This is the impact of white supremacy, Manifest Destiny, and the tragedy of Afrikan powerlessness.

[By the late 1880s, Washington started opening up tribal lands in Oklahoma to white settlers, breaking previous pledges to the tribes. As a step toward ending tribal ownership of Indian Territory, Congress initiated a new census of the 'Five Civilized Tribes' -- a census known as the Dawes Commission. It is that head count that the Cherokee Nation would use to determine the eligibility of freedmen.

Past censuses of the tribes had noted both the Indian and the African ancestry of freedmen, counting those of mixed heritage as Native Americans. The Dawes Commission took a different approach.

Setting up tents in fields and at crossroads, the census takers eyeballed and interviewed those who came before them, separating them into different categories. If someone seemed to be Indian or white with Indian blood, the commission listed that person as whole or part Indian, historians say. People who the officials thought looked black were listed as freedmen, and no Indian lineage was noted, according to freedmen and historians.]-Ellen Knickmeyer, Washington Post Staff Writer

[Under that census, anybody with a trace of African-American blood – even if they were half Cherokee – was placed on the freedmen roll.

Those with full Cherokee or mixed white and Cherokee ancestry – even if seventh-eighths white – were put on the "Cherokee by blood" roll.]--Tim Reid, The Australian

[The Cherokee Nation expelled many descendants of slaves in 1983 by requiring them to show a degree of Indian blood through the Dawes rolls. A tribal court reinstated them in March 2006. That spurred today's special election, which received a go-ahead Feb. 21 when a federal judge in Washington denied the freedmen's request for an injunction to halt the balloting]-Ellen Knickmeyer

So what we have here are a conquered people (Cherokees), themselves members of a group (Native Americans) who suffered one of the most horrific holocausts in history, expelling the Afrikan descendants of people whom their ancestors enslaved.

Neither group had the capacity to define themselves in the Dawes Commission era (1893-1914). That commission defined groups using the standards of white supremacy. The Cherokees using those Dawes definitions in 1983 and in 2007 have accepted Cherokees with European blood as full members, while expelling those with any Afrikan blood.

A treaty in 1866 forced five Native American ethnic groups to enfranchise approximately 20,000 formerly enslaved Afrikans. The United States government did not want these Afrikans, and it’s doubtful that the Native American groups would have accepted our ancestors without coercion. It is a fact that all five Native American groups affected by the Indian Removal Act of 1830 (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole) enslaved Afrikans. The number of enslaved Afrikans who died along the “Trail of Tears” is not known. The Cherokees alone lost approximately 4000-5500 people out of 22,000 who were forced to walk 1,000 miles from the Appalachians to Oklahoma.

Powerless groups are often reduced to fighting with one another over the scraps from the pillage and plunder of the White Supremacy Dynamic. However, we should take heed to the wisdom in the words from BT, “The relationship between blacks and Cherokees has always been problematic - and I wouldn't look at it as an issue with other tribal groups.” The relationship between the Afrikans and the Seminoles in Florida during the 18oos is worthy of specific study.

The bottom line is these assaults on Afrikan humanity will continue, from both the White Supremacy Dynamic, and even other oppressed groups, until we develop the capacity to neutralize all facets of white supremacy, and make Black Power a reality.

Makheru

Cmoney,

Let's face the facts about American people, Blacks in particular. Yes we have African blood. No, we are not African people. We don't speak African languages, we don't know anything about African culture nor do we share the same mixed lineage/heritage as the native Africans. Do we have African blood, sure we do. Are we African people, I think not.

Go to Senegal, then go to the Congo and see if these different groups even see themselves as the same African brethren. Let's stop trying to be African and be Black people in America. If a person wants to visit Africa and become acquainted with the so called African nations, that's fine. Blacks in America have become another people, with our own distinct culture. Let's stop trying to be something other than Blacks.

Blacks are unique people that have evolved to another group. Our mixed lineage is something to be proud of, not something that is shameful. We can't change our blood admixture. Plus do we really think that some African nation really intends to just accept another group of Black people without some financial benefit. African people come here all the time attempting to benefit from America, just like everyone else. The African nations are not really interested in Black people in America, that's a false concept. Native Africans want money in there hand, comfortable living and will tell you where the sun don't shine. We are a group of people, who are Americans with our own set of values and customs. Culture makes a people, not skin color.

If the Cherokees are such a shallow minded group, perhaps they are not deserving of the Blacks that share there lineage.

Let them go, we can benefit from some many others things.
Besides when was the last great feat that the so called Native Americans accomplished?

As for Blacks, the accomplishments are tremendous for a short period of time.

Makheru,

Afrikan humanity is a fantasy. Something that will never happen. Tribal groups in Africa have been warring among one another for centuries.

Yes I know it was the manipulation of European groups sometime. Often it's there own doing for the warring conflicts, among Africans.

Blacks in America need to lookout for there own group and leave these others groups alone.

Leon, Makheru, everybody.

I suggest that we all reread Chancellor Williams' "The Destruction of Black Civilization" to in order to regain some relevant perspective.

Cmoney,
African descent is obvious among African-Americans. It's visible 99.9% of the time. Native blood is not as obvious. For some African-Americans the oral tradition of a Native ancestor keeps is the only thing that keeps it alive. Additionally, I believe that a great many Americans of African and European descent feel a special connection to this land when they have Native blood. Afterall, the Natives were here before Europeans and Africans. Many people take pride in sharing a link with that legacy. Yet, I'm not stupid. Some people wish to use what little Native blood they have to expunge their Africaness and sometimes Europeaness. However, I think it wrong to broadly castigate people for recognizing Native heritage.
Another blogger suggested that the Klan would let me know who I am. Folks that's the problem. The Klan does not define me, nor should you allow it to define you.

Makheru wrote

"..Let's stop trying to be African and be Black people in America. ..."

Why do you even call yourself black? That is one mystery I have never been able to solve. Some racist anthropologists gave you a name and a race and you accept it hook line and sinker.. and then you complain of racism?

The only thing that americans of african descent need to do is to stop blaming the whole world for their problems and try to solve them... this goes for africa , middle east and south america.

Makheru,

I understand the racist anthropologists. To a large degree they were interested in reducing people of African descent to a low status, that's clear.

My uncle is married to a Senegalese women and I have been to west Africa. There is no significant cultural relevance between native Africans and Black people in America. I only use the term Black people in America to differentiate between Blacks in America and native Africans. I repeat, culture is the real key to what makes a people.

Although I enjoyed and appreciate the African culture, it's definitely not from my people here in America. OK, if you are a historian with in depth knowledge of Africa, then you are able to pick apart some aspects that came from Africa, possible to apply to any group in America.

Some aspects from west Africans were completely uncomfortable, strange to me. I like to experience other cultures. Black American culture is it's own entity. We as a group in America really need to be concerned with our own.

Let the Cherokee do what ever they want. They are not deserving of Black people.

Michael Fisher, I've read "The Destruction of Black Civilization" three times. What point from that scholarly work would you like to make in reference to this thread?

[Makheru wrote
"..Let's stop trying to be African and be Black people in America..."]--Alienmist

Alienmist, that is not my statement. Direct your question to Leon.

[Afrikan humanity is a fantasy]--Leon

Leon, I assume that you know the definition of humanity, so are you saying that Afrikan people are not human beings?

Leon, on one of the Obama threads I recapped the history that led us to redefine ourselves as Afrikan American. We were brought to this country as Afrikans. Then we became, negro, colored, Negro, Black, Afro-American, Black American, Afrikan-American, Afrikan American. If you never got past the Black American stage, you and Stanley Crouch will just have to deal with it.

There is another point regarding the Cherokees. I understand the moral outrage people are expressing, but we must remember that our brethren who were Buffalo Soldiers helped to facilitate European American Manifest Destiny, by engaging in combat with Native Americans who were defending their homeland. We do not know how many Native Americans our brethren killed on behalf of the European American power structure.

By no means am I raising this point to justify the immoral actions of the Cherokees. We need to understand that the "destroyers of humanity" will use anyone, and will manipulate any situation to serve their diabolical interests.

Makheru

LEON:

Many say that race and ethnicity are social constructs and while this may be so, the reality is that society makes pathological judgments based on race and ethnicity. In this social context, you cannot deny the shared identity that is fundamental to all people of African heritage, regardless of geographical disposition. I view this as fact.

It is this same context that makes national identity (or any self-identification for that matter) relevant, i.e. you enjoy certain benefits or suffer certain disadvantages if you belong to a certain group. So while being American confers innumerable benefits, being of African ethnicity in today’s society can still subject you to severe disadvantages. It is a reality we cannot opt out of. You may think nothing of your “Africanness” till you vacation in South Africa and realize things are not so different your dollars notwithstanding, or vice-versa—consider Amadou Diallo. Each group must bear its own burden.

Do African-Americans have a distinct cultural identity via-a-vis other black people? Of course, but African nations are not a monolith either and in many cases have very distinct cultures. This does not make each any less African with shared geographic, economic and socio-cultural interests. After all it may be argued that not all African-Americans have the same cultural identity by virtue of experience. Some blacks like Condi Rice grew up relatively privileged and sheltered. Others still may have been spared the sting of racism at various times because of complexion. Still all have a shared identity.

This discussion is very important because of the real life implications for many. I am young and already quite comfortable financially and career wise. I don’t stand to lose anything from Cherokees expelling blacks or from Katrina or Darfur. Still, I am implicated by principle because were I to be any of these people I would be equally faceless.

Leon

"There is no significant cultural relevance between native Africans and Black people in America."

I don't understand your statement. Are you talking political differences?
Of course we didn't sacrifice like the Cubans who when over and fought the Racist South African Army. But Cuba says it has over 300 years of African culture, and brought some of it here in the 40's
Or the folks from Peru who now call themselves Afro-Peruvians
In Brooklyn - Koreans sell "negro yam" LOL
Ali Toure who just died from Mali was introducted to America by Ry Cooder - He stated that the Blues started in Mali area, where folks here stated it was created here. Of course we are multi-cultural.

The problem we have in the States is that many are in denial, where euro and latin artist who play latin, jazz. or the blues don't. Or those who follow African Traditional Religious. Did you ever see the Fania All Stars in Africa? Ray Barretto kissed the ground. He was a full blooded American.
That is just a simple answer, because I am so tried of that statement. This is why some West Africans feel we don't respect our own or our ancestors. And actually call us white LOL

Is there differences with our African brothers and Sisters of course, but no significant cultural relevance; so are you saying we have more with our Euro-America, Native American, Asian American, etc, etc.?

Sorry that was me

9jah and Makheru,

There is no denying our African heritage, which is only a part of us. I'm still not convinced by the universal African brethren, shared identity. In South Africa because of my light complexion, I wouldn't be considered African, but colored. My status there would be closer to the whites and as such, reap the benefits of the elite.

I had this experience in Senegal. The Senegalese actually thought I was an Arab. The social constructs are not universal as you implicated. Universal brethren is not reality. The mentality of Africans is not that of universal acceptance. If you look like them, then perhaps there is more of an acceptance. Blacks in America who quote on quote, have light skin, Indian, Euro features would have a totally different experience. Lena Horne, Halley Berry and Rick Fox all have African heritage of course, but are they African people? Do South Africans or West Africans view them as Africans?

Evolution of Blacks in the western hemisphere has catapulted several new groups of people. South America as well as North America are classical example of this. Certainly you would find those who look more African and those who look more Euro, but there level of admixture would be considerably different. The association to one group to another comes from there own social construct in there locale, not a shared African acceptance.

Nana,

Slavery, evolution and natural human progression caused us to form a new group of people. All Americans, black or white have some aspects of African culture. American culture is a mix of different cultures anyway.

As for myself, having spent several weeks in Senegal, I didn't feel like I was part of them. It was a great cultural experience, but I didn't feel like one of them.

Leon;

Being an african I will try the impossible; explaing africa in a few paragraphs.

Problems in Africa arise from what makes her unique, complexity. The concept of "..us dark skinned against them.." is quite foreign. Families and other social groups such as clans and tribes play a more important role in determining identity than academic concepts such as race.

On one hand Leon is right in stating the uniqueness of the african-american people.. But trying to cut yourself from the continent
of your origin is a mistake.

African americans have a lot to learn from this much-maligned continent and the other round.
I apologize for my poor grammar,

Nana,

Slavery, evolution and natural human progression caused us to form a new group of people. All Americans, black or white have some aspects of African culture. American culture is a mix of different cultures anyway.

As for myself, having spent several weeks in Senegal, I didn't feel like I was part of them. It was a great cultural experience, but I didn't feel like one of them.

[Slavery, evolution and natural human progression caused us to form a new group of people]--Leon

Leon, 300+ years to produce a new people must be a record for the evolutionary process.--LOL

By your definition European Jews must surely be a new people. How long were they removed from Palestine?

I remember being with a group of young people who engaged in an intense discussion with Jesse Jackson back in the 1970s. At that time Jesse was pushing the idea that we were a new people, a product of Afrikan roots and American brutes. The people in my group were already saying at that early date that "we are an Afrikan people." Although we were only armed with the knowledge from reading and listening to DuBois, Garvey, Malcolm, Fanon, Nkrumah, and Carmichael, we slam-dunked Bro. Jackson. None of us at that time had read Cheikh Anta Diop, Chancellor Williams, John G. Jackson, and Yosef A.A. ben-Jochannan.

It took Jesse about 12 or 13 years to come around, but by 1988 he was at the forefront of those calling for a name change to Afrikan American. So there's hope for Leon. Meanwhile, if you want to disconnect yourself from the Afrikan origin of civilization, that's your prerogative.

Makheru

Makheru,

I think you missed my point. I'm not going to pretend to be something that I'm not. You need to travel a bit and experience the realities of Africa. Books can't give you personal experiences. I know what I felt when I was there.

I'm not denying my African heritage, but I don't call myself African either. Some of my forefathers were African, some were European. If my father is white and my mother is black, do I still call myself African?

Fellow Bloggers,

I have really enjoyed reading the posts today. It seems people really care about identity. It's the great extistentialist delimma: who am I? People spend a life time wrestling with this issue. Without going too deep into philosophy,I see several important variables raised in the blog: 1) location; 2) how others see me; 3) how I see myself; 4) science; 5)appearance; 6)legal standards; 7)associations; 8)kindred relationships; and 9)political ideology.

Some of you base your anaylsis narrowly on how others see you. Others construct a more fluid identity based how others see you in a particular location. Still others see identity in terms of kindred. Many of you hold a legal standard: the one drop rule enacted in the United States by whites.

Are there other variables you would include or exclude from the list? I'm curious to read what thinking people have to say. If you think there is only one real variable that establishes identity please share that as well.

P.S. Intelligent people do not have to agree on everything, but by listening to one another we each improve our understanding of the challenges and opportunities we face.

Thanks

Okay Leon now I get it! You're like Tiger Woods.
I almost guessed that you must be very light skinned (Mixed) by your statements. I wonder if you are as light as a friend of mind who is a very light skinned Nigerian. To answer you're question: We're all African. Cain (the White man) just had to be Cain.

Leon, I repeat:

[Leon, on one of the Obama threads I recapped the history that led us to redefine ourselves as Afrikan American. We were brought to this country as Afrikans. Then we became, negro, colored, Negro, Black, Afro-American, Black American, Afrikan-American, Afrikan American. If you never got past the Black American stage, you and Stanley Crouch will just have to deal with it.]

If you want to be a Black American, fine with me.

One truism about travel is that several people can go to the same place and see different things. What you saw in Afrika is not what I would see, because we are not viewing things through the same lens, and with the same consciousness.

Makheru

Hello yall,its an intresting topic and i thank blackprof for it,I am BLACK INDIAN.Fifth generation on my Mother and my Fathers side,apparently there was something in the mix that was good,cus it went on,for here i am.The blood in me has a first name,its ALLEGHENY,The blood in me has a second name,its OCONEE.You can sing it how ever you like,but it wont stop me from wanting to learn of my African,Cherokee,Creek haritage.We sliped through the political cracks back then, and im sure we can do it again,even if we cant smoke from the same peace pipe!ya dig>?DONADAGOHVI

Spencer,

There are sources you could have cited, other than a link to an eventual HBO work of fiction.

I've written about the March 3rd special election at Wampum.

You missed the vote turn-out, which colors the "overwhelming" (Chad Smith's spin) or the "77 to 23" (your spin). It matters because the CNO has a general election on 6/23, and Justice Stacy Leeds is running against Chad Smith, and the Special Election to amend the Constitution was Chad Smith's hobby horse.

You missed a lot of historical complexity too, but that's a fact vs analogy choice in your copy layout, but in case you didn't know, Federal troops were not present in Indian Country when CSA Generals Officers had free rein of the territory to conduct armed "diplomacy" in 1861.

The economic motivation attributed is dubious, and has been adequately addressed elsewhere, and the cite of Darren Buzzard's email no more reasonable or responsible than citing any other piece of email or ephemera in isolation.

Quite a few of your readers are uncritical, and predisposed to metoo rhetorical gestures. I'm glad to say we don't have a lot of that at Wampum.

Could I trouble you to remove wampum from BP's sidebar. There is no point listing a resource you studiously ignore.

The Pechanga disenrollments really are about money.

Thanks in advance.

LEON:
As RICARDO points out maybe you and I define the issue differently. I am not saying AAs or Carribeans are literally African or should necessarily be considered such. You seem to characterize the issue in terms of labels (which you also don't define) and not cultural relevance. All I am saying that the interests of people in the diaspora interface on very significant levels even if not on all levels [Your earlier post seemed to suggest that beyond heritage, there is no relevant interests among the groups]. As to how one FEELS, well, that is up to each person. Some whites will say they feel black and vice versa but that does not change the objective reality (in most instances).

Again, I emphasize that you simply cannot make broad generalizations as to how "Africans" view other blacks and MAKHERU makes a critical point that your experience may not be representative. I should also point out that I am of direct African heritage. That does not mean I would necessarily "feel like one of them" in Senegal. This may be said for anyone who is raised in the U.S. regardless of background because the lifestyle may be different in the two places. Now, if you felt physically different that is a another matter, but then a person’s experience would depend on the particular African-American. In any event, your roots are firmly in Africa (and whatever other races ) and you can be confident about that.

As to being thought of as Arab, I imagine when you informed them you were African-American they perceived you differently (those enlightened as to AAs, that is). It is similar to a mixed kid (eg Obama). The kid may look something other than black but once the connection is established it is understood. Remember that next to Senegal are Cape Verdeans who are understood to be Africans but are predominantly mixed.

FYI, in South Africa as long as you’re identifiably of African descent you would still be subject to racist treatment like here even if slightly less than someone darker.

EBW, The Jami Johnson post is very informative. I will take the liberty to repost the points I thought were most valuable.

[It wasn't until 1975 that the Cherokee were able to form their first post-Dawes Constitution and elected their first chief, and they wasted no time in drafting, in the very first instance, a Constitution that (they believed) excluded the Freedmen from membership. Much wrangling ensued until the JAT declared the Freedmen not excluded because of some possibly ambiguous wording in the text of the Constitution, but the point is that the (white and mostly-white) Cherokee never accepted the legitimacy of the Freedman at any point in history, dating back to 1866. This isn't about casino money. It's about race. Race, and racism imported into the tribe by white Southerners who were later forced at gunpoint to change their own ways but whose historical bad habits are now nurtured by the Cherokee under the cloak of sovereignty while those of us who care both about civil rights and about tribal sovereignty are left in a tough position.

The Oklahoma Cherokee have ~250,000 members and are a nation ostensibly with universal adult suffrage, yet fewer than 10,000 people voted in the special election. Even given the huge margin of victory, the fact remains that only about 6,700 Cherokee voted Friday for expulsion. Granted, turnout in tribal elections is always poor, but I am still surprised that national news organizations are willing to generalize so widely about "the Cherokee people" on the basis of such a small sample.

Sadly, the tribal race politics do not stop with the Cherokee. Each of the five so-called "Civilized Tribes" has made efforts to exclude the Freedmen. The Seminole, after voting their Freedmen out in 2000, had their funds cut off by the US government and were forced to take them back. I suspect this is what will happen to the Cherokee as well. So in the end, the real "winners" in this may be the Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Muscogee (Creek) Nations, each of whom, after the ambiguous Cherokee Constitution of 1975, had the foresight to disenfranchise more explicitly their Freedmen in their original reconstituted Constitutions, thus eliminating the need to draw national attention to themselves by doing it by special election.]

As I stated previously:

The bottom line is these assaults on Afrikan humanity will continue, from both the White Supremacy D