Arrival at the Courthouse - Brown v Capabianco

Below are two videos from a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. I think they express the feelings of many Cherokees.

Here's Herb Wolfe, 'reporting on the scene' of the courthouse Friday, August 16, 2013, in the case of Veronica Brown. He captures both Dusten Brown and Matt & Melanie Capobianco as they arrive for the hearing.





Thank you for sharing your videos, Herb, and thank you for asking the same questions and saying the same things many of us Cherokees are asking and saying.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2013, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Then and Now: Greed v. Sovereignty

In 1832, a white man named William Beard went to the home of Cherokee Nakey Brown. He claimed her possessions, saying the state of Georgia gave them to him when he won the lot in the land lottery. He threatened to use force against her if she didn't quietly surrender what was rightfully hers.

In 2013, a white couple, Matt and Melanie Capobianco, want to go to the home of Cherokee Dusten Brown. They claim his daughter, saying the state of South Carolina gave her to them when they won the child in a court case. They are threatening to use force against him if he doesn't quietly surrender what is rightfully his. 

***

In 1832, Georgia was trying to give away something it had no right to give away - Cherokee land. The Cherokee Nation had not given up their right to the land. They had not surrendered it in any way. 

In 2013, South Carolina is trying to give away something it has no right to give away - a Cherokee child. The Cherokee Nation has not given up their right to the child. They have not surrendered her in any way.

***

In 1832, in Worcester v. Georgia, the US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall said the Cherokee Nation remained a separate, sovereign nation, independent of Georgia. He came down hard on the state of Georgia and said the Cherokee Nation had the right to live free from the state's trespasses.

Georgia ignored that U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Nakey Brown's rights as a Cherokee citizen were ignored by the state of Georgia, not because Georgia didn't realize the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign nation, but instead because the Cherokees had something they (and William Beard) wanted...land...and they were going to do anything they had to do to get it.

In 2013, in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, the Supreme Court held that Veronica Brown was an Indian child and that the Indian Child Welfare Act's adoption placement preferences could come into play. That meant that if the state of South Carolina did not allow her to stay with her father, then Veronica's placement should follow the hierarchy of preferred placement for Indian children.

South Carolina ignored that U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Veronica Brown's rights as a Cherokee citizen are being ignored by the state of South Carolina, not because South Carolina doesn't realize the Cherokee Nation is a sovereign nation, but instead because the Cherokees have something they (and Matt and Melanie Capobianco) want...a child...and they will do anything they have to do to get it. 

***

Two historical events, 181 years apart, but eerily similar. In 1832, white Americans trespassed into  the Cherokee Nation; wrongfully dispossessed many Cherokees of everything they owned; and the legal system allowed them to do it. Now in 2013, it would be illegal for them to come into our homes, force us out, and steal our possessions, but as appalling as it is, white Americans can now sneak around; wrongfully dispossess us Cherokees of our children; and the legal system is allowing them to do it. 

The more things change, the more they stay the same.


Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2013, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Keep Veronica Home!

Write and call your congressmen and ask them to help keep Veronica home.

Tweet

It's Our Turn to Save Veronica

As many of you know, the South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered that "Baby Veronica" be taken from her Cherokee father and her tribal nation, the Cherokee Nation, and returned to the non-Indian couple who wanted to adopt her. (The adoption was NEVER allowed, though the media has misreported this and misrepresented this many many times.) The South Carolina Supreme Court did not allow due process or take into consideration the best interest of the child.

This issue is far reaching and not just a Cherokee issue. It can and will affect ALL tribal nations.

The Brown family is asking people to contact their legislators and ask them to step in to keep Veronica with her Indian family and nation.

To contact your US Senators -
United States Senate

To contact your US Representatives -
United States House

Please get involved; make calls; and send emails. If we don't join together to do this now, we will lose more of our children in the future.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2013, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

The Two Faces of America: Elizabeth Warren v. Baby Veronica

America, as a whole, clearly does not understand sovereignty or how it applies to Indian tribes. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs website,

"federally recognized tribes are recognized as possessing certain inherent rights of self-government (i.e., tribal sovereignty) and are entitled to receive certain federal benefits, services, and protections because of their special relationship with the United States."

How does this apply to Elizabeth Warren and Baby Veronica?

It applies because, time and time again, Americans repeatedly want to make both situations about race when they aren't. While many Americans said Warren had a right to claim her purported Cherokee ancestry, even if only a drop, and had a right to "check the box" based on family lore, many Americans are now saying Baby Veronica only has a "drop" of Indian blood, therefore, it isn't enough to matter.

When it was Elizabeth Warren claiming to have Cherokee ancestry, even though she couldn't prove it, there were plenty of Americans who spoke out in her defense, calling anyone who stood up against her false claims "a racist." Her supporters believed a drop was enough for her to claim, even though she couldn't show she actually had "a drop" of Indian blood.

Now that the focus is on Baby Veronica, a child with documented Cherokee ancestry, Americans have a different perspective. They say the little girl only has a drop of Indian blood and it isn't really enough to matter. They claim anyone who supports the idea she stay with her biological father and tribe is basing the opinion on race, when she really isn't "enough" to be considered an Indian.

Ah...the two faces of America. In one case, they want to tell us Cherokees we should accept someone who isn't, because her claim is good enough for them, yet in another case, they want to tell us who we should not be able to claim because that claim isn't good enough for them. Hmm...

But guess what. America's opinion doesn't matter. The sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation  does.  

Federally recognized tribes are recognized as possessing certain inherent rights of self-government (sovereignty) and are entitled to receive certain protections because of their special relationship with the United States.

That is key. The Cherokee Nation, a federally recognized tribe, decides its own citizenship. The Cherokee Nation is allowed to decide this because of its inherent right of SOVEREIGNTY. We define ourselves based on our criteria, not America's. By meeting the citizenship criteria defined by our nation, our citizens are entitled to certain protections. Baby Veronica is entitled to such protections, (i.e. the Indian Child Welfare Act,) while Warren is not, (i.e. Affirmative Action programs.)

But still, America doesn't seem to get it. The "two faced" remarks by Melissa Harriss-Perry is a perfect example.

In discussing Elizabeth Warren's claim, possibly politically motivated, Harriss-Perry said, 

"If candidate Warren grew up thinking she is Native American by heritage, who are we to say she is not?"

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And then later, when discussing the importance of the Indian Child Welfare Act...

"there is one group that does have a right to feel actual threat and concern about that and that is in the context of this country and Native Americans."

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Props to Harriss-Perry for getting it right the second time around, but she, like others in America, is still talking out of both sides of her mouth. First, she basically said we (Cherokees) had no right to say Warren wasn't "Native American" (remember, because she claimed us, we were speaking out, but MSNBC ignored that fact), and then, she turned around and said if anyone has a right to feel a threat in this country, it would be Native Americans. Well no kidding! That is why we were protesting against Warren in the first place! We were trying to protect OUR identity as citizens of the Cherokee Nation......for our children that non-Indians keep trying to take away from us.


Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2013, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

ICWA-Baby Veronica: It's not about race

Yesterday, in arguments made to the Supreme Court of the United States, Washington lawyer, Lisa S. Blatt, attorney representing Matt and Melanie Capobianco (the couple who was denied approval to adopt Baby Veronica) stated, "This case is going to affect any interracial adoption of children."

That statement is not true. Though Blatt, the Capobiancos, and many others have a difficult time understanding it, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is not about race. It is about the special political status of members of Indian tribes. 

In her blog, American Indians in Children's Literature, on a page titled, "We are Not People of Color", Debbie Reese explains,

"Very few people know that American Indians in the United States have a status that marks us as distinct from minority or underrepresented populations (such as African Americans). That status is that we are sovereign tribal nations."

To expand on that, from the Bureau of Indian Affairs FAQ page,

"What is the relationship between the tribes and the United States?
The relationship between federally recognized tribes and the United States is one between sovereigns, i.e., between a government and a government. This “government-to-government” principle, which is grounded in the United States Constitution, has helped to shape the long history of relations between the federal government and these tribal nations."

and

"Who is an American Indian or Alaska Native?
The rights, protections, and services provided by the United States to individual American Indians and Alaska Natives flow not from a person's identity as such in an ethnological sense, but because he or she is a member of a federally recognized tribe.  That is, a tribe that has a government-to-government relationship and a special trust relationship with the United States. These special trust and government-to-government relationships entail certain legally enforceable obligations and responsibilities on the part of the United States to persons who are enrolled members of such tribes."

Notice the BIA clearly states rights and protections to American Indians do not come from a person's identity as an Indian in an ethnological sense, but because he or she is a member of a federally recognized tribe. 

Merriam-Webster Dictionary says "ethnology" means,

"a science that deals with the division of human beings into races and their origin, distribution, relations, and characteristics".

Now that we have the definition of ethnology, we could restate the above information from the BIA to say the rights and protections provided by the United States to individual American Indians do not come from a person's identity as such in a racial sense, but instead because he or she is a member of a federally recognized tribe. 

Children who are tribal members, or the offspring of tribal members, are the ONLY children covered under the ICWA. A decision in favor of the Cherokee Nation and the Brown family in the Baby Veronica case will ONLY apply to these children, and has no bearing on children of any minority group who does not meet the criteria to be considered an "Indian child." This case will not affect interracial adoptions of children, but it could very well undermine tribal sovereignty and undo years of progress we have made in protecting our Indian children from being placed in non-Indian homes where they lose their culture, history, language and traditions - in essence, their very identity as a tribal citizen. The ICWA was enacted to prevent this very thing, but now because non-Indians (once again) want our children, the law is under attack from people, like Blatt, who fail to acknowledge our sovereign rights and the importance of our identity as tribal citizens.

 
Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2013, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

SCOTUS hears arguments in the Baby Veronica case

If you haven't heard, the Supreme Court of the US heard arguments in the "Baby Veronica" in the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) today.

You can read the arguments by clicking on this link - Baby Veronica SCOTUS arguments

Some of the Justices's thoughts and questions were concerning, while other Justices seemed to be on the ball and fully aware of the rights of Indian parents under the law and why those rights needed to be established under the law.

For background information on this case, please see the links and information posted by the National Indian Child Welfare Association on "Baby Veronica."  The South Carolina Decision sheds some light on the case that the media did not address. Because it seems the couple who tried to adopt Baby Veronica wants to win the the case in court of public opinion, there are many details they haven't shared in their many media interviews, including the fact they were never allowed to adopt the child, nor did the father actually surrender his parental rights.

After reading the arguments, please leave a comment and let me know what you think.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2013, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet