VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Sunshine49 <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:21:18 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (52 lines)
There seems to be  a big shake-up in Cherokee culture in general now;  
I have read in several sources of the identification of their  
ancestral homeland, a mountain in NC, with remains and conditions as  
discovered being pretty much as the legends have always said existed,  
and now there is a fight going on within the Cherokee about what to  
do with it; some want to keep it private, a sacred tribal spot;  
others want to build at least part of it, develop it and make it a  
tourist destination. Which, personally, I find appalling. The world  
will never run out of places and excuses for yet another 'tourist  
destination'; culturally sensitive and sacred places are vanishing  
like the Dodo. There needs to be a time when any people must keep in  
mind what is left to future generations, and not just the short-term  
gain.

Nancy

-------
I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days.

--Daniel Boone



On Mar 3, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Debra Jackson/Harold Forsythe wrote:

> The term "badge of slavery" was used in John Marshall Harlan's  
> famous dissent in Plessey v. Ferguson (1896) over racial  
> segregation.  Since it was used in a dissent, it is barely a term  
> of art in constitutional law, let alone a title for a doctrine.   
> One might as well argue, as some on the far right have, that  
> citizenship acquired under the 14th Amendment is a badge of  
> slavery.  Moreover, the Cherokee were not required to sign the  
> treaty, they could have taken the consequences of not signing it.   
> American Indians will probably never take the 'coercion' legal  
> argument to court for fear that whites will make similar claims to  
> disallow Native American treaty claims.
>
> In any case, a treaty that is over 140 years old will almost  
> certainly stand.  The legal issue will be about what the treaty means.
>
> I remember reading in John Rembar's The Law of the Land, that  
> equity does not favor those who sleep on their rights.  A major  
> question that will undoubtedly come up in court is why the  
> Cherokees in 2007 are voting to remove people from the tribal  
> structure who have been free men and women within the Cherokee  
> Nation since Cherokee self-emancipation (that you refer to.)
>
> Harold S. Forsythe

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US