Saturday, May 31, 2008

Unethical?

Prince: We're imitating the enemy
Posted: May 16, 2008
by: Shannon Prince

...pseudo-scientific belief that ''one drop'' of black blood negated all others - a fact that shows the nonsense of the claim that the removal of the freedmen from the Cherokee Nation is based on the desire to allow only those with Indian blood to be Indians. .. (Freedmen requirements would be all those who speak Cherokee can be citizens - dropping the citizenship down to a few hand fulls)

While these scholars have brilliantly argued that the removal of the freedmen from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is illegal by the nation's own laws, I argue that beyond being illegal, the removal of the freedmen is also unethical. (emphasis added) Those who support freedmen removal are irresponsible heirs of Cherokee history and have internalized colonial expressions of sovereignty. (Cherokees had sovereignty long before the colonials came - we adapted, now she wants us to go back? what next!)

(Added Note: Ethics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ethics is a major branch of philosophy, encompassing right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct[citation needed].)

(So it's right conduct (ethical) to force those without a Cherokee Ancestor onto the Cherokee Nation? So she would support open US borders as well? "the good life", I seriously doubt the Freedmen's life will change one way or the other)

As Cherokee, we should ask how our ancestors could turn from our teachings of duyukduh (wish I knew what that meant), which emphasizes balance, interrelatedness and respect for all peoples. We should ask how our leaders and Beloved Women could condone such injustice - and why Smith continues to do so. (apparently the Cherokee are the only one with these attributes - where is the respect for the Cherokee - we hear all the time about how the Cherokee respect others - when do they respect the Cherokee)

As Cherokee people, we have to decide the right way to handle history, the honorable way to exercise sovereignty, and the correct way to bring forth justice and healing. We have to celebrate the beauty in our culture, soothe our wounds of oppression as well as the oppression we dealt out to others, and practice gadugi with all members of the community. We have a long road ahead of us, and recognizing the citizenship of the freedmen is the first step. (history has already been handled, you can't go back - we dealt no one an injustice - Congress and the Dawes Commission has done all this - the injustice today is once again the CBC using force again to impose their will on the Cherokee people and when will others start practicing ga.du.gi toward the Cherokee people - what the Freedmen and their supporters do not understand is that the sword cuts both ways - every argument they use to support the Freedmen also supports the Cherokee people - but the bottom line comes down to as a sovereign people - the Cherokees can today conduct their own internal affairs without Congress as the *Guardian*; the Freedmen argument however, goes one step further by taking assimilation into the 21st century and soon the Cherokee Nation will not be a Nation of 250,000 people but of 3/4 of the US, since all those *claiming* Cherokee Ancestry will also clammer for citizenship - we see that with our US border problems today, so now the Freemen wish to start a *border* problem for the Cherokee Nation)

Shannon Prince, Cherokee (Aniyunwiya), is a Presidential Scholar, Inaugural Scholar, Mellon Mays Undergraduate Fellow, and junior at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. (well sure looks like she is taking advantage of some of that "colonial expressions of sovereignty")

for the rest of the story:

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417307