Optin Monster

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cherokee Nation likely to appeal BIA decision

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cherokee Nation likely to appeal BIA decision

    Tulsa, Oklahoma (AP)

    The Cherokee Nation’s attorney general said it’s likely the Tahlequah-based tribe will appeal a decision about its historical status made by the new head of the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    In a letter, BIA head Larry EchoHawk said the tribe was not the historical Cherokee tribe, which he said no longer exists as a distinct political entity.


  • #2
    I don't understand this. Can someone explain to me in layman's terms? Are they saying the Cherokee Nation in Tahlequah may no longer be federally recognized?
    Last edited by neling4; 07-10-2009, 05:20 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      I have Cherokee Heritage from my father, even though I am Cree from my mother. Anyway, I think it is about a land on trust. I don't think it has nothing to do with recognized tribe. It should be the decision from the band council if they accept Mr. EchoHawk's plan to have a land on trust. Remember the "Trial of Tears" where many Cherokees had moved to Oklahoma and they lost the land which I don't know for sure if they regain the land back. Some of the Cherokees have return back to where they came from and some have escaped from the long walk to Oklahoma. I think Mr. EchoHawk is saying that there is no historical tribe living in Tennessee or Kentucky anymore, because of political issue which I don't understand myself too. Mr. Millers is wondering who brought the subject about the land on trust.

      Comment


      • #4
        Ok
        The issue is about whether or not a tribe can put land into trust
        IN this case it is unique to the Cherokees for there are two tribes
        that have split into two
        Which is the Historic tribe?
        He is saying Neither because they were not reorganized under the 1934 IRA

        This does not effect Federal Recognition which is a different issue
        ᎠᏂᎩᏚᏩᎩ - Anigiduwagi
        Till I Die!

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm going to show my ignorance (again), but I have a question. I understand that the immediate issue is one of land trust.

          But I'm wondering if this ruling by the BIA stands, could it not be used by the federal government as an argument to terminate treaty obligations? I could see the argument from the government being: Yes, we have a treaty/treaties with the Cherokee, but those are with the "historic tribe." Y'all aren't the historic tribe, so we have no treaties with you. Therefore, no obligations either.

          And, if so, how could that affect the treaties with other tribes/nations?

          I am completely ignorant about how all this works. But when I first read the article, I immediately thought of the above.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by RDNKJ View Post
            I'm going to show my ignorance (again), but I have a question. I understand that the immediate issue is one of land trust.

            But I'm wondering if this ruling by the BIA stands, could it not be used by the federal government as an argument to terminate treaty obligations? I could see the argument from the government being: Yes, we have a treaty/treaties with the Cherokee, but those are with the "historic tribe." Y'all aren't the historic tribe, so we have no treaties with you. Therefore, no obligations either.

            And, if so, how could that affect the treaties with other tribes/nations?

            I am completely ignorant about how all this works. But when I first read the article, I immediately thought of the above.
            Yes this is my issue also.... I feel that the government is setting up a precedent court ruling for all tribes that is the picture I see.... The BIA is not on our side. They the government Federal Gov. how ever it is said... Does not feel we as native peoples should be living off the hand that authorized these treatys so what better or other way call it what you like trickster plan to rid the gov of any responsibility they owe us well then if that ever happens they better pay up for what they owe us.. before they start disolveing our reservations.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by LaughingWaterWI View Post
              Yes this is my issue also.... I feel that the government is setting up a precedent court ruling for all tribes that is the picture I see.... The BIA is not on our side. They the government Federal Gov. how ever it is said... Does not feel we as native peoples should be living off the hand that authorized these treatys so what better or other way call it what you like trickster plan to rid the gov of any responsibility they owe us well then if that ever happens they better pay up for what they owe us.. before they start disolveing our reservations.
              LOL
              If you all dont think that this is not the Ultimate goal then you are kidding your selfs!!!!

              They started with us because no other tribe would give a damn
              Hell nobody thinks were Indian anyway

              Do you honestly think that they will stop after that
              Hmmm?

              Now what???

              Band together
              LOL
              we cant even agree on nothing

              500 tribes off doing there own thing
              and not giving a crap as long as it dont effect them TODAY!!!
              ᎠᏂᎩᏚᏩᎩ - Anigiduwagi
              Till I Die!

              Comment

              Join the online community forum celebrating Native American Culture, Pow Wows, tribes, music, art, and history.

              Loading...

              Trending

              Collapse

              There are no results that meet this criteria.

              Sidebar Ad

              Collapse
              Working...
              X