One Nation leader faces disenrollment from tribe

**Wojapi4Me** · 07-07-2005, 10:13 AM

This appeared today on Indianz.com
One Nation leader faces disenrollment from tribe
Thursday, July 7, 2005

The leader of an anti-sovereignty group may be stripped of her membership in a non-federally recognized tribe, The Native American Times reports.

Barbara Lindsay is the executive director of One Nation, a group opposed to tribal sovereignty and federal Indian policies that recognize sovereignty. To dispel accusations that she is anti-Indian, she has claimed membership of the Western Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri.

The tribe's president confirmed Lindsay's enrollment but says it will be reviewed in light of Lindsay's views. "It is ridiculous for her to be doing what she is doing and also claiming she is a member," tribal president Lola Smith Scholl told the paper. "I don’t want anybody enrolled who is like that."

The Cherokee Nation, a federally recognized tribe, doesn't consider the Western Cherokees to be legitimate.

During the 1970s, Lindsay opposed land claims and fishing rights of Washington tribes. In addition to running One Nation, she serves as executive director of United Property Owners of Washington.

Granted, she is a member of a fake tribe, but the dangerous ideaology that I see here is that she is being sought for disenrollment not because of her not meeting their enrollment criteria, but because of her political views. How long until that sentiment makes it way into real Indian Country? Aren't reservations political enough? Do we need to worry about our political views now too? Granted, this sort of stuff has been going on for many, many years with things like housing, business loans, etc....but, disenrollment because of political views is fairly new.

WhoMe · 07-08-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singerdad

This appeared today on Indianz.com
[i]One Nation leader faces disenrollment from tribe
Thursday, July 7, 2005

....but, disenrollment because of political views is fairly new.

Singer dad,

I am not sure about fake tribes, but federally recognized tribes have the sovereign right to determine their own membership.

I have seen where this lady has boldly written that she is a Cherokee. (As if to say She is Indian and supports the viewpoints of this Anti-Indian Group).

__

For those of you who don't know who ONE NATION is. It is a lobbying group who oppose Tribal Sovereignty and would like instead to see everybody in a melting pot of ONE NATION.

**Wojapi4Me** · 07-08-2005, 04:07 PM

[quote=WhoMe]Singer dad,

I am not sure about fake tribes, but federally recognized tribes have the sovereign right to determine their own membership.

QUOTE]

I completely understand that, but my point is - how would you like to get disenrolled just because you happen to disagree politically with your Chief or Tribal Chairman? Sovereignty or not, that's crap.

ndnfeather · 07-08-2005, 04:15 PM

Personally I think this goes way beyond just being disenrolled due to political views. I mean come on, she wants tribal soverienty done away with, and it's not just because she would like us to all be one tribe or whatever, they've got financial gain on their minds, not for the peopl for thier people, their buisness people, financial backers and what not. You do away with tribal soverienty and you undo what our ancestors fought so hard and died for. To me, what this women is proposing is nothing more than a slap in the face to our ancestors. I think the tribe, wether recognized or not was well within their tribal rights to disenroll her. That's just my humble oppinion.

WhoMe · 07-08-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ndnfeather

Personally I think this goes way beyond just being disenrolled due to political views. . . .she wants tribal soverienty done away with, and it's not just because she would like us to all be one tribe or whatever, they've got financial gain on their minds, . . .. You do away with tribal soverienty and you undo what our ancestors fought so hard and died for. To me, what this women is proposing is nothing more than a slap in the face to our ancestors. I think the tribe, wether recognized or not was well within their tribal rights to disenroll her. That's just my humble oppinion.

ndnF,

There was an ancient tradition among many Indian tribes called "banishment." Banishment was forcing someone into exile if they discraced the tribe or committed a major crime.

In this case I think her crime would be treason.

Banishment, by having her membership stripped, is an appropriate modern-day punishment.

"Her actions hurt ALL Indian people."

**Wojapi4Me** · 07-08-2005, 04:34 PM

Granted, her views are appalling and disgusting, but they are still her views. Those of you who live in or have family in Indian communities know just how bad politics can get sometimes. It just disturbs me to think that disenrollment might become a practice against those viewed as dissenters. Let's not forget the Indian Civil Rights Act.

WhoMe · 07-08-2005, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singerdad

Granted, her views are appalling and disgusting, but they are still her views. Those of you who live in or have family in Indian communities know just how bad politics can get sometimes. It just disturbs me to think that disenrollment might become a practice against those viewed as dissenters. Let's not forget the Indian Civil Rights Act.

Singerdad,

I see where your concern lies.

Under Title II of the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act, "This Law gives full civil rights to individuals living under tribal law. . . . Most significant was the application of the provisions of the bill of rights to Indians in their relations with the tribal governments, . . ."

However,

Since this woman belongs to an "organization" that is not recognized by any of the major Cherokee tribes, your concern is not applicable.

"Organizations" can add and delete their membership at will.

Among recognized tribes, stripping a person of their tribal membership is against the laws of most tribal constitutions and therefore is not common.

Regardless, she claims she IS Cherokee. If she is not a member of the federally recognized Cherokee Nation, Eastern Cherokee or United Keetowah Band of Cherokees, is she really Cherokee?

Or is she just claiming Cherokee in order to make the statement:

"Indians, such as herself, support the actions of ONE NATION?"

crazywolf · 07-09-2005, 11:16 PM

Boozhoo niji,

This is what I am observing about this thread. This woman claims to be Cherokee, she may have heritage and cannot prove it, or does not meet the blood quantum to be enrolled with a federally recognized tribe, sort of like me. But she is a member of an organization that is working or trying to work against the abolishment of tribal sovernity. This makes her a hypocrite.

It is my opinion, and this is just an opinion, that if you are a member of a tribe, or claim to be the member of a tribe, or claim to be a descendent of a tribe, then you should be doing something for the betterment of that tribe, if nothing at all. I am not saying that everyone should go out and try to save the world, but with little bits of languages dieing every day, as the old ones cross over, and boundries being pushed further back, and our dead being unearthed, what she is doing is just one more nail in the coffin. Its not the last one yet, but there are too many people trying to pound nails in our coffins.

There is an old saying, I dont know where it comes from, "If you are not for us, then you are against us." Its an extreme quote, and I dont like using it, because in many cases its not black and white, everyhing is shades of grey. But in this case I think it fully applies. It sounds like she is not for the wellbeing of her tribe at all. Therefore, why should they want to keep her around?

And what would the advantages of One Nation be anyway? I dont see any advantages for our people, and lots of advantages for whtie people. I mean, there would be no more reservations, so the government could come right in and invoke iminent domain, and open up all the oil fields and uranium mines they wanted to. They would not have to pay monies to the tribes anymore. The list could go on, and probably make a good thread all by itself.

Singerdad, I agree with you, in that someone should not be abolished from a tribe when they political views oppose those of the tribal leaders. But, this person is not only opposing poltical views, she is working against the abolishment of her own tribe. If she wants it so bad, then give it to her. Kick her out the door and dont let it hit her on the *** on the way out.

Derek

ndnfeather · 07-10-2005, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazywolf

Boozhoo niji,

This is what I am observing about this thread. This woman claims to be Cherokee, she may have heritage and cannot prove it, or does not meet the blood quantum to be enrolled with a federally recognized tribe, sort of like me. But she is a member of an organization that is working or trying to work against the abolishment of tribal sovernity. This makes her a hypocrite.

It is my opinion, and this is just an opinion, that if you are a member of a tribe, or claim to be the member of a tribe, or claim to be a descendent of a tribe, then you should be doing something for the betterment of that tribe, if nothing at all. I am not saying that everyone should go out and try to save the world, but with little bits of languages dieing every day, as the old ones cross over, and boundries being pushed further back, and our dead being unearthed, what she is doing is just one more nail in the coffin. Its not the last one yet, but there are too many people trying to pound nails in our coffins.

There is an old saying, I dont know where it comes from, "If you are not for us, then you are against us." Its an extreme quote, and I dont like using it, because in many cases its not black and white, everyhing is shades of grey. But in this case I think it fully applies. It sounds like she is not for the wellbeing of her tribe at all. Therefore, why should they want to keep her around?

And what would the advantages of One Nation be anyway? I dont see any advantages for our people, and lots of advantages for whtie people. I mean, there would be no more reservations, so the government could come right in and invoke iminent domain, and open up all the oil fields and uranium mines they wanted to. They would not have to pay monies to the tribes anymore. The list could go on, and probably make a good thread all by itself.

Singerdad, I agree with you, in that someone should not be abolished from a tribe when they political views oppose those of the tribal leaders. But, this person is not only opposing poltical views, she is working against the abolishment of her own tribe. If she wants it so bad, then give it to her. Kick her out the door and dont let it hit her on the *** on the way out.

Derek

**Wojapi4Me** · 07-10-2005, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhoMe

Singerdad,

I see where your concern lies.

Under Title II of the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act, "This Law gives full civil rights to individuals living under tribal law. . . . Most significant was the application of the provisions of the bill of rights to Indians in their relations with the tribal governments, . . ."

However,

Since this woman belongs to an "organization" that is not recognized by any of the major Cherokee tribes, your concern is not applicable.

"Organizations" can add and delete their membership at will.

Among recognized tribes, stripping a person of their tribal membership is against the laws of most tribal constitutions and therefore is not common.

Regardless, she claims she IS Cherokee. If she is not a member of the federally recognized Cherokee Nation, Eastern Cherokee or United Keetowah Band of Cherokees, is she really Cherokee?

Or is she just claiming Cherokee in order to make the statement:

"Indians, such as herself, support the actions of ONE NATION?"

Like I said in my first post, how long until this practice of disenrolling those with dissenting political views makes its way into federally recognized tribes? I'm sure every tribal chairman, chief or tribal president out there has a list of people they'd like to disenroll who disagree with their policies. Here in Cherokee, eminent domain is becoming an increasingly hot issue. What will happen if a person is against their property being taken "for the better good of the community"? Will they simply be disenrolled? This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

What if a tribe wants to open a casino, but some members of the tribe are against it? Disenroll them!

Sounds stupid I know, but how do you say one is ok and one is not. This policy is scary.

crazywolf · 07-10-2005, 12:56 AM

Boozhoo niji,

I dont reallythink it will go that far, I know on my rez there are some pretty heated debates when running for tribal chairperson. These two people that recently ran had very differing and opposing views. Of course one peron was voted in, and the other ordered a recount. The decision was debated over and over, but finally the one person that was voted in in the first place. The other person was not disenrolled, even though he had a lot of people behind him.

I really trust in our elders wisdom, but as I said, most people that have alternative political views, are not really against the tribe. I feel like most people want whats best for the tribe, they all just have different ways and different opinions. This one woman wsa somehow led to believe that dissolution of her tribe and all the tribes in American will be the best thing since sliced bread.

Derek

Badmutha · 07-12-2005, 06:39 PM

Let's see, a fake NDN beloning to a group of bigots being disenrolled - c'est la vie.

I've watched the EBCI's Tribal Council the past couple of years, and it is getting to the point where dissenting views are being strongly discouraged. It is a disturbing trend. When we talk about sovereignty, it's the people who are soverign, not their governments. No tribe has a right to punish its members for expressing an opinion, no matter how unpopular or offensive, or else the webmaster for http://easternband.com would be tried for treason in the Cherokee court.

Now this lady's actions are probably what should matter, not her opinions.

07-07-2005, 10:13 AM	#1 (permalink)
Wojapi4Me Kili! Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Tha Rez Posts: 1,515	One Nation leader faces disenrollment from tribe This appeared today on Indianz.com One Nation leader faces disenrollment from tribe Thursday, July 7, 2005 The leader of an anti-sovereignty group may be stripped of her membership in a non-federally recognized tribe, The Native American Times reports. Barbara Lindsay is the executive director of One Nation, a group opposed to tribal sovereignty and federal Indian policies that recognize sovereignty. To dispel accusations that she is anti-Indian, she has claimed membership of the Western Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri. The tribe's president confirmed Lindsay's enrollment but says it will be reviewed in light of Lindsay's views. "It is ridiculous for her to be doing what she is doing and also claiming she is a member," tribal president Lola Smith Scholl told the paper. "I don’t want anybody enrolled who is like that." The Cherokee Nation, a federally recognized tribe, doesn't consider the Western Cherokees to be legitimate. During the 1970s, Lindsay opposed land claims and fishing rights of Washington tribes. In addition to running One Nation, she serves as executive director of United Property Owners of Washington. Granted, she is a member of a fake tribe, but the dangerous ideaology that I see here is that she is being sought for disenrollment not because of her not meeting their enrollment criteria, but because of her political views. How long until that sentiment makes it way into real Indian Country? Aren't reservations political enough? Do we need to worry about our political views now too? Granted, this sort of stuff has been going on for many, many years with things like housing, business loans, etc....but, disenrollment because of political views is fairly new. __________________ If pro is the opposite of con, then wouldn't progress be the opposite of...lol

07-08-2005, 04:07 PM	#3 (permalink)
Wojapi4Me Kili! Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Tha Rez Posts: 1,515	[quote=WhoMe]Singer dad, I am not sure about fake tribes, but federally recognized tribes have the sovereign right to determine their own membership. QUOTE] I completely understand that, but my point is - how would you like to get disenrolled just because you happen to disagree politically with your Chief or Tribal Chairman? Sovereignty or not, that's crap. __________________ If pro is the opposite of con, then wouldn't progress be the opposite of...lol

07-08-2005, 04:15 PM	#4 (permalink)
ndnfeather Bonfire Sweetie Join Date: May 2004 Location: here... there... whereever I happen to be. Posts: 38	Personally I think this goes way beyond just being disenrolled due to political views. I mean come on, she wants tribal soverienty done away with, and it's not just because she would like us to all be one tribe or whatever, they've got financial gain on their minds, not for the peopl for thier people, their buisness people, financial backers and what not. You do away with tribal soverienty and you undo what our ancestors fought so hard and died for. To me, what this women is proposing is nothing more than a slap in the face to our ancestors. I think the tribe, wether recognized or not was well within their tribal rights to disenroll her. That's just my humble oppinion. __________________ I HATE CHEERLEADERS!

07-08-2005, 04:34 PM	#6 (permalink)
Wojapi4Me Kili! Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Tha Rez Posts: 1,515	Granted, her views are appalling and disgusting, but they are still her views. Those of you who live in or have family in Indian communities know just how bad politics can get sometimes. It just disturbs me to think that disenrollment might become a practice against those viewed as dissenters. Let's not forget the Indian Civil Rights Act. __________________ If pro is the opposite of con, then wouldn't progress be the opposite of...lol

07-09-2005, 11:16 PM	#8 (permalink)
crazywolf crazywolf Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: unsettled for now, MN Posts: 867 Blog Entries: 5	tribal banishment Boozhoo niji, This is what I am observing about this thread. This woman claims to be Cherokee, she may have heritage and cannot prove it, or does not meet the blood quantum to be enrolled with a federally recognized tribe, sort of like me. But she is a member of an organization that is working or trying to work against the abolishment of tribal sovernity. This makes her a hypocrite. It is my opinion, and this is just an opinion, that if you are a member of a tribe, or claim to be the member of a tribe, or claim to be a descendent of a tribe, then you should be doing something for the betterment of that tribe, if nothing at all. I am not saying that everyone should go out and try to save the world, but with little bits of languages dieing every day, as the old ones cross over, and boundries being pushed further back, and our dead being unearthed, what she is doing is just one more nail in the coffin. Its not the last one yet, but there are too many people trying to pound nails in our coffins. There is an old saying, I dont know where it comes from, "If you are not for us, then you are against us." Its an extreme quote, and I dont like using it, because in many cases its not black and white, everyhing is shades of grey. But in this case I think it fully applies. It sounds like she is not for the wellbeing of her tribe at all. Therefore, why should they want to keep her around? And what would the advantages of One Nation be anyway? I dont see any advantages for our people, and lots of advantages for whtie people. I mean, there would be no more reservations, so the government could come right in and invoke iminent domain, and open up all the oil fields and uranium mines they wanted to. They would not have to pay monies to the tribes anymore. The list could go on, and probably make a good thread all by itself. Singerdad, I agree with you, in that someone should not be abolished from a tribe when they political views oppose those of the tribal leaders. But, this person is not only opposing poltical views, she is working against the abolishment of her own tribe. If she wants it so bad, then give it to her. Kick her out the door and dont let it hit her on the *** on the way out. Derek

07-10-2005, 12:56 AM	#11 (permalink)
crazywolf crazywolf Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: unsettled for now, MN Posts: 867 Blog Entries: 5	I dont think it will go that far Boozhoo niji, I dont reallythink it will go that far, I know on my rez there are some pretty heated debates when running for tribal chairperson. These two people that recently ran had very differing and opposing views. Of course one peron was voted in, and the other ordered a recount. The decision was debated over and over, but finally the one person that was voted in in the first place. The other person was not disenrolled, even though he had a lot of people behind him. I really trust in our elders wisdom, but as I said, most people that have alternative political views, are not really against the tribe. I feel like most people want whats best for the tribe, they all just have different ways and different opinions. This one woman wsa somehow led to believe that dissolution of her tribe and all the tribes in American will be the best thing since sliced bread. Derek

07-12-2005, 06:39 PM	#12 (permalink)
Badmutha Ole Heathen Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Cherokee, N.C. Posts: 225	Hmm that's probably in line for the next Tribal Council Let's see, a fake NDN beloning to a group of bigots being disenrolled - c'est la vie. I've watched the EBCI's Tribal Council the past couple of years, and it is getting to the point where dissenting views are being strongly discouraged. It is a disturbing trend. When we talk about sovereignty, it's the people who are soverign, not their governments. No tribe has a right to punish its members for expressing an opinion, no matter how unpopular or offensive, or else the webmaster for http://easternband.com would be tried for treason in the Cherokee court. Now this lady's actions are probably what should matter, not her opinions. __________________ Fish eyed fool!