Partial view of panelists at Senate Hearing
The hearing on Capitol Hill regarding provisions on the Reconstruction Treaties between the United States and Oklahoma tribes occurred on Wednesday July 27th, I had the honor of being placed on the list of attendees for the hearing in the Dirksen Building, and was able to be present. As a descendant of Choctaw Freedmen, I was particularly interested in statements from both Choctaw and Chickasaw representatives, since those two nations signed the same exact treaty. In addition, after a full year since the Chief of the Choctaw Nation reached out to Freedmen descendants in his open letter, and after attempts to reach back to him, with no response, this was definitely of interest. Since the hearing, several questions have emerged for me.
1) Chief Batton wrote an open letter last year regarding citzenship for Choctaw Freedmen descendants.
And now a year after his letter was published, it was disappointing that he did not attend the hearing where he could have met some of the very the people about whom his letter was speaking. And had he attended, he could have met some of the people who have reached back out to him. In his absence, the Legal counsel of the nation was sent to speak. We had hoped to meet him, shake his hand, but were met with icy stares from a man that we shortly learned was the spokesman from the Choctaw Nation. No handshake, no courteous nod, but a cold stare and no interaction. Question: Was the obvious distance kept a sign of true disdain for Freedmen descendants? Was the sentiment expressed in the open letter from the Chief a year ago not truly sincere? If it was, what are the mechanisms in place so that we can engage, or has the thought simply been discarded?
2) Several weeks ago, when a call was made to the Choctaw Nation to ask questions with one of the staffers with whom a cordial relationship had been established, the caller was told that lawyers had advised the staffer not to engage with the Freedman caller. Question: Has the tribe now "lawyered up" in anticipation of a possible adversial legal action coming from Freedmen descendants? Although no lawsuits have emerged against any officials in the Choctaw Nation are lawyers now in place for in preparation for a lawsuit?
3) Prior to the panelists taking their seats at the hearing, there was informal mixing and mingling and brief cordialities with handshakes and polite greetings among those in attendance. No such niceties came from Choctaw nor Chickasaw representatives. Question: Was there a directive from Durant, or Ada, not to engage in any way with anyone? Are Freedmen descendants viewed as "enemies" of the Choctaw Nation, instead of people who are part of the nation's history? Are descendants of Choctaw Freedmen viewed as threats to tribal sovereignty? How is this so?
4) The Legal counsel from the Nation stated that whatever the resolution regarding Freedmen that it would not hurt the Choctaw people by affecting tribal sovereignty. Question: Do descendants of Freedmen pose any kind of physical threat to the people--of whom we are a part? Do descendants of Freedmen pose a threat of any kind to the sovereignty of the Choctaw Nation? If so, how does the nation not recognize the fact that we do have a "shared history" as Chief Batton said a year ago, and how is there no realization that Choctaw Freedmen are also Choctaw people?
5) When the United States ratified the 14th Amendment to the constitution granting citzenship to the former slaves, there was no requirement that slaves have the blood of the slave owner. Yet looking at tribal history with decades of enslavement, many had "blood" ties that were overlooked. Question: Do you not consider those raised in your space, living the same lifestyle and customs and culture, also one of you? Or does their dominant obvious racial distinction justify your saying that they are not Choctaw? If those who were enslaved in your nation were Choctaw slaves, and then became Choctaw Freedmen, are they not Choctaw people as well once freed? Does your humanity not allow you to recognize others who are among your own people? Or are you so hardened in anti-black sentiments, that once freed there was no further use and suddenly my ancestors were discarded like refuse? Is that really the way a nation acts? One day they belonged to you and the next day they were tossed? Is that what being among the Chahta Proud is?
6) The Choctaw representative said "this is not about race, it is about blood." However, when numerous Freedmen who had blood (see Equity Case 7071) was filed over 100 years ago, almost 2000 Choctaw and Chickasaw Freedmen sought to be transferred to the Blood Roll, because they had Chickasaw fathers. Suddendly both tribes relied on a false "tradition" of being matriarchal. When the mother was black---their Choctaw blood of their children did not matter and they were recorded as having zero blood on the roll that you now use as your base roll for citizenship. Is this because the roll refused to record the Choctaw blood of the Freedmen children? Likewise with Chickasaw, if their mother was black, then the Chickasaw blood of their children did not matter. However--- these Freedmen HAD Choctaw and Chickasaw fathers---thus they had the blood. QUESTION: How can descendants of those with Chickasaw fathers and black mothers be treated differently than those with Chickasaw fathers and white mothers? Is blood not blood? Or does it not count if the blood stems from a formerly enslaved woman? Do you not see this inequity? Do you not see that this is ALL ABOUT RACE? And if that is what you call "sovereignty" then it is clearly about race, no matter what you say.
It is anticipated that now that the sentiments expressed a year ago by the principal chief if they were once sincere, have now been rescinded and he and others have been advised to now avoid contact with Freedmen descendants, a people who have never posed a threat nor shown disrespect towards him nor to others in their office.
It is hoped that someday that the Choctaw Nation and the Chickasaw Nation will put down their shield of fear and drop the security blanket of sovereignty, using it to keep a portion of their people isolated and at distance.
No one from the community of Freedmen descendants is an enemy of the Choctaw people, and likewise for the Chickasaw people. Hopefully someday, the need to hide behind a host of "interpretations" of the words of the treaty, will cease. The need to send lawyers to justfiy racially based misdeeds with clever explanations crafted by legal wordsmiths should end, to allow officials to tend to greater needs of the community. The blanket of sovereignty should not be used as a code word equivalent to that of "state's rights" from the racist old south that meant--they felt a "right" to mistreat people of African descent anyway they chose. Clearly both nations are better than this. And furthermore---Freedmen are not a class of outsiders trying to force our way into a foreign place.
We have a shared history, a shared culture and a shared identity.
No comments:
Post a Comment