Thoughts on Frontier Day and Lawlor Reading

Thoughts on Frontier Day on the Lawlor Reading

One of the thoughts that I left Frontier Day with was, who are the Indians of the 21st century? I must say that, upon entering the Visitor’s center and seeing the faces of the "leaders" of the Cherokee nation, I was a bit taken aback by the 21st century face of the "Indian" who is namely western European in appearance and in name. While viewing and reflecting on the faces of those leaders I overheard a mother say to her son, "Look [child's name], now there's a real Indian," she was referring to the statuesque portrayal of the “Indian” in menacing stance at the entrance to the Exhibits. While the mother's words may seem a bit silly, her words are meaningful, as evidence of the crisis of post-modern Indian representation. Throughout the site, which sought to "hold" the histories of the Indians of New Echota in the memorialization of what they were, "middle class," "like the white man," "sophisticated," civilized, it was apparent, at least to me, that something was somehow not right. The "Indian" of Frontier Day, much like the statue, is more than simply a sign of a past era, it is, what Robert Flores of "Remembering the Alamo" would call a master symbol, whose meaning and purpose in the context of western expansion has become displaced, serving in the master narrative of progress to mark an older era of American History. In my blurred placing of the 21st century leaders, I realize, that I was not as interested in the ethnic identities of the named men, as I was in resuscitating the "true" Indian-- who was human, who, unlike the site of New Echota had not be rewritten by western history, who had a civilization prior to "the white man whom he tried so hard to imitate," who was not erased by “civilizing” contact, and who still exists today! Remembering the absent "Indian" of Frontier Day, I could not help but wonder "Where are the real Indians?"


In lieu of our recent visit, I found that reading the assigned article by Mary Lawlor to be especially interesting. One of the problems, however that I had with Lawlor’s article is that it did not seem to directly interrogate the seemingly obvious conflicts that would arise in determining what is “Essentialism” and “Collective identity” for a Pequot. Lawlor, who relies primarily on the works of Cultural writers and theorists like Gilroy, Hooks, Hall, and Fanon—writers, whose works primarily deal with the subject of Diasporic blacks, provides readers with powerful insights that wonderfully incorporate the Pequot into a discourse of Post-modernism and Post-colonialism. While I can not find much fault with Lawlor, one aspect that I would have liked to have seen in the article was a deeper consideration of the uniqueness of the Pequot/Native American situation. I argue for their uniqueness in lieu of the fact that Pequot-ness, unlike for instance blackness, as revealed in lieu of the surge in 20th century Pequot population with person’s claiming Pequot heritage while hailing from various ethnic backgrounds, is a recent phenomenon. It is not, like most groups, as rightfully claimed by Lawlor, whose semblance of likeness is based on physical appearance, shared background, past, or religion, etc. I would argue that Native American identity is not only being “…renegotiated in the context of overtly capitalist enterprises and the accumulation of wealth, (153) but also in the confines of larger system of America that is defined also by issues like race.


Through my research on the Pequot museum, I did find that many critics agreed that it offers Pequot Indians a public affirmation of their identity. But, as many critics argue, missing from the museum is any direct discussion of the complex issues surrounding racial and tribal identity. The result of this silence is that, similar to the New Echota site, questions like who is or who is not Indian, who gets to decide, and how, remain unanswered. Similar to the National Museum of the American Indian, which when I last visited, featured an exhibit on “21st century American Indians,” showing American Indians in all their diversity, the Pequot museum, (as I learned via the Internet) also has/had an exhibit that features contemporary tribal members, who many viewers would classify as either black or white rather than “Indian.” The exhibit like the Washington D.C. exhibit leaves the question open: How do Pequot Indians grapple with racial identity? I am interested in not only the existence of these exhibits but also, what message they are attempting to portray. Is the Indian of the 21st century a intangible essence? That like the re-appropriated site of New Echota, can represent the “essence” of what was, without surfaced signs of what was?

I want to make it clear, that I do not believe that identity is necessarily inextricably linked to any particular markers; I am only interested in determining what it means to define group-status in a larger American context. I am interested in what it means to construct identity through submerged identity markers. Can Pequot Indians claim a particular identity politics if members do not share the same identities?

Okay, I am almost done…I have included several articles related to the Cherokee nation and the Pequot Nation below. The first link is of a group that calls themselves the Cherokee freedmen. I have included a link and a brief history of the group below. The second link is on some interesting things related to contemporary Peqout Indians. Enjoy!

http://www.cherokeebyblood.com/blackindians.htm#E

http://www.insideout.org/documentaries/casinoreservations/opposition.asp

History of Cherokee Freedmen
The Cherokee Freedmen descendants of African American slaves owned by citizens of the Cherokee Nation during the Antebellum era, were first guaranteed Cherokee citizenship via treaty in 1866, in the wake of the American Civil War. Their citizenship was revoked in the 1980s. On March 7, 2006 the Cherokee Nation Judicial Appeal Tribunal announced that the Cherokee Freedmen were eligible once more for Cherokee citizenship. This ruling proved controversial; while the Cherokee Freedman had historically been recorded as "citizens" of the Cherokee Nation at least since 1866 and the later Dawes Commission Land Rolls, the ruling "did not limit membership to people possessing Cherokee blood." This ruling was consistent with the 1975 Constitution of the Cherokee Nation, in its acceptance of the Cherokee Freedmen on the basis of historical citizenship, rather than evidenced blood relation. The Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, Chad Smith later announced that because of issues raised by the Cherokee people, the issue of Freedmen citizenship was being considered for a vote proposing amendments to the Cherokee Nation Constitution. These amendments were intended to restrict tribal membership exclusively to Cherokees by blood descent, thus excluding the Freedmen from tribal membership. The Constitution had always restricted governmental positions to persons of Cherokee blood.


In March 2007, the tribe voted on the constitutional amendment. 76.6% of voters affirmed the proposed amendment, revoking the tribal citizenship of the descendants of black slaves who had formerly been considered Cherokee citizens. The vote to oust the Freedmen provoked a firestorm of controversy, particularly from various political circles, including the Congressional Black Caucus. There were calls for the revocation of all federal funding for the Cherokee Nation.The Cherokee Freedmen were reinstated as citizens of the Cherokee Nation by the Cherokee Nation Tribal Courts on May 15, 2007, while appeals are pending in the Cherokee Nation Courts and Federal Court.


On May 22, 2007, the Cherokee Nation received notice from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs that the BIA and Federal Government had denied the amendments to the 1975 Cherokee Nation Constitution because it required BIA approval, which had not been obtained. The BIA also noted that the Cherokee Nation had excluded the Cherokee Freedmen from the amendment vote. The Cherokee Nation Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation could take away the approval authority it had granted the federal government. Principal Chief Smith has also argued against the requirement of BIA approval for constitutional amendments. Congresswoman Diane Watson responded by introducing a bill which would sever ties between the United States and the Cherokee Nation until the Freedmen issue is resolved.As of August 9 2007, the BIA has given the Cherokee Nation consent to modify their Constitution without approval from the Department of the Interior.