PDA

View Full Version : Apparently You Are Not Racist If You Are Not White



duane1969
09-21-2011, 01:56 PM
I had not heard of this yet and am surprised that the national media hasn't picked this up. Apparently the Cherokee nation doesn't care for mixed blood.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/09/cherokees-expel-descendants-slaves-from-tribe/?intcmp=obinsite

habsheaven
09-21-2011, 02:23 PM
I read the article. Not sure where you are getting the thread title from or what you are basing your comments on?

DaClyde
09-21-2011, 03:37 PM
While it may be "racial", I don't see how this is racist, and there was nothing in the article about excluding anyone with mixed blood. What they are correcting is for this:


An 1866 treaty between the tribe and the federal government gave the freedmen and their descendants "all the rights of native Cherokees."

The U.S. government was arbitrarily declaring any Cherokee-owned slave and that slave's descendants as being Cherokee.


Smith has supported the results of the 2007 voter-approved amendment.

"I've consistently supported the Cherokee Nation's right to determine their own national identity," he said Friday. "Cherokees say this: We don't care what you look like, as long as you've got Cherokee blood. It's about identity and self-governance."

They're just saying that people who have no Cherokee blood in them will no longer be considered part of the Cherokee tribe just because the federal government arbitrarily put the "Cherokee" label on them in 1866. Those being removed from the tribe were never Cherokee to start with, except on paper. I'm sure any that received the letter that actually have Cherokee ancestry will be accomodated.

It's sad how people can invent a reason to be offended at something because they couldn't be bothered to actually read the article.

duane1969
09-21-2011, 08:28 PM
And just like that you guys proved my point.

If this was a white group excluding former slaves and their descendants from health care or benefits because they didn't have any white blood in them people would be losing their freakin' minds.

Hilfiger1975
09-21-2011, 08:30 PM
:twitch:

greg271126817
09-21-2011, 08:32 PM
another thread about race? i guess it will never stop

habsheaven
09-21-2011, 08:33 PM
And just like that you guys proved my point.

If this was a white group excluding former slaves and their descendants from health care or benefits because they didn't have any white blood in them people would be losing their freakin' minds.

For us to prove your point, you have to MAKE ONE! You are making absolutely no sense.

greg271126817
09-21-2011, 08:43 PM
so what the article is saying is they had slaves and when they were freed they were given all the benefits of members of their tribe? It has nothing to do with whats in their blood. They were former slaves, not actual members of an Indian tribe. I don't get where this is wrong? Why should someone who is not a member of a tribe get the same benefits as actual members? they have their own government and do a lot of things for their people. they shouldn't have to do it for other people who are not enrolled members.

greg271126817
09-21-2011, 08:46 PM
And just like that you guys proved my point.

If this was a white group excluding former slaves and their descendants from health care or benefits because they didn't have any white blood in them people would be losing their freakin' minds.
as far as i know native americans are the only group of people who actually do this for their people who live in areas set aside for them by people who took over the rest of their land. So why should they give anything to other people not enrolled in their tribe?

tutall
09-21-2011, 08:51 PM
I think the point was more of the fact this is a non story but if it was a white group trying to do this it would be plastered all over the walls at every establishment you may attend.... Which I agree with but there are many other stories we could find that prove it also.

greg271126817
09-21-2011, 08:55 PM
I think the point was more of the fact this is a non story but if it was a white group trying to do this it would be plastered all over the walls at every establishment you may attend.... Which I agree with but there are many other stories we could find that prove it also.
why is it a non story? if it were a non story we wouldn't be discussing it now:confused0024: i don't think anybody cared about the Indians life or feelings when their land was taken away from them and given little tiny reservations to live in, and had to live under their own government?

texansrangerfan73
09-21-2011, 08:56 PM
My opinion is that the Cherokee can think anything or do anything (within laws) they want to. WE did push the Cherokee off their homelands of the Souteastern United States.

greg271126817
09-21-2011, 08:58 PM
My opinion is that the Cherokee can think anything or do anything (within laws) they want to. WE did push the Cherokee off their homelands of the Souteastern United States.
This is true:boxing:

Hilfiger1975
09-21-2011, 08:59 PM
my opinion is that the cherokee can think anything or do anything (within laws) they want to. We did push the cherokee off their homelands of the souteastern united states.
+1

duane1969
09-21-2011, 10:05 PM
I take issue with the double-standard. That was the entire point. If this were a white group excluding people for not being white then people (including you guys) would go nuts over it.

When white people exclude others for not being white, it is racist. When non-whites exclude other non-whites because they are of a different race, it is no big deal. I see that as wrong. Excluding someone because of their race is wrong regardless of the race of the one doing the excluding.

And as far as the Cherokee "doing what they want", this is the real world. Because they were wronged 200 years ago does not excuse wrongdoing now.

tutall
09-21-2011, 10:08 PM
why is it a non story? if it were a non story we wouldn't be discussing it now:confused0024: i don't think anybody cared about the Indians life or feelings when their land was taken away from them and given little tiny reservations to live in, and had to live under their own government?

did you know about this story before you came on this message board and clicked on the chit chat forum? That is how it is a non story

duane1969
09-21-2011, 10:13 PM
did you know about this story before you came on this message board and clicked on the chit chat forum? That is how it is a non story

Yeah it wasn't even really a story on FoxNews. I was bored at work and reading the small text on the bottom of the webpage and found the link.

greg271126817
09-21-2011, 10:16 PM
I take issue with the double-standard. That was the entire point. If this were a white group excluding people for not being white then people (including you guys) would go nuts over it.

When white people exclude others for not being white, it is racist. When non-whites exclude other non-whites because they are of a different race, it is no big deal. I see that as wrong. Excluding someone because of their race is wrong regardless of the race of the one doing the excluding.

And as far as the Cherokee "doing what they want", this is the real world. Because they were wronged 200 years ago does not excuse wrongdoing now.
how do you say that they are wrong? Native americans were forced into small peices of land called reservations. They also had to start their own government because they were not accepted by white people, black people, mexicans or any other race you can come up with. So if they have their own government and own rules why would they give up the few benefits set aside by their government ( not the US federal Govt) to give to non members, Its like a whole different country. Does china share their secrets and benefits that they have with the US? how about russia, egypt? no they dont. native american land was taken away from them and they were forced to go about their own ways. If it were the native americans that took the land from white people or any other race and they had their own land set aside and own govt and everything else, would it be fair for someone to come in and get the benefits too? Its like robbing someone. If you take their money you can give it back to them, that doesnt mean you owe the whole family for the rest of time. I would agree to giving the former slave the benefits to try to make up for the wrong doing, but not ancestors. The govt give war vets certain benefits, but not all their ancestors down the line, so does this mean the US govt is racist towards any family member of someone who has served in the military?

greg271126817
09-21-2011, 10:18 PM
did you know about this story before you came on this message board and clicked on the chit chat forum? That is how it is a non story
the point is we are dicussing it now, that makes it a story, you had to find it somewhere, or it wouldnt exist. wouldnt a non story be a story that we dont hear about?
Maybe this is a low profile story because it is not as big as people are trying to make it

greg271126817
09-21-2011, 10:28 PM
and lets make an example of white people for having black slaves. What do the white people owe the ancestors of their slaves? NOTHING! This is the same thing that Cherokees owe their slaves ancestors.

tutall
09-21-2011, 10:30 PM
the point is we are dicussing it now, that makes it a story, you had to find it somewhere, or it wouldnt exist. wouldnt a non story be a story that we dont hear about?
Maybe this is a low profile story because it is not as big as people are trying to make it

Im pretty sure if i pointed at a wall and said that is a wall.... You would respond saying it is sheetrock screwed to boards and in fact not a wall but a standing divider

Hilfiger1975
09-21-2011, 10:31 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xB4dbdNSXY

greg271126817
09-21-2011, 10:37 PM
Im pretty sure if i pointed at a wall and said that is a wall.... You would respond saying it is sheetrock screwed to boards and in fact not a wall but a standing divideryou are just too smart for me. Sorry, I wont mess with you anymore. Native americans are all racists because we have to share what we have earned. Maybe you all should just take that stuff from us too, and all our casino money. everything. because you know what. you did so much more for us to give you what WE have earned. Sounds like slavery, or prostitution doesnt it? we do the work and give you the money?

habsheaven
09-21-2011, 10:40 PM
I take issue with the double-standard. That was the entire point. If this were a white group excluding people for not being white then people (including you guys) would go nuts over it.

When white people exclude others for not being white, it is racist. When non-whites exclude other non-whites because they are of a different race, it is no big deal. I see that as wrong. Excluding someone because of their race is wrong regardless of the race of the one doing the excluding.

And as far as the Cherokee "doing what they want", this is the real world. Because they were wronged 200 years ago does not excuse wrongdoing now.

This is NOT a double-standard. You are comparing apples to oranges. If you cannot GRASP the concept I am not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you.

tutall
09-21-2011, 10:47 PM
you are just too smart for me. Sorry, I wont mess with you anymore. Native americans are all racists because we have to share what we have earned. Maybe you all should just take that stuff from us too, and all our casino money. everything. because you know what. you did so much more for us to give you what WE have earned. Sounds like slavery, or prostitution doesnt it? we do the work and give you the money?

You are missing the entire point of this post... Show me where I am disagreeing with the article... I am simply agreeing with the OP that there is a double standard... What would happen if there was a group that promoted scholarships and financial help foronly white people or we created an entire white history month... Honestly I could care less what days, months, and years people want to create... if you want to be a member of the KKK as long as you dont hurt anyone I could care less... Just like if you want to join the black panthers I am all for it... If you want to join a group that worships cats go for it... The entire point of this post is there is a double standard in America and if this was a white group secluding anyone it would be a story

greg271126817
09-21-2011, 10:48 PM
I take issue with the double-standard. That was the entire point. If this were a white group excluding people for not being white then people (including you guys) would go nuts over it.

When white people exclude others for not being white, it is racist. When non-whites exclude other non-whites because they are of a different race, it is no big deal. I see that as wrong. Excluding someone because of their race is wrong regardless of the race of the one doing the excluding.


This is not Indians excluding people who are not of their native American decent. They are simply saying the money that they earn on their reservations and the other benefits that they set aside for their enrolled members should not be given to anybody else. Almost like saying the money i save for my kids for college should be given to other people who are not members of my family for their kids to go to college. Native Americans get special benefits from THEIR tribe and if they just gave anybody else those benefits then they would soon run out, and there would be nothing left for the people they set it aside for. This would destroy what they have and there would be no point of reservations or Indian tribes. Didn't the Indians suffer enough when their land was stolen from them? now everyone wants to tap into the things they have set aside, saved and earned since then.

greg271126817
09-21-2011, 10:51 PM
You are missing the entire point of this post... Show me where I am disagreeing with the article... I am simply agreeing with the OP that there is a double standard... What would happen if there was a group that promoted scholarships and financial help foronly white people or we created an entire white history month... Honestly I could care less what days, months, and years people want to create... if you want to be a member of the KKK as long as you dont hurt anyone I could care less... Just like if you want to join the black panthers I am all for it... If you want to join a group that worships cats go for it... The entire point of this post is there is a double standard in America and if this was a white group secluding anyone it would be a story
Native Americans are not excluding people from anything except their life savings. its not like they are saying anything bad about anybody. They are just simply stating they are not going to give their life savings to people who are not members of their family. So there is no double standard. What they have for their nation is theirs and shouldn't have to share it with anybody else. I guess the cancer foundation is racist against the AIDS foundation because they wont share their money with them.

tutall
09-21-2011, 11:48 PM
Native Americans are not excluding people from anything except their life savings. its not like they are saying anything bad about anybody. They are just simply stating they are not going to give their life savings to people who are not members of their family. So there is no double standard. What they have for their nation is theirs and shouldn't have to share it with anybody else. I guess the cancer foundation is racist against the AIDS foundation because they wont share their money with them.

I am not disagreeing with any of that.... I agree they should be able to do what they want... I am in agreement anyone should be able to do what they want as long as it doesnt hurt anyone... What I am also saying is if this was a white group of people doing the same thing it would be headline news.....

ensbergcollector
09-22-2011, 12:04 AM
how do you say that they are wrong? Native americans were forced into small peices of land called reservations. They also had to start their own government because they were not accepted by white people, black people, mexicans or any other race you can come up with. So if they have their own government and own rules why would they give up the few benefits set aside by their government ( not the US federal Govt) to give to non members, Its like a whole different country. Does china share their secrets and benefits that they have with the US? how about russia, egypt? no they dont. native american land was taken away from them and they were forced to go about their own ways. If it were the native americans that took the land from white people or any other race and they had their own land set aside and own govt and everything else, would it be fair for someone to come in and get the benefits too? Its like robbing someone. If you take their money you can give it back to them, that doesnt mean you owe the whole family for the rest of time. I would agree to giving the former slave the benefits to try to make up for the wrong doing, but not ancestors. The govt give war vets certain benefits, but not all their ancestors down the line, so does this mean the US govt is racist towards any family member of someone who has served in the military?

thought we were talking about illegal immigration there for a second

greg271126817
09-22-2011, 12:05 AM
I am not disagreeing with any of that.... I agree they should be able to do what they want... I am in agreement anyone should be able to do what they want as long as it doesnt hurt anyone... What I am also saying is if this was a white group of people doing the same thing it would be headline news.....
why would it be headline news, they just said im not gonna support your family with my money. Doesnt matter if it was a white group, black group, any other race. Its not about race so there should be no problem no matter who this is about. Its about giving away your money and benefits. I don't see a problem with any of that, for any race of people

ensbergcollector
09-22-2011, 12:10 AM
why would it be headline news, they just said im not gonna support your family with my money. Doesnt matter if it was a white group, black group, any other race. Its not about race so there should be no problem no matter who this is about. Its about giving away your money and benefits. I don't see a problem with any of that, for any race of people

ok, for starters, no one is saying the indians are doing anything wrong so please stop acting like everyone is here bashing native americans. The issue is if there was a white group who said, "it has come to our attention that for the last 10 years non-whites have been receiving money that we think should go to only those with white blood so we are cutting off anyone who doesn't have white blood" there would be major issue. Do you deny this?

greg271126817
09-22-2011, 12:23 AM
ok, for starters, no one is saying the indians are doing anything wrong so please stop acting like everyone is here bashing native americans. The issue is if there was a white group who said, "it has come to our attention that for the last 10 years non-whites have been receiving money that we think should go to only those with white blood so we are cutting off anyone who doesn't have white blood" there would be major issue. Do you deny this?
why would that be a problem, if there was a group of white people who only want to share things with white people then that's what they want to do. I dont see that hurting anybody. If there were white people reservations or black people reservations the same way there are indian reservations then they should be able to do the same thing with no issues at all. Go buy a chunk of land, invite a bunch of whatever your race is to live there, and give them certain benefits or allowances and tell every other race they cant have any. Its not going to hurt my feelings or anybody else. Now say if it was a black doctor saying he wont help white people then thats a different story, or the other way around. there is nothing wrong with a group of people not sharing with another group of people things that are for the set group, no matter what race. It would be racist for obama to say im gonna cut taxes for blacks, but white people have to pay more. thats a racist deal, because that involves a whole country, and you cant single out groups of people like that
if whites were in the place of native americans it would be just the same in my eyes. They dont have to give anybody else anything

tutall
09-22-2011, 12:40 AM
why would that be a problem, if there was a group of white people who only want to share things with white people then that's what they want to do. I dont see that hurting anybody. If there were white people reservations or black people reservations the same way there are indian reservations then they should be able to do the same thing with no issues at all. Go buy a chunk of land, invite a bunch of whatever your race is to live there, and give them certain benefits or allowances and tell every other race they cant have any. Its not going to hurt my feelings or anybody else. Now say if it was a black doctor saying he wont help white people then thats a different story, or the other way around. there is nothing wrong with a group of people not sharing with another group of people things that are for the set group, no matter what race. It would be racist for obama to say im gonna cut taxes for blacks, but white people have to pay more. thats a racist deal, because that involves a whole country, and you cant single out groups of people like that
if whites were in the place of native americans it would be just the same in my eyes. They dont have to give anybody else anything

we all actually agree with you... The point of the thread is if this was a white group that did it, it would be front page material... Should it be? no... but that is how the media rolls

ensbergcollector
09-22-2011, 12:50 AM
why would that be a problem, if there was a group of white people who only want to share things with white people then that's what they want to do. I dont see that hurting anybody. If there were white people reservations or black people reservations the same way there are indian reservations then they should be able to do the same thing with no issues at all. Go buy a chunk of land, invite a bunch of whatever your race is to live there, and give them certain benefits or allowances and tell every other race they cant have any. Its not going to hurt my feelings or anybody else. Now say if it was a black doctor saying he wont help white people then thats a different story, or the other way around. there is nothing wrong with a group of people not sharing with another group of people things that are for the set group, no matter what race. It would be racist for obama to say im gonna cut taxes for blacks, but white people have to pay more. thats a racist deal, because that involves a whole country, and you cant single out groups of people like that
if whites were in the place of native americans it would be just the same in my eyes. They dont have to give anybody else anything

it shouldn't be but it would be. for example, is there a white americans college fund, a white miss america, etc.

duane1969
09-22-2011, 01:35 AM
why would that be a problem, if there was a group of white people who only want to share things with white people then that's what they want to do. I dont see that hurting anybody. If there were white people reservations or black people reservations the same way there are indian reservations then they should be able to do the same thing with no issues at all. Go buy a chunk of land, invite a bunch of whatever your race is to live there, and give them certain benefits or allowances and tell every other race they cant have any. Its not going to hurt my feelings or anybody else. Now say if it was a black doctor saying he wont help white people then thats a different story, or the other way around. there is nothing wrong with a group of people not sharing with another group of people things that are for the set group, no matter what race. It would be racist for obama to say im gonna cut taxes for blacks, but white people have to pay more. thats a racist deal, because that involves a whole country, and you cant single out groups of people like that
if whites were in the place of native americans it would be just the same in my eyes. They dont have to give anybody else anything

Surely you jest. Playing devil's advocate is one thing. Outright denying the reality that everyone can see is just pointless. If you honestly believe that no one would mind a benefit that is only available to white people then you are fooling yourself.

Forget everything else. Show me one group or organization that is based on being white and is not considered racists. One.

mrveggieman
09-22-2011, 09:42 AM
it shouldn't be but it would be. for example, is there a white americans college fund, a white miss america, etc.


People trip me out when they talk about no white miss america, no white college fund or white entertainment televison. First of all there is a white entertainment television. It's called mtv. No knock on mtv but the majority of their programming the average black person would not be interested in. Again nothing wrong with what they do but it is what it is. BET is programming tageted to Blacks just like the spanish stations are targeted to latinos. Anyone can watch any of these channels but keep in mind who the programs are designed for. As far as the college fund. Anyone with a half of brain knows that for years it was very difficult for blacks to get financing to college let alone go to whatever college they went to so the united negro college fund was created. Again it was not meant to discriminate against anyone but since there was an inadqueate amount of funding for college for blacks compared to whites something had to be done. Finally do I really need to explain why there is a miss black america or have you figured it out by now?

Star_Cards
09-22-2011, 10:03 AM
the point is we are dicussing it now, that makes it a story, you had to find it somewhere, or it wouldnt exist. wouldnt a non story be a story that we dont hear about?
Maybe this is a low profile story because it is not as big as people are trying to make it

I think you are taking the quote of "it's a nonstory" a bit too literally. When someone uses that term it doesn't mean it's not an actual story. It's a term used more to talk about the coverage of the story and that coverage hasn't hit the national media groups.

Star_Cards
09-22-2011, 10:08 AM
As for the actual article, yea there is a double standard. Always has and always will more than likely. I find it odd that they would revoke a tribal right of descendants of slaves that were given these tribal rights many years ago. I do get that this is also a tribal heritage issue as well. I'm not sure exactly which side I stand on this. It does seem odd that they pick now to revoke these rights.

greg271126817
09-22-2011, 10:14 AM
i guess what i am saying about the white people doing the same thing is. If the white people were in the place of native Americans and history was backwards from what it is, then white people would be in the same position as native Americans, and those stories like this would not be front page news. its just the way history turned out that makes white people the bad guys for all the things they have did in the past thinking they can control people and thinking they were better than everyone else. most people are not like that now, but if it were any race in the place of NA then the story would be the same. I guess the circumstances are not the same right now and if white people did that then they would be considered racist, but if Columbus and the pilgrims and everybody else who came to America and took over where NA then it would be the exact opposite, and white people would be able to do the same thing and should be no problem. But with the way things worked out if they were to do something like that now, then yes they would be called racist by many people.

greg271126817
09-22-2011, 10:23 AM
As for the actual article, yea there is a double standard. Always has and always will more than likely. I find it odd that they would revoke a tribal right of descendants of slaves that were given these tribal rights many years ago. I do get that this is also a tribal heritage issue as well. I'm not sure exactly which side I stand on this. It does seem odd that they pick now to revoke these rights.
native americans have their own government and laws. They also have special benefits for enrolled members of their tribe, a few examples are they have money set aside and distribute it sometimes to the members of the tribe. they also get free health care and has been that way for years. Also special hunting, trapping and ricing license rates that are affordable for the people on their land. I pay $10 for hunting, fishing, ricing, trapping license but the state makes you pay almost $30 for each thing described. they also have discounted vehicle registration for members who live on the reservation. But you have to think if they give these benefits to non member they will soon run out, and the community would be broke. My guess would be that they gave the former slaves the benefits to try to make up for the wrong they did by enslaving those people. That still doesn't make it right, but if they continue to give away benefits like this the community will break down even more than what it is and they would have nothing

greg271126817
09-22-2011, 10:24 AM
I think you are taking the quote of "it's a nonstory" a bit too literally. When someone uses that term it doesn't mean it's not an actual story. It's a term used more to talk about the coverage of the story and that coverage hasn't hit the national media groups.
but is there really a reason to make a big deal out of it?

Star_Cards
09-22-2011, 10:25 AM
I think what he's saying is that no matter what your majority or minority in this country, an action like this should be viewed the same across the board. If it's not then there is his double standard argument.

Myself I can see both sides of this debate and am unsure which side I'd go with if I had to pick. I guess a lot of the debate is "what if" so I'd rather look at the actual facts of this instance. Although if a white group were to do something similar to this it would be huge news. I can agree with that argument of his, but not really sure where that gets us.

duane1969
09-22-2011, 10:27 AM
They are simply saying the money that they earn on their reservations and the other benefits that they set aside for their enrolled members should not be given to anybody else.


Native Americans are not excluding people from anything except their life savings. its not like they are saying anything bad about anybody. They are just simply stating they are not going to give their life savings to people who are not members of their family.

You clearly did not read the entire article. This is not about Cherokee nation funds that they earned themselves nor is it about savings that they earned.


After Cherokee Supreme Court upheld the 2007 vote on Aug. 22, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development temporarily froze $33 million in funds while it studies the issue. Federal lawmakers who believe the amendment violated the freedmen's civil rights had lobbied federal agencies to cut funding to the tribe.


Along with losing services, Nash and other descendants of freedmen won't be able to vote in the hotly contested Sept. 24 election for principal chief

The Cherokee are excluding them from Federal funds for housing, health care and food as well as the right to vote in the Cherokee chief election. I am fine with the election thing but they have no right to exclude people from Federally funded housing because they are not a particular race.

There is no statement as to the financial source of the health care and food stipends but it is logical that if they are getting HUD for their housing then they are getting federal assistance for health care and food too.

And if you honestly believe that the Cherokee nation is a self-supporting entity that needs and recieves no outside support then you are terribly mistaken.

Star_Cards
09-22-2011, 10:29 AM
native americans have their own government and laws. They also have special benefits for enrolled members of their tribe, a few examples are they have money set aside and distribute it sometimes to the members of the tribe. they also get free health care and has been that way for years. Also special hunting, trapping and ricing license rates that are affordable for the people on their land. I pay $10 for hunting, fishing, ricing, trapping license but the state makes you pay almost $30 for each thing described. they also have discounted vehicle registration for members who live on the reservation. But you have to think if they give these benefits to non member they will soon run out, and the community would be broke. My guess would be that they gave the former slaves the benefits to try to make up for the wrong they did by enslaving those people. That still doesn't make it right, but if they continue to give away benefits like this the community will break down even more than what it is and they would have nothing

I guess for me, if these slave descendants are not longer living on reservation and contributing to the reservation then I can see where they would want to cut those costs. Seems like they could slowly phase them out with Grandfather clauses or something rather than just axing people who have had these benefits for years and are no longer able to provide for themselves or retired.

duane1969
09-22-2011, 10:32 AM
I think what he's saying is that no matter what your majority or minority in this country, an action like this should be viewed the same across the board. If it's not then there is his double standard argument.

Myself I can see both sides of this debate and am unsure which side I'd go with if I had to pick. I guess a lot of the debate is "what if" so I'd rather look at the actual facts of this instance. Although if a white group were to do something similar to this it would be huge news. I can agree with that argument of his, but not really sure where that gets us.

Yes, you get my point.

It gets us nowhere because there are obviously a lot of people who think that racism only exists inside of white people. If non-whites wrong other non-whites then it is just "embracing their heritage". :rolleyes:

duane1969
09-22-2011, 10:35 AM
I guess for me, if these slave descendants are not longer living on reservation and contributing to the reservation then I can see where they would want to cut those costs. Seems like they could slowly phase them out with Grandfather clauses or something rather than just axing people who have had these benefits for years and are no longer able to provide for themselves or retired.

If they don't live on the reservation then they have no rights to anything tribal related...but neither do blood-Cherokee living off of the reservation either. Otherwise the double-standard remains.

greg271126817
09-22-2011, 11:04 AM
You clearly did not read the entire article. This is not about Cherokee nation funds that they earned themselves nor is it about savings that they earned.





The Cherokee are excluding them from Federal funds for housing, health care and food as well as the right to vote in the Cherokee chief election. I am fine with the election thing but they have no right to exclude people from Federally funded housing because they are not a particular race.

There is no statement as to the financial source of the health care and food stipends but it is logical that if they are getting HUD for their housing then they are getting federal assistance for health care and food too.

And if you honestly believe that the Cherokee nation is a self-supporting entity that needs and recieves no outside support then you are terribly mistaken.
so you are telling me that even if the federal govt give money and helps these people then they need to share it with everyone else? That makes absolutely no sense. Native americans make their money living off the land and building casinos to everything they need. Im not sure the federal government gives them much if anything

ensbergcollector
09-22-2011, 11:15 AM
People trip me out when they talk about no white miss america, no white college fund or white entertainment televison. First of all there is a white entertainment television. It's called mtv. No knock on mtv but the majority of their programming the average black person would not be interested in. Again nothing wrong with what they do but it is what it is. BET is programming tageted to Blacks just like the spanish stations are targeted to latinos. Anyone can watch any of these channels but keep in mind who the programs are designed for. As far as the college fund. Anyone with a half of brain knows that for years it was very difficult for blacks to get financing to college let alone go to whatever college they went to so the united negro college fund was created. Again it was not meant to discriminate against anyone but since there was an inadqueate amount of funding for college for blacks compared to whites something had to be done. Finally do I really need to explain why there is a miss black america or have you figured it out by now?

so, like every other injustice I have ever mentioned, this is ok and there is a reason. There isn't a white college fund because it would never be allowed. It would be deemed racist. And I'm sorry, the idea of it being harder for minorities to get into college went away decades ago. Admission is easier (lower test scores are allowed for minorities, points are added on top of admissions testing if you are a minority, etc) for minorities and money is much easier to get. I graduated high school almost 15 years ago. Of the stack of scholarships readily available to my high school, only 33% could I apply for as a white male. The other 2/3 were for females and various minorities.
I have no issue with BET. There is a difference in entertainment and the allocation of money. My issue with things like miss black america is exactly what this thread is about. There isn't a miss white america because it would never be allowed. there would be outcry from everyone and you know it. If we want to be a country who does away with racism, we need to stop promoting one group over another and defining them only be race. How does miss black america help anything?

duane1969
09-22-2011, 11:20 AM
so you are telling me that even if the federal govt give money and helps these people then they need to share it with everyone else? That makes absolutely no sense. Native americans make their money living off the land and building casinos to everything they need. Im not sure the federal government gives them much if anything

Dude! It says in the article that $33 million in HUD funding was frozen? Since when is $33 million nothing? Did you even read the article?

Just to further add to this. The Federal government gives them all of this:

* Health care, prescriptions, eyeglasses and hospitalization are all covered under Federal Indian Health Services, funded by the Federal government.
* The tribal housing authority helps members buy and remodel homes. They are funded by HUD, a Federal government program.
* By simply being part Cherokee (I think 1/8th is the minimum) you are qualified for a $1000 per semester scholarship from the government.

Also, the Cherokee do not make their money off of casinos. While the Cherokee nation government makes around $350 million a year from casinos that money is not divided up or distributed to the Cherokee people.

habsheaven
09-22-2011, 11:26 AM
You clearly did not read the entire article. This is not about Cherokee nation funds that they earned themselves nor is it about savings that they earned.





The Cherokee are excluding them from Federal funds for housing, health care and food as well as the right to vote in the Cherokee chief election. I am fine with the election thing but they have no right to exclude people from Federally funded housing because they are not a particular race.

There is no statement as to the financial source of the health care and food stipends but it is logical that if they are getting HUD for their housing then they are getting federal assistance for health care and food too.

And if you honestly believe that the Cherokee nation is a self-supporting entity that needs and recieves no outside support then you are terribly mistaken.

So I guess by this statement you are okay with anyone, white, asian, european, etc applying to recieve this funding? Interesting concept. Find a funding source and apply regardless of whether or not the funding is meant for you. If they turn you down, just call it racism. That makes perfect sense.

duane1969
09-22-2011, 11:45 AM
So I guess by this statement you are okay with anyone, white, asian, european, etc applying to recieve this funding? Interesting concept. Find a funding source and apply regardless of whether or not the funding is meant for you. If they turn you down, just call it racism. That makes perfect sense.

If they were a former recipient based on the previously accepted criteria, yes.

Federal laws says that you can not exclude someone from access to services or goods that are provided by Federal funding based on race, creed, religion, or gender. The Federal funding is specifically designated to provide these services to the Cherokee descendants and the slave descendants. Excluding the slave descendants because they are not blood-Cherokee is wrong and IMO it is illegal as well as justification to stop all Federal funding.

If the government gave $1 million to my scholarship fund and then I changed the criteria for a scholarship to "white only" you can bet that the Federal funding would be yanked and yanked fast. The same concept applies here. Either stop the racism or stop the funding.

mrveggieman
09-22-2011, 01:06 PM
so, like every other injustice I have ever mentioned, this is ok and there is a reason. There isn't a white college fund because it would never be allowed. It would be deemed racist. And I'm sorry, the idea of it being harder for minorities to get into college went away decades ago. Admission is easier (lower test scores are allowed for minorities, points are added on top of admissions testing if you are a minority, etc) for minorities and money is much easier to get. I graduated high school almost 15 years ago. Of the stack of scholarships readily available to my high school, only 33% could I apply for as a white male. The other 2/3 were for females and various minorities.
I have no issue with BET. There is a difference in entertainment and the allocation of money. My issue with things like miss black america is exactly what this thread is about. There isn't a miss white america because it would never be allowed. there would be outcry from everyone and you know it. If we want to be a country who does away with racism, we need to stop promoting one group over another and defining them only be race. How does miss black america help anything?

Traditionally women of color blacks, latinas, indian, etc have not been viewed by the mainstream media as being as beautiful as their blond hair blue eyed counterparts. I'm not saying that it's right or that I agree but you and i both know that has been going on. Having a miss black america pagent has nothing to do with racism but it is designed to showcase the beauty of women of color. Also you must have never been to an inner city before becasue if you have you would have never made that comment about how college admission is easier. See how easy it is to get into college if you have to go to inferior second class schools all your life.

ensbergcollector
09-22-2011, 01:42 PM
Traditionally women of color blacks, latinas, indian, etc have not been viewed by the mainstream media as being as beautiful as their blond hair blue eyed counterparts. I'm not saying that it's right or that I agree but you and i both know that has been going on. Having a miss black america pagent has nothing to do with racism but it is designed to showcase the beauty of women of color. Also you must have never been to an inner city before becasue if you have you would have never made that comment about how college admission is easier. See how easy it is to get into college if you have to go to inferior second class schools all your life.

i have spent plenty of time in the inner city. I agree with you about inferior schools but that is an issue to address at the high school and below range. It is not a justification to make both college and college financial aid emore available to minorities.

mrveggieman
09-22-2011, 01:48 PM
i have spent plenty of time in the inner city. I agree with you about inferior schools but that is an issue to address at the high school and below range. It is not a justification to make both college and college financial aid emore available to minorities.


College is no more accessible to minorities compared to whites. Historically black colleges aside go to any college campus in america and tell me who the majority of the students are.

Star_Cards
09-22-2011, 01:56 PM
College is no more accessible to minorities compared to whites. Historically black colleges aside go to any college campus in america and tell me who the majority of the students are.

whites are the majority of this countries population so seeing more whites in any place is hardly a justification for saying it's easier for whites to be there.

mrveggieman
09-22-2011, 02:04 PM
whites are the majority of this countries population so seeing more whites in any place is hardly a justification for saying it's easier for whites to be there.


I'm not saying that it's a walk in the park to get into college for anyone unless your daddy is a rich alumni or you have a wicked jumpshot but I am saying that if you have to deal with a second rate educational system you already have 1 strike against you when it comes to getting into college.

duane1969
09-22-2011, 04:16 PM
College is no more accessible to minorities compared to whites. Historically black colleges aside go to any college campus in america and tell me who the majority of the students are.

Minority populations in public colleges and universities generally mimic those of the general population. If 10% of the community is a minority then it makes sense that only 10% of the local college would be that minority group. Because there are less blacks, latinos or asians does not mean it is harder for them to get in.

ensbergcollector
09-22-2011, 04:43 PM
College is no more accessible to minorities compared to whites. Historically black colleges aside go to any college campus in america and tell me who the majority of the students are.

how do you figure? if admission requirements are lower and financial aid is easier to come by, that, by definition, means it is more accessible to minorities.

mrveggieman
09-22-2011, 04:51 PM
how do you figure? if admission requirements are lower and financial aid is easier to come by, that, by definition, means it is more accessible to minorities.


That may be true on paper but is not reality...

Star_Cards
09-22-2011, 05:13 PM
I'm not saying that it's a walk in the park to get into college for anyone unless your daddy is a rich alumni or you have a wicked jumpshot but I am saying that if you have to deal with a second rate educational system you already have 1 strike against you when it comes to getting into college.

I hear you on that front. Just don't agree with your statement that it's easier for whites to get into college because there are more whites on college campuses.

ensbergcollector
09-22-2011, 05:50 PM
That may be true on paper but is not reality...

i am trying to see where you are coming from but I don't. how is my statement not reality when I have facts to back it up?