My prior post was about: The Cherokee nation’s recent decision to deny citizenship to those descendants of Cherokee-owned black slaves who cannot not prove any Cherokee descent; the complex history behind that decision; and what I describe as the U.S. government’s colonial authority in pressuring the Cherokee nation to rescind the measure under threat of economic and political sanctions.
Now I’d like to discuss the problematic ways in which the press has reported this incident.
There is a long history of the American press getting it very wrong when it comes to Indian affairs. In the old days, of course, much of the misrepresentation and inaccuracy was driven by bigotry and imperial world views. In more recent times, bigotry and imperialism are generally deemed to be bad things by the mainstream culture. Yet they are still part of the larger society, and so they are still reflected in the culture, often in more subtle ways.
Add to this the fact that most journalists know next to nothing about Indian affairs, finding themselves in the unenviable position of trying to learn it on the fly when they are assigned to a story, and you have a recipe for producing a rancid stew of bigoted ideas, misinterpretations, and outright factual errors.
The one story I cited in my prior post was an MSNBC reprint of a piece by Reuters. A pretty straightforward story, it nevertheless glossed over the important details of how the former slaves achieved Cherokee citizenship to begin with, when it stated simply:
After the Civil War, in which the Cherokee fought for the South, a treaty was signed in 1866 guaranteeing tribal citizenship for the freed slaves.
This makes it sound like the Cherokee nation sided with the Confederacy and afterwards signed a typical Indian treaty with the U.S. The reality, as I outlined, is far more complicated. The Cherokees had their own bloody and devastating civil war, and many of them fought and died for the union. Meanwhile, the federal government forced the 1866 treaty on the Cherokee nation, including Freedmen citizenship and massive land seizures.
A similarly sloppy version was offered by the Associated Press, which was reprinted by NPR. In addition that story interviews three people who are aggrieved by the decision, featuring accusations of Cherokee racism. Only one person who
supports the decision was interviewed even though 76% of Cherokees voted for it.
Will Oremus’ article in Slate, published shortly after I posted my blog entry yesterday, also plays fast and loose with the facts, claiming that Cherokee slaves were freed “after the Civil War,” making no mention of Principal Chief John Ross’s 1862 proclamation freeing them, three years before the United States ended slavery with the 13th Amendment in 1865.
From there, however, Oremus moves far beyond shoddy reporting and enters the realm where a writer, perhaps unwittingly, reveals their own prejudices, assumptions, and ignorance.
“There’s always something dispiriting about one historically mistreated group taking away the rights of another,” he opines.
The haughtiness and naiveté of this statement is jaw-dropping. Apparently Oremus has a stake in the political life of black and Indian people, and their role is to keep his spirits up. What’s more, his implied assumption that the descendants of historically marginalized groups are expected to be nice to each other is not only bizarrely detached from reality (Israelis and Palestinians, anyone?), but also borderline racist. Entire ethnic groups are supposed to act en masse in ways that balance out the historical ledger? Seriously? This is nothing short of a kindergarten fantasy.
But wait, he’s not done.
“And then there’s the irony of the U.S. government admonishing Native Americans to give back to a disenfranchised minority what’s rightfully theirs.”
This statement makes it clear that Oremus believes the following:
-People who aren’t actually Cherokee have an automatic “right” to citizenship in the Cherokee nation, and that the Cherokee nation should not be allowed to decide the issue on its own.
-The U.S. is not exercising crass political authority, but rather is “admonishing” the Cherokees, as when a parent gets upset when a petulant teenager doesn’t do their chores;
-This is all somehow “ironic,” because assumably it should be Cherokees who admonish the U.S government since “historically marginalized groups” are morally superior to historically successful ones.
Ethnocentric and colonial assumptions are usually present in press reporting of Indian affairs, and this story is no different. If you’re 
interested in a Cherokee journalistic perspective, consult The Cherokee Phoenix. Originally founded in 1828 as a bi-lingual publication of the Cherokee nation, it’s one of the oldest newspapers in the country. For a non-Cherokee Indian perspective, try Indian Country Today.
But if you’re content with the longstanding tradition of reporters imbuing stories about Indian affairs with a thick blend of profound ignorance and heavy cultural baggage, then stick with the mainstream American and European press on this one. You won’t be disappointed, just misled.