hail
i just wanted to make people aware of an excellent book and site that i just discovered.
the book is "understanding the connections between black and aboriginal peoples"
it discusses ancient and contemporary links between black and native american peoples.
given its estimated that at least a third of all black people in america have native american blood its an important subject for us to check out.
i recommend this book it doesnt shy away from heavy politics and the chapter on 'resistance" was very deep showing influence of black panthers on indgenous peoples and also how the UHURU movement influenced radical indiggenous people in canada

www.firethistime.com
go to book page in menu
then go to raging blackindian

personally i have alot of problems with the work of katz
not only does his work exclude so much rich black indian histories in central and south america but
his focus on making black indians seem like something dated as opposed to relevant and contemporary is very dangerous not to mention alienating to young black indians alive today that want contemporary reference points to their culture.something i was very happy to see that this book 'understanding the connections between black and aboriginal peoples,.."was chock full of contemporary references at the same time obviously linked to the ancient.
when katz foucuses on the past he puts black indians into the cultural relic zone
nice and palpatable for academics
what he leaves out consistently is discussion of present day black indian /black and native american political alliances and what this can mean for the destructiion of babylon

check out www.firethistime.com
go to raging blackindian
then go to page marked resistance
it has a very curent and to me non romanticised evaluation of black and native resistance

if you yawn at words like babylon i hope you fall into deep comatose sleep when you hear phrases like american justice canadian justice
george bush homeland security

do yu also yawn when you hear genocide stolen land soverignty self determination

check out my tribes web-site www.occaneechi-saponi.org. We have recently been granted "official rcognition", by the state and are seeking Federal recognition. Forget that we were here from the beginning, we recognized ourselves etc. When we control our community and vote we will overcome.

I'm glad that you know your roots. Hope someday to know mines.
Never met my grandmother but was told that she was full breeded cherokee. My father was a half breed and did'nt stay in contact with his siblings. Congratulation on your peoples official recognitions. The man wants to keep us in the dark. He dont want us to ever feel proud to be who we are. Thats why documentations of the slaves was never kept. Most of us are still proud to be black. But many are still ashamed. Knowledge is power. Thankyou for your information and again congradulations.

liviti,

Thanks for the link. I thought you were joking about Indian owning slaves being that I have studied African American history and never heard of this, I was dismissive.

Of course I was right.

From the web site:

...Though less than 3% of Indian people owned slaves...

....Indian masters, however, rejected the worst features of southern white bondage. Travelers reported enslaved Africans "in as good circumstances as their masters."....

***

Liviti,

One has to be very careful when examinging history. For instance there are thousands and thousands of documents showing that African Americans owned many slaves.

The problem?

These African Americans were buying their relatives from white slave masters.

While it may appear on PAPER that African Americans and Indians owned slaves, because of the fact that they were forced to purchase their relatives back from white masters, legally.

In reality this was not the case. As your own website shows, 3 percent of Indians among only 5 tribes who are closely associated by the way with African Americans. Being that this was Oklahoma [where there was a large free settlement of African Americans], is just about the number I would expect to have purchased their own Black Indian relatives back from white slave masters.

I would need far more evidence than this to declare that Indians owned slaves.

This is the shoddy type of research that would have people declaring in a hundred years that because they found a whole bunch of papers showing that African Americans owned slaves, they believed that African Americans were the ones who mostly enslaved Africans.

When a person says Oklahoma and Indians, they are talking about one of the worst massacre's of Indians in the genocide. To then turn around and talk about Indians and whites working together in Oklahoma? Is a little ahistorical.

It is sorta like saying that the Jews who were forced to remove the dead bodies from the gas chambers, were working with Hitler.

Some of that owned slaves, "fought for the confederacy", hired to capture slaves, etc, etc is a real ahistorical misnomer of what was actually taking place.

By the way. I am Cha'taw Indian. My great grandmother was full Cha'taw Indian. This is a type of Black Indian in the Lousiana area.

Liviti,

Now you don't like your own site? Why did you post that site?

Well now you are not going to like these two sites that you just gave.

The first site that you gave states that it was white married to Indians who brought slavery.

......frontiersmen who married Indian women, were the principal slaveholders in the tribes, largely because their fathers had taught them the economics of slavery........

And your second website you gave is about a WHITE PERSON who was RUNNING an INDIAN TRIBE.

From the website, The title of the essay!:

Will Thomas: White Chief Of The Cherokee

Am I suppossed to accuse Indians of enslaving Black people because of this WHITE PERSON?????

The fact that you even consider these web pages about WHITES among Indians enslaving Blacks to be proof of Indian slavery, is LUDICROUS.

It may not be all black and white but please show stories of the RED enslaving the BLACKS.

Not the WHITES among the REDS, enslaving the BLACKS.

Liviti,

You are the one who keeps posting these idiotic sites. That claim Indians enslaved Blacks and then it turns out that the site is claiming that WHITES and WHITES who were part indian enslaved Blacks.

From your website::::

The Company was joined on Thursday by, five waggons and 21 men . . . the number . . . grew to 105 men, 15 negroes and 12 females all under the command of Clem McNair (Wright 1934:183).

The gender and racial data provided in this entry are significant. Cherokees owned slaves. Prior to the arrival of Europeans they used captured Indian slaves. After the Europeans arrived, they began to capture and later purchase African slaves. Joseph Vann, the grandfather of McNair was one of the largest slave holders in the Cherokee Nation. The "15 Negroes" were more than likely slaves.


Hey, maybe we should just have the author of this website GUESS again about who the 15 Negros were among the Cherokee's!

I looked up some of the sources for this website. ANONYMOUS was one of them. LOL!!!!!!!!!

I did not know that Cherokee's went by the name of John Brown, and Thomas Walcott.

And these Cherokee's kept DIARY's of their travels. Isn't that strange?????

Liviti,

of course this makes now the third website of WHITES among INDIANS who POSSIBLY might have owned slaves. This websites ADMITS that they are only GUESSING about that.

Still waiting for 1 shred of evidence that Indians enslaved Blacks.

YAWN.

Liviti,

I don't hold out any hope whatsoever for the Black man, accept through Jesus. So you can forget me thinking that we have a "spiritual" bond with Indians.

My point is and remains that it is a deep mischarecterization of Indians to, based on the behavior of only 5 tribes out of hundreds of tribes, to call Indians slave owners.

Even worse than charecterizing hundreds of Indian Tribes as slave holders based on these 5 tribes, is to charecterize the majority of full blooded Indians among these tribes based on the even smaller percentage of "white" Indian slave holders among them.

For instance from one of your websites we learn that only 3 percent of the Indians in these 5 tribes owned slaves. Most of these the whites who married Indian women.

Yet these same sites say that 20 to 25 percent of the Cherokee Nation was African Americans!

That would be like saying Black Americans are Hindu's based on the fact that less than 1 out of a thousand Black People are Hindu's.

Sure it is true that one can find a Hindu among Black Americans, but it is really lopsided to call Black Americans who are 95 percent Christians, Hindu's.

Sure you can find an Indian among one of these 5 tribes who owned slaves, but then to charecterize the 99.8 percent of Indians who never owned slaves as slave owners, based on that is ludicrous.

This is a very lively debate. It got a little rough in there, but ya'll kept it respectful... :thanks:

I love it...and I'm learning a lot.

:toast:

Liviti,

Things can be correct and they can still be a mischarecterization because of the prominence you give them.

For instance only 10 percent of African Americans ever go to prison. You wouldn't know that from the prominence the African Americans going to jail are given.

In fact African Americans only make up 7 percent of drug users in this country but again you would not know that because of the prominence that the African American crack head is given.

Distortion, emphasis and placement of CORRECT facts can often lead to images, beliefs and perceptions that are INCORRECT.

Or as a historian would say: ahistorical.

That would be like me pointing out that African Americans owned slaves. While correct. It is ahistorical and does not reveal any truth of what was happening in this country.

Or another quite popular distortion is the fact that Africans sold slaves. Once again CORRECT but a hugh distortion that does not show the truth of the situtation.

Money,

Smile

Liviti,

The truth is that the majority of Indian Tribes fought WITH the Black man against the Whiteman for hundreds of years. But on the verge of genocide, 5 tribes tried to save themselves by becoming civilized. These tribes were referred to by whites as the 5 civilized tribes.

These tribes which were so integrated into white culture that some of their chiefs were even WHITE. Less than 3 percent participated in slavery and these mostly the white members of the tribes.

Eventually these 5 civilized tribes were basically slaughtered and ripped off by the whiteman that they were trying to copy. The Full blooded Indians decided that it was due to their participation in slavery, no matter how small. So after some fighting with the whites and the mixed whites among them, the full blooded Indians were able to prevail and get all the slaves freed.

liviti,

I wouldn't worry about those who "romanticize" history. I would worry more about the fact that history is "politicized".

It is just a known fact that whites are looking for any historical facts no matter how small, to try and "muddy" the issue of their great guilt.

So they bring up the miniscule amount of "mixed" Indians, some of them with white chiefs, in an even smaller amount of tribes who enslaved Africans, so now they throw things out of proportion.

350,000 white slave owners and 2 Indians enslaved Blacks.

In fact the person trying to bring up the Indian slavers is the one trying to "romanticize" history for current POLITICAL REASONS. .

White history that is.

Osiyo, posters...

And, thank you so very much, Liviti!

The information I found via the link you wrote about is
very important/significant/relevant to me...

And will be to other black indians I'm associated with nowadays!

Take care...

Peace...