Cherokee Scholars’ Statement on Sovereignty and Identity

On February 13. 2020, a diverse collective of Cherokee scholars, writers, and educators adopted the following statement by consensus:

ᏗᎦᏓᏤᎵᎢ

Cherokee Scholars’ Statement on Sovereignty and Identity 

Frequent, persistent, and accelerating assaults on the sovereign right of the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians to determine their peoplehood have profoundly negative legal, cultural, economic, and familial consequences for Cherokee citizens.  As a diverse collective of Cherokee scholars, writers, and educators, we are unified in our commitment to supporting our governments as they defend themselves against individuals and/or collectivities who engage in actions, whether intentional or not, that undermine the sacred sovereign right of the three Cherokee governments, buttressed by federal and international recognition of Cherokee laws and governance, to determine their citizenry. We support the resolution adopted in 2008 during a joint council meeting of the Cherokee Nation and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians opposing fabricated Cherokee entities and non-citizen self-identified Cherokee individuals.  

Misappropriating a Cherokee identity or otherwise falsely claiming to speak as a Cherokee is an act of disrespect and aggression against Cherokee peoples and, above all, is a violation of the sovereignty of the three federally and internationally recognized Cherokee governments. 

While our concern is first and foremost the protection and defense of the sovereign authority of the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, an assault on the sovereignty of any Native American and Indigenous nation is an assault on the sovereignty of all Native American and Indigenous nations. According to Article 9 of the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), which was officially endorsed by the U.S. in 2010, “Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned.” We stand in solidarity with all Indigenous nations in their ethical efforts to defend their sovereign right to determine their citizenry.  

1) The sovereignty of Cherokee peoples is uniquely expressed through the governing bodies of the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, the three federally and internationally recognized Cherokee governments.  Cherokee sovereignty predates the arrival of Europeans to the Americas and the establishment of the United States of America.  It has been continuously exercised from time immemorial and will persist.  These facts of Cherokee sovereignty have been acknowledged and recognized by the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government of the United States of America.  

2) Only individuals recognized as citizens of the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians should claim a Cherokee identity as part of their professional or personal identity, or otherwise assert a Cherokee identity to further their career or gain profit or professional advancement. Cherokee identity is a political identity that can only be established through documentation by one of the Cherokee governments that an individual is a Cherokee citizen. It is not, and never has been, an ethnic or racial identity that is established through self-identification. 

3) No individual or collectivity should claim a Cherokee identity on the basis of genetic testing, phenotype, family stories, “inherited” cultural practices, sentiments or feelings of affinity, or any other spurious criteria.  Any person who believes they are Cherokee and have a legitimate claim to a Cherokee identity are encouraged to explore their heritage with candor and honesty.  They are encouraged to contact the appropriate Cherokee government for information on Cherokee citizenship. If that Cherokee government determines that they do not have a right to Cherokee citizenship they should immediately cease identifying as Cherokee. 

4) Any person who publicly identifies as Cherokee has initiated a public discussion about their identity.  It is appropriate to ask such persons to explain the verifiable basis upon which they are claiming a Cherokee identity.  If they cannot substantiate that they are a Cherokee citizen, they should be clearly and directly asked to cease identifying as Cherokee.

5) All institutions of higher education, professional organizations, and funding agencies are encouraged to verify any assertions by faculty, staff, students, members, grant applicants, and visiting speakers and scholars that they are Cherokee citizens, especially when it comes to employment, admissions, fellowships, and scholarships.  Individuals making such claims should be willing to provide proof of their Cherokee citizenship.  We encourage educational institutions to actively request proof of citizenship, such as a citizenship identification card. An individual’s unwillingness to provide such proof, or other forms of evasiveness, may indicate that they are not Cherokee citizens and do not have a legitimate claim of being a Cherokee person, and the appropriate Cherokee government may be contacted to ascertain that person’s citizenry.  In the context of higher education, falsely claiming a Cherokee identity is academic dishonesty, falsification of a material fact, and expropriation of Indigenous peoples’ resources and opportunities.  We encourage institutions of higher education to sanction it as such.

6)  We condemn all individuals and collectivities that ‘play Indian’ or ‘play Cherokee’ in all its forms, regardless of the intent.  This includes the widespread practice of forming fraudulent, so-called ‘state-recognized’ Cherokee tribes or nonprofit organizations that claim to confer Cherokee citizenship.  Non-Cherokees should never participate in Cherokee cultural expressions unless under the direct guidance of a Cherokee citizen. 

7)  We encourage anyone who claims the identity of any Native American or Indigenous nation to contact the appropriate authority and confirm their assertion of that identity is valid and appropriate. 

 Adopted 13 February 2020

This is a consensus statement of ᏗᎦᏓᏤᎵᎢ, a diverse collective of Cherokee scholars, writers, and educators who are citizens of the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. For more information see: Cherokee Scholars.

A PDF of this statement can be downloaded here.

10th Circuit Case on Cherokee Nation's Newborn Citizenship Law

The Cherokee Nation has an automatic 240 day citizenship that attaches to any newborn who is a descendant of the Dawes Rolls.  This was enacted to ensure that newborns are Cherokee citizens subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act's protections and presumes that the parents will make a decision whether the enroll the child as a Cherokee citizen during their infancy.  I would like to see our Nation go one step further and simply have natural born citizenship laws like other sovereigns throughout the globe, but that's an aside.  The decision from the the Tenth Circuit is here.  The federal court does not like the idea of this "temporary citizenship" for inclusion in protections of a federal statute. My question for tribal legal reform:  why have people "enroll" a child as a citizen in the first place?  Why not have Cherokee Nation laws that automatically extend citizenship to children who are eligible for citizenship and if someone chooses to disavow their citizenship, go thru the administrative process to renounce citizenship?  When tribes requires someone to "enroll" as members/citizens of the Nation, it contributes to the idea the tribal citizenship is inferior to other citizenship.  I envision this sequence:  Citizenship by birth, followed by a Cherokee Nation Birth Certificate and/Cherokee Nation ID card for documentation purposes, followed by a Cherokee Nation driver's license to operate a vehicle.

New DNC Ad Citicizes RNC For Accepting Foreign Money; Indian Law Implications?

The DNC is running a the new political ad against the RNC. It appears to be titled “Stop Stealing Our Democracy.” Here is a link:  http://www.thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/10/video-new-dnc-ad-stop-stealing-our-democracy/ RNC is upset about it, particularly Rove, who made a response on Fox News. Here is a link to his response on FoxNews: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/transcript/rove-responds-dnc039s-039stupid039-foreign-funding-allegations?page=1

Without getting into the accuracy of the allegations in of the ad, the ad makes two points. First, the RNC has accepted secret donations. Second, some of these secret donations have been foreign money. One is bad; together they are worse. Consequently, foreign money has its own independent negative consequences to “our democracy.”

Both democrats and republicans think this kind of behavior, if true, is bad. That's why the DNC made the accusation and that's why the RNC and Rove are so upset. Query: Why don’t we want foreign money influencing our elections? Answer: Non-resident, non-citizens who make donations are not part of our body politic and therefore should not have a say, i.e. they should not be able to govern us without being governed with us. This was one of the basic complaints of the American colonists leading to the American Revolution.

Problem: Given how much money tribes and individual Indians have donated to mostly Democratic candidates at both the state and federal level, a similar accusation could be made against the DNC. After all, tribes consistently oppose the application of state laws to tribal lands, and federal law has generally upheld the exclusion of state law from tribal lands. This means reservation citizens (tribal "members" that live on the reservation of the tribe of which they are a "member") can help make laws that do not apply to them similar to how foreign money can influence elections in governments to which the foreign donors are not subject. The tribes and the foreign donors bear some analogy to British Parliament of the 1760s and 1770s vis a vis American colonists.

This criticism has more traction at the state level because federal laws more often apply to tribal lands (making participation more appropriate). Nonetheless, where reservation citizens participate in making federal law that does not apply to tribal lands, the criticism would hold.

The big picture problem for tribes is that the law has been reconciling, and will continue to reconcile, this tension over time to the detriment of tribes if tribes continue to push for increased participation by reservation constituencies in the absence of anything resembling the 10th Amendment or respected sovereign borders. Put more simply, if tribes and reservation citizens keep acting like they are part of the state (up to and including the establishment of state legislative districts within the reservation), the law likely will treat them as such more and more.

Unfortunately, the problem puts tribes in a difficult position. Focusing on the state level for a moment, participating in, and encouraging reservation citizens to participate in, state elections has proven extremely effective in protecting tribal interests at the state level in the near term. However, the long term outlook is more questionable. Over time, tribes have lost pieces of sovereignty, case by case. A number of Indian law cases, either implicitly or explicitly, prohibit the application of tribal law to non-Indians inside the reservation, or uphold the application of state law inside the reservation, based in part on who can and can't participate in making the law in question--a participation analysis.

This is not to say that tribes should halt all participation, only that such participation should be done consciously in light of all the consequences such participation can have. The negative long-term implications need to be part of that analysis along side the positive short-term implications. The only entity qualified to do that cost benefit analysis is the tribe itself in light of all the circumstances of its relationship with the surrounding state. It will be interesting to see if the increasing level of tribal participation in non-tribal elections increases the role of participation analysis in Federal Law.