What it demonstrates is that "minorities" care no more about other "minorities" than the "majority" does.  Having been "discriminated" against, themselves, does not prevent them from "discriminating" against others. This is not to say that what the Cherokee are doing is wrong.  They are not "discriminating."  They are defining and enforcing requirements, not excluding because of "color."  We just finished a couple of weeks of conversation about what those whites did to those poor Indians and what those whites did to those poor blacks.  Now the conversation has turned to what those Indians are doing to those poor whites and blacks.  So far on this board no one is championing either "minority" which, considering the past two weeks' conversation, I find quite interesting.  What does one do when one "minority" goes up against another "minority"?  Who you gonna root for, the descendents of slaves, the descendents of whites who married Indians, or the descendents of Indians? 
 This oughtta be good.  
   
  

Basil Forest <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
  The Cherokee having suffered the slings and arrows (no pun intended) of 
racism, and the exclusion from the rights of the majority, I would think there 
would be some community of interest and sensitivity in this regard on their 
part.



**************************************
AOL now offers free 
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html


To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html