>>Dr. Nelson: In this unit on Cherokee governance
and society, we're going to come across a
great deal in terms of policy and history
that touches on tribes all across not only
Oklahoma but really all across the nation.
And in their move towards nationalism and
their opposition to removal, the Cherokee
people in many ways forced the United States
to clarify its positions on policy, to own
up to some of its inconsistencies in policy,
and confront what, quite frankly, avarice
and duplicity had to do with the Cherokee
removal. So as we work our way through this
foundational and admittedly confusing body
of law that grew out of several court cases
that the Cherokees brought, we'll see that
the challenges that they raised with the Supreme
Court did an enormous amount to structure
what it means to be Indian in today's America,
and also we'll see that that story reveals
a great deal about what is yet to be resolved
when it comes to the structure of the United
States government as a whole.
>>Dr. Swan: So this concept of Indian Territory,
this has been around a long time. I think
that people think that that's something uniquely
Oklahoma based. But this whole issue of removal
has has been a part of of the relationship
between the federal government and Native
peoples for a tremendously long time.
>>Dr. Nelson: That's absolutely right. And
in fact, part of the big problem came up with
the Cherokees' case through Georgia's claims
to land. They had a 1802 compact, so this
is well before even Jackson. And that compact
said that Georgia would give up some lands
so that the feds could have them in exchange
for the feds working to extinguish Cherokee
title just as soon as they were able. So yeah,
it was even on Thomas Jefferson's mind that
that might be an option to start moving tribes
west of the Mississippi.
>>Dr. Swan: Mmhmm. So based on the readings
and the videos that we'll engage in this unit
of the course, one question that's got to
be paramount is there's a Cherokee Nation
in North Carolina. Could you could you help
us understand that?
>>Dr. Nelson: Right. Not only is there one
in North Carolina, there are two in Oklahoma.
So we've got three federally recognized groups
of Cherokee folks, and that in essence grows
out of removal, which is where we're going
to sort of lead up to and try to get a sense
of what steps were involved. But in essence
what happened was after the federal government
came in and rounded up all the Cherokees they
could find, it nevertheless left a few straggling
back in the hills of North Carolina. And with
the help of some benefactors and with their
own agency, they got together and worked out
a way that they would be able to stay after
the main body of Cherokee folks had come over
in the late 1830s.
>>Dr. Swan: So so how does that work? Is it
is it one unit with three separate bodies?
Or are they all federally recognized?
>>Dr. Nelson: All three are federally recognized,
but they are each independent sovereign nations.
So they operate more or less in the same way
that the Cherokees and the Creeks do. They've
got their own systems of government. They've
got their own constituent bodies. There are
a few folks, I believe, who are still kind
of enrolled in both places. As long as you
can trace back an ancestor who was on the
original roles, you can join up in a couple
of different spots, although, for reasons
that we'll talk about later on in the course,
that's increasingly less the case. We're all
related, but we're of different governments.
>>Dr. Swan: You mentioned the Cherokee case
situation has really been foundational in
the shaping of federal Indian policy.
>>Dr. Nelson: Yeah.
>>Dr. Swan: Is is that still ongoing today?
>>Dr. Nelson: As a matter of fact, it is.
So not only do the Cherokees bring suit in
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, wherein John Marshall
starts to establish the groundwork for federal
Indian law because Congress was largely silent
on the matter. It continues today. Cherokee
people are—sorry, the Cherokee Nation, I
should be more clear—continue to bring some
of the most pointed challenges to the courts
so far. And again, we'll we'll talk to folks
about what some of those most pressing challenges
facing tribal nations today are. But for one
reason or another, I don't know if we've just
been cranking out lawyers for so long that
we don't know how to quit, but for some reason
it seems to very oftentimes be the case that
the Cherokees are the ones who are demanding
of the court an answer to problems that they're
facing right now.
>>Dr. Swan: Is it true that the Cherokee were
among the first Native nations to author an
independent constitution?
>>Dr. Nelson: To the best of my knowledge,
they were the first. Now there were some tribes
who had official sorts of compacts set up
like the Iroquois Confederacy, but to the
best of my knowledge, the Cherokees in 1827
when they ratified their constitution were
the first to declare to the international
community that "Now we too are a nation and
we are amongst your ranks."
>>Dr. Swan: So that is foundational then because
today it's very common to refer to what we
used to call tribes as as Native nations today--
>>Dr. Nelson: Mmhmm, yeah.
>>Dr. Swan: --and and recognizing them as
separate governmental entities. So this all
started with the Cherokee?
>>Dr. Nelson: Okay, and so where that constitution
grew out of, the sorts of needs that the Cherokee
folks thought that they had to address, started
in some ways as a kind of bulwark against
colonial incursions, right. And even though
the constitution itself is in many ways patterned
on the U.S. Constitution, it has a couple
of very specific and super important distinctions.
One is that land is to be held in common,
right. And so that's one of the main ways
that the Cherokee Nation distinguishes itself
from many other nations. So even as they set
up a Republican sort of government, even as
they have a kind of bicameral legislature,
even as they consolidate the position of chief
from the former red and white chiefs into
one standing entity, they nevertheless say
very plainly, "We are in many ways here on
an equal footing."
>>Dr. Swan: So this is the beginning of that
nation-to-nation relationship.
>>Dr. Nelson: I think that's exactly right,
and that court case Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
shows us that a Native nation is not exactly
like France, say, but it is still a nation,
a political unit, and a state, John Marshall
even says, that is invested with certain rights
that are inherent. And so this gives rise
to our discussions about sovereignty that
are ongoing today and that we frankly can't
not talk about.
>>Dr. Swan: You mentioned these issues of
membership --
>>Dr. Nelson: Mmhmm.
>>Dr. Swan: -- and it seems like this is a
a major point of discourse within the Cherokee
Nation today.
>>Dr. Nelson: Oh, yeah. Belonging has always
been troubled ground, and one of the things
that a lot of people continue to think about
the Cherokees is—well, first of all that
they're related to them. [laughs] You know,
we oftentimes hear --
>>Dr. Swan: [laughs] Sure.
>>Dr. Nelson: -- about "my Cherokee great-grandmother,"
and how full-blooded she was, and things like
that. But there's a prevailing idea that the
Cherokees are among the most assimilated of
folks, and we hear Cherokee people say this
themselves. Part of the reason for that is
they don't have a minimum blood quantum requirement.
You know, we've heard maybe about the certificate
of degree of Indian blood card, right, wherein
we've got the kind of fraction of blood that
details ostensibly just how Indian you are.
Back in the the turn of the 20th century,
the Cherokees rejected that logic, which in
many ways kind of grew out of a eugenics movement
--
>>Dr. Swan: Mmhmm.
>>Dr. Nelson: -- that was overly concerned
with what blood did and what it made up of
not just your your racial self, but also your
personality, and your behaviors, and everything
else. So the Cherokees somehow managed to
divert that demand. So they don't have a minimum
blood quantum requirement, and some people
have felt like that has turned them into one
of the most assimilated tribes.
>>Dr. Swan: Mm.
