Whether We can find the Information for the Tribal "Rolls" or Not, Afro-"Indians" Continue to Proudly pass along our Family Heritage. African and Native American people had Intermarried Before columbus and After thomas jefferson. Further, "Native Americans," Africans and Afro-"Indians" all suffered Slavery and Heartbreaking Genocide in order to build the European Economies.
The repartimiento de Indios (the division of Indians for tasks necessary to the colonial settlements) of Columbus and his immediate successor, Francisco de Bobadilla, became encomienda in the hands of the third governor of the Indies, Nicolas de Ovando.
"The Indians were "assigned in lots of fifty, a hundred or more, by written deed or patent, to individual Spaniards to work on their farms and ranches or in the placer mines for gold dust. Sometimes they were given to officials or to parish priests in -lieu of part of their annual salary. The effect was simply to parcel out the natives among the settlers to do with as they pleased.
The consequences of their exploitation were dramatic:
The results are to be seen in the best estimates that have been prepared of the trend of population in Hispaniola. These place the population in 1492 at between 2oo,ooo and 3oo,ooo. By 15o8 the number was reduced to 6o,ooo; in 1510 Oviedo doubted whether five hundred Indians of pure stock remained. In 1570 only two villages survived of those about whom Columbus had assured his sovereigns, less than eighty years before, that "there is no better nor gentler people in the world."
"Whereas the Africans were imported in large ships, the Carolina Indians arrived in small coastal vessels.... Indians exported from ... all » Carolina by the large merchants to the northern colonies or to the West Indies generally would have gone on larger trading vessels; those carried into Virginia went in small lots by indivdual owners, though some companies exported medium-sized lots." Gallay, Alan. The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of The English Empire In The American South (1670-1717). Yale University Press, 2002, p. 307
In Mexico, or New Spain (Nueva Espana) as it was then called, the native population has been estimated by Sherburne Cook and Woodrow Borah to have been 25 million or more at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Within nine decades "diseases, wars, relocations, and the ecological changes wrought by Spanish settlement and contro1" and (it should be added) slave labor had reduced the number of Indigenous inhabitants to an estimated 1,075,000.
Thus, the survivors of the Triangular Slave Systems only harm ourselves by putting people off the tribal rolls because they are, or appear to be, of majority African descent (while retaining those mixed with Europeans), and using anti-"Indian" symbols to show support for sports teams.
Further Reading:
Robinson, Cedric. Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1983. Pages 125-130
Gallay, Alan. The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South: 1670-1717. Yale University Press, 2002.
Minges, Patrick. Black Indian Slave Narratives. Winston-Salem, North Carolina: John F. Blair, 2004.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Afro-Indians.
Email
Stumble
Technorati
Facebook
Digg
Del.icio.us
Twitter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think you really need to do some real research before you start making broad statements about tribal rolls. My grandfather was an Ojibwe from White Earth whose entire family was affected by the Dawes Act and the Nelson Act. My grandmother's land was divided four ways because of the Dawes Act and that land was lost due to policy in the 50s. They were listed as mixed-bloods so it could be made legal to sell their land. When you talk about tribal rolls, you seem to be thinking that it is only the Cherokees who are involved in this allotment act issue. All of Indian country is involved. And frankly most Indian people I know understand that Indian people are mixed, Asian, white, and Black. And this post seems to suggest that there are only black Cherokees who are impacted by the Dawes Act. There are Afro-Indians who are enrolled on my reservation, and have been for many years. So, clearly there is some more research that needs to be done.
And you know what else, I was pretty much going to sign off the Liberator yesterday for awhile because of two instances of what I would call race-baiting. This post about afro-Indians is an example. This line about Afro-Indians v white Indians is the example I am citing. The writer clearly has no understanding of the history of so called White Indians. And part of the reason this hasn't been a term is not because whiteness is invisible in Indian country, but because a person's indigeneity has been pretty much understood in terms of cultural terms rather than race. This does not seem to hold up in the Cherokee case, but again, the Cherokees are not all of Indian country--as the writer would seem to suggest. And furthermore, in the North, during the Fur Trade (lasting hundreds of years--all across the Great Lakes, and most of present day Canada) it was common for women to marry European traders, an indigenous practice, which created part of the trade relationship. So, in the North we have a lot of people who have French Grandfathers and Grandmothers. Moreover, Metis people in the Red River, people of both French and Anishinaabe heritage, spoke their own language, practiced their own customs, and many of them in the U.S. were left landless. If you are so interested in History look up the name Louis Reil. He was a Metis from the Red River Valley and pretty much the sole reason why Manitoba exists.
On the issue of tribal rolls, American Indians are the only people in the world who have to prove that we are who we say we are! Noone else has a fraction next to their names on a roll saying yes this person can now claim an identity. We live with that because much of it is tied to reservations lands.
And on the subject of Indian slavery in the Southwest, good for you to have studied history. This is important. Far too many people forget that this happened and that it was a reality. Another fact is that the Spanish had a debate over whether Indians had souls or not. Certainly you are familiar with these. It was decided by Spain and it's church not long afterwards that Africans did not have souls and therefore enslaved. This has nothing to do with any decisions made by the Indigenous people of the Caribbean or any other person in North, Central, South America at the time. So, I am not sure now why anyone would be so concerned as to put Native people on trial now for crimes we did not commit.
Which leaves us with the Cherokee case. Most people who claim to be Cherokee are not Cherokee. White people have been claiming to be Cherokee for a long time,and if you read the U.S. census--pretty much anyone can claim to be an American Indian. I am not denying that racism toward Black people doesn't exist among Native People today. Hell, I have heard it myself, and said something about it. But, that doesn't mean that these issues around tribal rolls or whatever else hasn't taken its toll on us. And since I am an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe, I am going to take issue with it. It's like if you wanted to pick one issue where we are extremely sensitive, emotionally and politically vulnerable to attack, you have found it. It happens to be the one tied to land loss and child removal over the past century. And frankly if the poster or readers don't know that, there is not much left to say.
actually i know afro-indians who call themselves afro-indians.
so yeah some people with indian blood do choose to more specifically "dual"-define themselves and link themselves to their african culture as well as their indian culture.
what's interesting is that i've seen indians classify themselves as 55/64 lakota or what have you.
and it reminds me of new orleans and creole folks and octaroons, etc...
most folks i know don't care how much blood they have in em and what fraction it is. it's about identifying their cultural inheritances and legacies and oftentimes those are mixed with many different aspects and people feel that should respect those various aspects, which i respect.
what i've observed is that it seems like there are two different levels of seeing this...
one is a very legal one rooted in treaties and blood fractions and rolls that specify those blood quotas... it seems that there's a twoness here... on one hand you're saying indians have to prove who they are, but on the other hand indians have sort of accepted that they have to prove their indianness via blood, rolls, etc.. because of their legal relationship with the political entity of the U.S. government, and how that effects the land tribes are allowed to have, etc... right?
the other one is indians with identities much looser and is probably more along the lines that african-americans identify with africa... with absolutely no documentation in most instances, so it's mostly through cultural inheritances and yes, skin color as the most obvious indicator that somewhere along the line someone's feet walked the african continent. cause at the end of the day anyone can claim to be black and no one would have a legal problem with it, would they? the only problem comes when you are appealing to the U.S. government for something (land, reparations, etc) then the U.S. government creates a situation in which they rule over your identity because in order to get something from them you have to prove you fit an identity acceptable to them in order for them to recognize you as deserving something that they ultimately have power over.
"Thus, the survivors of the Triangular Slave Systems only harm ourselves by putting people off the tribal rolls because they are, or appear to be, of majority African descent (while retaining those mixed with Europeans)"
The above statement from the post is the one I was taking issue with. It's simply too broad to be of any meaning.
Issues involving rolls are about allotment, and I read it as saying that there is a heirarchy around enrollment that is based on race. And my point was that all Native people are affected by enrollment policies, whether they are enrolled or not. Blood quantum is a disgusting policy and I wish it were gone. But, again, an individual person can a hold title to an allotment within the bounds of a reservation or trust lands, and many do and have built there home on that land, and live there and so forth. So just because I do not like this system, or allotment policy, does not mean I can tell someone that they should move away from their house and so forth. I could tell them that, but...
what it means, i think, is that we have a responsibility to challenge a flawed allotment system and the flawed foundations of the system rather than accept it and move on as if that's something that cannot be changed and that we all have to shut up and take for granted, ya know?
so the statement is broad, yes, but it's true and it's useful.
we all are hurting eachother by continuing to accept this allotment, blood quantum paradigm. trying to function in it has proven to be hurtful and cause more division and confusion. when do people start to decide for themselves how they want to define themselves? or have the Cherokee accepted the fact that the u.s. government will always have the ultimate control over their land and identity?
my frustration with the Cherokee was that as a political entity they voted NOT to challenge the dominant paradigm that was thrust upon them. that's fine and understandable, because i think most black folks are caught up in accepting that same dominant paradigm and take much of it as granted and everlasting, but it is disappointing and needs to be challenged, nevertheless.
Post a Comment