velocicrafter:
weexist-weresist:
velocicrafter replied to your post: Wow, did you really just compare enrollment requirements for Native American groups to institutionalised racism? Is there an academic text we can check out on that topic to explain why we shouldn’t think that’s completely offensive on fourteen levels?
Your earlier comment re: “that’s just the way it is & can’t change ever!” ignores that this whole discussion is happening *because a change was just made*. Also, the Cherokee nation denies enrollment to whites w/o blood quantum, so what’s the issue?
1. that points out a problem with their criticism and not my critique. my critique was that that line shouldnt be used. if you point out that *a change was made* it indicates a problem specific to their rhetoric and not my critique.
2. i dont know why you included that second point. um. i would argue that even denying a white person who can prove they are a part of the cultural heritage of a group is wrong, but i mean obviously there is a specific dynamic with black slaves owned by certain tribal members not being allowed a claim to their heritage, which they were coerced into. denying a white person might be sorta wrong but a black person who was sold into slavery and became acculturated to a community and then being denied that recognition… obviously a bit more severe than the frat boys that are 1/128th apache.
Everything I’ve said to you directly has been an idea bouncing around in my head about your approach to this issue; the discussion has been so “all over the place” today that some of it may seem irrelevant to what I seem to be responding to, but it really is all related. ;o)
I think the part that is making it seem problematic for you is (at least in part) that you’re thinking of it as “Cultural Heritage”. I’m not familiar enough with Cherokee enrollment requirements to say very much about it, but I know that cultural involvement isn’t as relevant to ‘enrollment’ as is demonstrable Native ancestry.
The argument you’ve been putting forth would be akin to me learning Chinese (for example—random example) & learning everything I can about Chinese culture, then applying to register as “Ethnically Chinese”—whatever that would mean. It just doesn’t work that way.
Culture shouldn’t be defined by mere treaties. If you’re adjacent to a culture and never enculturated, intermarried and intermingled then a treaty is a really shaky thing to hide behind. It also dilutes the stake of those who are attempting to claim their rightful blood relationship, and in the case of the Freedmen it turns out there are a lot in that situation. Hell, I’d argue that the treaties for this long has kept those that should have a CDIB from seeking it because they figure they’re “Cherokee enough”.
Moreover, there’s limited funding for health care and other services that were apportioned for the purposes of staving off ethnocide by ensuring a healthy community.
It’s great if you appreciate the culture, but if you’re immersing yourself in it without owning or literally marrying it then I’m not sure what to say about your right or stake or ultimate claim to the name.
(Source: of-praxis)
