"If one starts out believing the false allegation that none of them either have indigenous ancestry or that only the non-indigenous folk are subject to review because they don't honor their treay obligations etc. then I'm not the one making it personal and/or being subjective about it all..."
I'd like to know who is making these allegations. I don't think it's anyone in this forum. And naturally resent any implication that I make them. I've been extremely clear on my view.
The sense I get from this place and from tribal politics nationwide is that tribal sovereignty trumps non-Indians from claiming citizenship. As it necessarily should.
It is regrettable that this would come about, with the promise made by the tribe to them centuries ago. But allowed to continue indefinitely, there'll be a large segment of 'Cherokee' in the tribe with no actual Cherokee heritage. An unacceptable condition with all other tribes today. Particularly with so many wanting on tribal rolls for benefits or whatever. Cherokee cannot be an exception.
What if anglos with the heritage insisted the tribe instate them with no solid proof, and there are many more of them than there are Freedmen with no heritage or proof. It's the same rules for everyone. We're all on the same boat.
Like many, I'm one of them. I have no solid proof save my appearance, family history and my ancestors' appearance. I'm told my Great-granddad on mom's side either (a) wouldn't register with CNO & Dawes when he moved here from the east, or (b) was an alcoholic who sold his citizenship for drinking money (or just needed money), a common occurance.
But unlike the disgruntled on both sides and today, I don't insist. I do the smarter thing - involve myself and participate in specific tribal ways. Like I'm told my Great-grand said in effect,"I don't need a government paper for me or my people to know what I am." And recommend this approach to those so inclined. It garners a lot more respect and results, the kind that matters.
One can hold to their opinions, regardless. And one can parse the circumstance however it suits them. But the bottom line is - tribal lineage and integrity. Sovereignty and tribal self-determination. It cannot be marginalized.
And Chuck, you have and do target me as an adversary on this topic. When my stance has always been we all individually must accept our lot as recognized or non-recognized, but be honest and continue living as seen fit. It would be childish to think debate will 'correct' it. It's out of our hands. The Freedmen who are Cherokee, who are at least 1/8th in lineage, need to remain Cherokee. Others should accept their lot. I have.
With that, you should realize, and act on it - you and I really need to be done with this as regards one another. You just do what you can, where you can. I have been doing it for some time.
That said; Respecting you as well. And those in your family who may not have heritage, but are still family. You have to know, it was not an easy nor was it a sole decision - you know already, family is centrally important to us as well. Sovereign or not, CNO did need correcting regarding how those Freedmen finding themselves non-indigenous could most humanely be tribally released. Something I've felt long before the letter, and entirely pleased it would come about.