This is a specific subject page, dealing exclusively with, or primarily with, the subject in the title. Because of need, there are many such pages at RHWW: usually, but not always, linked to primary pages. For those in a hurry, they enable a quick summary of many important subjects. The menu for these pages is here: Click>>>

BLACK AMERICAN INDIANS

(As opposed to Mongol American Indians)

Our Enslavers, Murderers, and Oppressors

told us that "THESE" were "REAL" Indians...

Actually they are "Mulatto" American Indians

And "THESE" (WE) were Slaves all the way from Africa.

Actually only a very small percentage of today's Black Americans are descended from African Slaves. Of the total 308,005 African Slaves imported into North America: (Mexico, United States, Canada), computer calculations determined that only 288,000 of their descendants still remained, (due to their short lives, poor food, overwork, etc. their numbers declined).

BACKGROUND:

What we were told about "Real" Indians.

Clovis culture From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is how they began: The Clovis culture is a prehistoric Paleo-Indian culture, named for distinct stone tools found in close association with Pleistocene fauna at Blackwater Locality No. 1 near Clovis, New Mexico, in the 1920s and 1930s. The culture first appears around 11,500–11,000 years before present (BP) at the end of the last glacial period, and is characterized by the manufacture of "Clovis points" and distinctive bone and ivory tools. Archaeologists' most precise determinations at present suggest this radiocarbon age is equal to roughly 13,200 to 12,900 calendar years ago. Clovis people are considered to be the ancestors of most of the indigenous cultures of the Americas. The only human burial that has been directly associated with tools from the Clovis culture included the remains of an infant boy named Anzick-1. Researchers from the United States and Europe conducted paleogenetic research on Anzick-1's ancient nuclear, mitochondrial, and Y-chromosome DNA. The results of these analyses reveal that Anzick-1 is closely related to modern Native American populations, which lends support to the Beringia hypothesis for the settlement of the Americas. (As will be demonstrated further down - This is typical Albino bull** intended to protect all of those Albinos claiming to be Indians).

Indian Haplogroups (supposed)

According to DNAeXplained (a blog), To date, proven base Native haplogroups are: Y DNA: Q & C. Mitochondrial DNA: A, B, C, D, X.

As will be demonstrated at the bottom of this page; this genetic stuff is pure nonsense.

http://genetics.ncai.org/tribal-enrollment-and-genetic-testing.cfm

The Beringian Standstill Hypothesis Also known as the Beringian Incubation Model (BIM), proposes that the people who would eventually colonize the Americas spent between ten to twenty thousand years stranded on the Bering Land Bridge (BLB), the now-submerged plain beneath the Bering Sea called Beringia. The BIM argues that during the turbulent times of the Last Glacial Maximum about 30,000 years ago, people from what is today Siberia in northeastern Asia arrived in Beringia. Because of local climate changes, they became trapped there, cut off from Siberia by glaciers in the Verkhoyansk Range in Siberia and in the Mackenzie River valley in Alaska. There they remained in the tundra environment of Beringia until retreating glaciers and rising sea levels allowed--and eventually forced--their migration into the remainder of the Americas about 15,000 years ago.

After the discovery of several Clovis sites in eastern North America in the 1930s, the Clovis people came to be regarded as the first human inhabitants who created a widespread culture in the New World. However, this theory has been challenged, in the opinion of many archaeologists, by several archaeological discoveries, including sites such as Cactus Hill in Virginia, Paisley Caves in the Summer Lake Basin of Oregon, the Topper site in Allendale County, South Carolina, Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania, the Friedkin site in Texas, Cueva Fell in Chile and, especially, Monte Verde, also in Chile. The oldest claimed human archaeological site in the Americas is the Pedra Furada hearths, a site in Brazil that precedes the Clovis culture and the other sites already mentioned by 19,000 to 30,000 years.

Study - Humans were in America 100,000 years earlier than we thought.

By Gisela Crespo, CNN, April 26, 2017

The remains of a mastodon discovered during a routine excavation in California shows

possible human activity in North America 130,000 years ago -- or about 115,000 years earlier than previously thought.

Paleontologists with the San Diego Natural History Museum discovered the remains of the elephant-like animal more than 20 years ago. But it wasn't until now that scientists were able to accurately date the findings, and possibly rewrite the history of the New World as we know it. "This is a whole new ball game," Steve Holen, co-director of the Center for American Paleolithic Research and the paper's lead author, told CNN. The discovery changes the understanding of when humans reached North America. The study, to be published this week in the science journal Nature, said the numerous limb bones fragments of a young male mastodon found at the site show spiral fractures, indicating they were broken while fresh.
The scientists say they found what appear to be hammerstones and stone anvils at the site, showing that ancient humans had the manual skill and knowledge to use stone tools to extract the animal's Bone Marrow and possibly to use its bones to make tools. The site was named Cerutti Mastodon site, in honor of Richard Cerutti, who made the discovery and led the excavation.

Said Dr. Dan Fisher, professor of paleontology at the University of Michigan and one of the authors on the original paper. "it would have been ideal if human remains or even flaked stones tools were found at the Cerutti Mastodon site, but none were. However, a majority of archaeological sites lack human remains, and the absence of flaked stone tools at a site does not necessarily mean an absence of humans". In proposing that the Cerutti Mastodon site was a bone processing site—not a meat butchering site or a campsite—the authors suggest that only expedient tools in the form of cobble hammers and anvils were required to break bones and molars into smaller pieces that could be as raw material for other needs, or to harvest marrow

____________________________________________________

List of oldest human remains in the Americas, (those over 9,000 years old).

Ancient Beringian - based on the genome of an infant found at the Upward Sun River site Alaska (dubbed USR1), dated to 11,500 years ago.
Anzick Clovis burial - in Park County, Montana, United States, is the only known Clovis burial site in the Americas - 13,000 BP.
Anzick-1 - is the name given to the remains of Paleo-Indian male infant found in south central Montana, U.S. 12,707–12,556 years BP.
Arlington Springs Man (woman actually) - The Arlington Springs man is a set of Late Pleistocene human remains discovered on Santa Rosa Island, one of the Channel Islands located off the coast of Southern California. 13,000 BP

Brooks Falls - Brooks Falls is a waterfall located within Katmai National Park and Preserve in Alaska. The site's archaeological human remnants date back some 9,000 years
Buhl Woman - Buhla is the name for a skeleton of a prehistoric (Paleo-Indian) woman found in a quarry near Buhl, Idaho. 10,500 BP

Eve of Naharon - Eve of Naharon is the skeleton of a 25- to 30-year-old human female found in the Naharon section of the underwater cave Sistema Naranjal in Mexico near the town of Tulum, around 80 miles south west of Cancún. The skeleton is carbon dated to 13,600 years ago.

Grimes Point, Nevada - A small rock shelter was discovered in 1939 by guano-miners; It was dated to 9,470 BP. Associated were the well-preserved remains of a child, about ten years old, and small fragments of an older individual.
Kennewick Man - is the name generally given to the skeletal remains of a prehistoric Paleoamerican man found on a bank of the Columbia River in Kennewick, Washington, United States. 9,000 BP.

La Brea Woman - is the name for the only human whose remains have ever been found in the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles. The remains, were the partial skeleton of a woman at around 18-25 years of age at death, she has been dated at 10,220–10,250 BP.
Lansing Man - is the name commonly given to a collection of human remains dug up in the loess banks of the Missouri River near Lansing, Kansas. The human remains found consisted of a skull and several large bones from an adult male, as well as a child's mandible. The geological strata in which the remains lay was dated to anywhere between 10,000 and 35,000 years old, predating the last ice age.
Leanderthal Lady - is the skeletal remains of a prehistoric woman found at the Wilson-Leonard Brushy Creek Site (an ancient Native American campsite) in the city of Cedar Park, Texas. Carbon dating and stratigraphic analysis showed the remains to be 10,000 to 13,000 years old.
Luzia Woman - skeleton of a Paleo-Indian woman who was found in a cave in Brazil. 11,500 years old

Marmes Rockshelter - is near the confluence of the Snake and Palouse Rivers, in Franklin County, southeastern Washington. Human and elk bones dating indicated that the human remains were about 10,000 years old.
Minnesota Woman - also known as Pelican Rapids-Minnesota Woman, is the name given to the skeletal remains of a woman thought to be 8,000 years old. The bones were found near Pelican Rapids, Minnesota
Moaning Cavern - is a solutional cave located in the Calaveras County, California. Moaning Caverns is also an archaeological site, where some of the oldest human remains known in America were discovered. These human deposits were about 12,000 years old, there are also many other human bones in these caves, some of them from the more recent periods. The cave has long been the resting spot for the bodies of prehistoric people who fell into its opening.

Naia (skeleton) - is the name given to a 12,000–13,000 year-old human skeleton of a teenage female that was found in the Yucatán, Mexico.
Paiján culture - In 1975, at La Pampa de los Fósiles, Peru: Claude Chauchat discovered skeletal remains of a teenager about 12-13 years old, and of a young woman of about 25 years old, buried in a layer of ash. Radiocarbon studies gave an age of 10,200 BP.
Paisley Caves - The Paisley Caves complex is a system of four caves in an arid, desolate region of south-central Oregon, United States. DNA, radiocarbon dated to 14,300 years ago, was found in subfossil human coprolites uncovered in the Paisley Five Mile Point Caves in south-central Oregon.
Peñon woman - is the name for the human remains, specifically a skull, of a Paleo-Indian woman found by an ancient lake bed near Mexico City. The skeleton's age has been estimated by radiocarbon dating to be 12,705 BP.
Piedra Museo - is an archaeological site in Santa Cruz Province, Argentina. Its human fossil remains date from approximately 11,000 years ago.
Spirit Cave mummy - is the oldest human mummy found in North America. It was discovered in Spirit Cave, east of Fallon, Nevada. Mass spectrometry results indicated that the mummy was approximately 9,400 years old.
Tepexpan man - is a skeleton, discovered on the shores of the former Lake Texcoco in central Mexico. New uranium-series date the skeleton to 4,700 years BP, which would indicate a Holocene age.
Tlapacoya (archeological site) - Tlapacoya is an important archaeological site in Mexico, located at the foot of the Tlapacoya volcano, southeast of Mexico City, on the former shore of Lake Chalco. Tlapacoya was a major site for the Tlatilco culture. Tlapacoya skull is the first directly dated human in Mexico with an age of 9,730 BP.
Tuqan Man - Is the skull and bones of a man buried between 9,800 and 10,200 years ago on San Miguel Island, in California's Channel Islands.
Upward Sun River site - The Upward Sun River site, or Xaasaa Na’, is located in the Tanana River Valley, Alaska. Dated to around 11,500 BP.

____________________________________________________

National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior

(The National Park Service has jurisdiction over all skeletons and archaeological materials)

Chapter 5
Cultural Affiliation Study of the Kennewick Human Remains:

Review of Bio-Archaeological Information
Steven Hackenberger Ph.D.
with contributions by Lourdes Henebry-DeLeon and Erin M. Shumate

Works in Progress - chapter 6:

Quote: Neves and Blum (2000) are testing the recent claim that craniofacial observations of the Buhl Paleoindian remains are similar to other North American and East Asian (Chinese) populations. The measurements of the Buhl skull were compared to twenty-six modern populations (Howells), and to a Paleoindian skull from Lapa Vermelha, Brazil, which shows morphological similarities with Africans and Australians. Multivariate analysis shows that there is a great difference between the Paleoindian skulls, and when compared to the modern populations the skulls belong to different clusters. They suggest that at least two populations peopled the Americas; one with characteristic "Mongoloid morphology," and another with a generalized morphology. (Note that the European Albino is a mere 8-10% of the Human population - generalized does NOT mean them)!

To put the above into plain language: The Americas were settled by two peoples; Blacks like Africans, Polynesians, and Australians: and Mongols that are "NOT" like the Chinese. Today's Chinese are a "Mulatto" people of Mongol and Albino mixture. In the American Hemisphere - think Brazil, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic - and substitute Black and Albino.   THESE are authentic Mongol People - Not the Chinese!

ANOTHER SCIENTIFIC STUDY WHICH SAYS THE SAME THING!

The first humans in North America were also Negroid Blacks

National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior, continued: Report on the Osteological Assessment of the "Kennewick Man" Skeleton by Joseph F. Powell and Jerome C. Rose, March 1, 1999. Quote: The Kennewick skeleton - the most craniometrically similar samples appeared to be those from the south Pacific and Polynesia.

WE HAVE PICTURES OF WHAT THE FIRST AMERICANS LOOKED LIKE

Courtesy of the First European Explorers who often brought along artists

to make pictures of the new People, Plants, and Animals, they encountered for publication when they returned to Europe.

Ancient Blacks of SOUTH AMERICA

THE INCA..

Ancient Blacks of CENTRAL AMERICA

THE OLMEC

Ancient Blacks of the CARIBBEAN

Ancient Blacks of NORTH AMERICA

WESTERN UNITED STATES - California

CENTRAL UNITED STATES - Wisconsin

EASTERN UNITED STATES - New York

Modern era descendants of Ancient Blacks of the United States

Pure Blood Black Indian		Pure Blood Mongol Indian

As we can clearly see, these famous Indian Chiefs, were in fact Albino Mulattoes.

As were these Indian Warriors

WHAT ABOUT THE AFRICANS?

The Emory University Voyages database is a World-Wide collaboration of Universities and Scientists researching the Slave Trade.

The fruits of their labor is housed in a database in Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

The Slave Voyages Consortium at Emory University has been updated for 2021.

The latest version is Slave Voyages v2.2.13. A facsimile of the Table of number of

Slaves landed, and where they were disembarked, and the associated Map, is located here: Click>>>

After 40 years of collaborative research, the group determined that only 308,005 Africans were landed in Mexico, The United States, and Canada.

Using the "FULL" 308,005 number for the United States ONLY (because we had no way to break the number up), we ran a "Population Replacement Level" algorithm (taking into account the documented condition of Slaves). The result told us (using a bigger number than was real), that the population of Blacks in the United States, who are the descendants of African Slaves, in 2018 should be about 288,000 people, (their poor nutrition, heavy workload and short lifespan would cause their numbers to decline). 288,000 IS A TINY FRACTION OF THE BLACK POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES!

Clearly the Black population of the United States is overwhelmingly Expelled Black Europeans and

"REAL" American Indians. Unfortunately, at this time we have no way of determining proportions.

This page is exclusively about the Black American Indian, other pages such as "Black Britain" and "The Black Holy Roman Empire" tell the stories of how and why Black Europeans were enslaved.

The journal of Lewis and Clark

In the journal of Lewis and Clark, Lewis relates how while walking round in front of the fort he suddenly saw the women and children of the friendly Indian tribe whose territory the fort was in, come running toward him. As they went by he asked what was the matter; but they only pointed behind as they went by. Then suddenly an Indian warrior in full war paint was before him, knowing he was about to die he steeled himself. But to his amazement the Indian pushed him aside saying; "out of my way White man, so I can kill these dogs".

The Lewis and Clark Expedition from May 1804 to September 1806, was the first American expedition to cross the western portion of the United States. It began near St. Louis, made its way westward, and passed through the Continental Divide of the Americas to reach the Pacific coast. All along the way, they encountered Albino "Frontiersman" and descendants of Albino "Frontiersman" who had for generations hunted and trapped in those lands, and had taken Indian wives. The Mulattoes produced by these mating’s often became chiefs and high officials of the Tribe.

The journal indicates that over the many thousands of miles the expedition covered, the Indians were friendly and helpful. Except for this one encounter on the way back home: Quote - July 27 1806 - Piikani Nation tribe members ("Blackfeet") try to steal Lewis's group's rifles. A fight broke out and two native Americans were killed in the only hostile and violent encounter with a tribe.

Manifest destiny - Wiki: In the 19th century, manifest destiny was a widely held belief in the United States that its settlers were destined to expand across North America. There are three basic themes to manifest destiny: The special virtues of the American people and their institutions The mission of the United States to redeem and remake the west in the image of agrarian America An irresistible destiny to accomplish this essential duty Historian Frederick Merk says this concept was born out of "a sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example ... generated by the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven" Historians have emphasized that "manifest destiny" was a contested concept—pre-civil war Democrats endorsed the idea but many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs) rejected it. Historian Daniel Walker Howe writes, "American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity ... Whigs saw America's moral mission as one of democratic example rather than one of conquest." Newspaper editor John O'Sullivan is generally credited with coining the term manifest destiny in 1845.     REALITY CHECK -1 By now the sensible person must be thinking: if this is TRUE, then Albinos are not only liars, they are crazy sociopath's trying to gobble-up everything in sight - like the Borg of Star trek. (The only analogy that comes to mind).   REALITY CHECK -2 The lie - Brave Albinos tamed the Wild Blood-thirsty savages of the Americas. The truth - as is made clear in the journal of Lewis and Clark, not only were the Indians they meant friendly and helpful, but they also constantly encountered fellow Albinos who preceded them, and had on their own, and by themselves, been hunting and trading with Indians in those lands for generations. In other words; THE WOODS WERE SAFE! Additionally, their children with Indian women produced many Chiefs of the Indian Tribes. It seems the only "Wild, Blood-Thirsty, Savages" were the Albinos: the Indians were just stupid, a greater harm to themselves than to the Albinos. Question - How much of the Indians ultimate failure, has to do with the fact that Many/Most of their most prominent Chiefs were in fact ALBINO MULATTOES? Would "Pure-Blood" Black or Mongol Chiefs have led them in the same way?

Now see what the Albinos and Albino Mulattoes have done with

Black Lands, Black Property, Black Identity, and Black Paraphernalia.

Cherokee Nation Faces Scrutiny for Expelling Blacks

NPR - September 19, 2011

Alex Kellogg

Every September, the Cherokee Nation celebrates its national holiday. The holiday marks the signing of its first constitution after the Trail of Tears in 1839. The main event, a big parade, features traditional Cherokee music, colorful floats and people singing and dancing in traditional garb. The holiday draws tens of thousands of people to Tahlequah, Okla., the heart of the Cherokee Nation. But this year it was marked by controversy and protests.

The Cherokee Nation recently decided to limit its membership to people who can prove they have Indian blood. This strips of their citizenship rights about 2,800 African-Americans who are descendants of slaves once owned by wealthy Cherokees. Those rights include access to health care clinics, food distribution for the poor, and assistance for low-income homeowners. The move prompted protests among these African-Americans, who are known as Freedmen, because for long periods in the past, they enjoyed equal rights in the Cherokee tribe. But in more recent history, their citizenship rights have been repeatedly challenged. The decision has also put the Cherokees at odds with the federal government.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development has already suspended more than $37 million in funding to the Cherokee Nation. The Justice Department said last week that a key election for tribal chief later this month will not be recognized by the Department of the Interior, which has oversight over Indian affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs declined an interview request, but in a letter sent to the Cherokee Nation earlier this month, it said the Freedmen's citizenship rights cannot be revoked. The Cherokee first agreed to grant the Freedmen equal rights in a treaty signed with the U.S. in 1866, following the end of the Civil War.

REAL CHEROKEE

Emancipation and the Dawes Rolls

In 1866, the Cherokee Nation signed a treaty with the federal government that abolished slavery, except as a means of punishment, and granted former African-American slaves and their descendants "all the rights of native Cherokees." Blacks often had more rights on Indian reservations and territories in the South than they did in the Jim Crow South. Many of these former slaves were later listed by the U.S. government as "Freedmen" on an index known as the Dawes Rolls. The Dawes Rolls lists the names of Indian citizens who applied for enrollment on the rolls of various tribes in Oklahoma around the turn of the 20th century. Today, the Cherokee Nation requires that a citizen have an Indian ancestor who appears on the Dawes Rolls. The document not only had categories for Indians who were mixed with white, but also categories for whites who married into the tribe, and blacks (Freedmen). The index was finalized on March 4, 1907, though updates would be made later.

FAKE CHEROKEE (European Albinos)

The Dawes Rolls

The Dawes Rolls (or Final Rolls of Citizens and Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes, or Dawes Commission of Final Rolls) were created by the United States Dawes Commission. The Commission, authorized by United States Congress in 1893, forced the Five Civilized Tribes to agree to a land allotment plan and dissolution of the reservation system. In order to allot the communal lands, all the citizens of the five tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole) had to be registered, including freedmen who had been emancipated after the American Civil War and their descendants. The rolls were needed as the basis to assign the allotments to heads of household and to provide an equitable division of all monies obtained from sales of surplus lands. These rolls became known as the Dawes Rolls. The Dawes Commission was quickly flooded by applicants from all over the country trying to get on the rolls. The Commission went to the individual tribes to obtain the membership lists but the first attempts were inadequate. Finally Congress passed the Curtis Act of 1898; it provided that a new roll would be taken and supersede all previous rolls.

Overall the rolls are incomplete and inaccurate for the following reasons: many individuals from each tribe were not correctly documented, some individuals were entirely excluded because white census takers didn't believe an individual looked "Indian enough", families had already left Indian Territory after the Civil War, or individuals termed "Blanket Indians" refused to be enrolled because they did not trust the government. These factors created descendants whom are Native American by blood unenrollable in the tribes they descend from. Historian Kent Carter termed people who are Native American by blood, but are unable to enroll because of the previously listed factors the "Outalucks".

Tribal citizens were enrolled under several categories:

Citizen by Blood
New Born Citizen by Blood
Minor Citizens by Blood
Citizen by Marriage
Freedmen (persons formerly enslaved by Native Americans and/or adopted by the Cherokee tribe)
New Born Freedmen
Minor Freedmen
Delaware Indians (those adopted by the Cherokee tribe were enrolled as a separate group within the Cherokee)

The Freedmen say they've been kicked out of the

Cherokee Nation by people who are no more Indian than they are.

(These poor fools don't know that they probably ARE Indian (read on) - the price of ignorance)

"The majority of folks who are members of the tribe ... have lived lives of white privilege," says Marilyn Vann, who heads the Descendants of Freedman Association. She says many Cherokees are largely white and are "people who have never been discriminated against in their lives."

The Cherokee Nation's Supreme Court ruled in late August that the black Freedmen could be stripped of their citizenship because they can't prove they have Indian blood. The tribe first voted in favor of this effort in 2007. While turnout for Cherokee elections tends to be low, more than 75 percent of all voters were in favor of the move. Cherokee leaders say it's not a matter of race, but a simple matter of narrowing the definition of Indian down to those people who can prove they have Indian blood."This is not a club; you can't just claim to be Cherokee and show up and be included," says Cara Cowan Watts, a vocal member of the Cherokees' tribal council. The Cherokee Nation is the largest of three federally recognized Cherokee tribes. It boasts more than 300,000 members, and like many Indian nations, it fiercely defends its right to self-governance. "This is absolutely something that we have to defend. And the Cherokee people overwhelmingly voted in the Constitution that we want to remain an Indian tribe made up of Indians," Watts says.

Watts notes that the Cherokee Nation has decided that the Freedmen will be allowed to regain their citizenship if they can simply prove they are part Indian. Watts also points out that there are approximately 1,500 black citizens in the Cherokee Nation who have not lost their citizenship rights, because they are not just descended from Cherokee slaves but also from Indians.

It is a largely forgotten footnote of history that some wealthy Indians in the Deep South owned African slaves. Those slaves joined their Indian masters on the Trail of Tears, when tens of thousands of Indians were pushed out of the Deep South and west into Oklahoma in the early 1800s. The Freedmen say the Nation's decision prevents more than 3,500 blacks from becoming Cherokee citizens, because their applications have never been processed. They claim tens of thousands of Freedmen exist and that many have been discouraged by historic discrimination and other barriers to citizenship blacks have faced, particularly in recent decades. The Freedmen's estimates may be sound — many historians agree that at least 10 percent of all people on the Cherokee Trail of Tears were black. (In light of the information provided above: This is why it makes you a fool if you believe the Albinos history).

HERE IS WHAT IT'S "REALLY" ALL ABOUT!

Inside the richest native American tribe in the U.S. where casino profits pay $1m a year to EVERY member

By Daily Mail Reporter, Published: 12 August 2012.

The Shakopee Mdewakanton Souix Tribe makes through its highly profitable casinos.

Between Mystic Lake and the Little Six Casino - tribal revenues are thought to be nearly $1.4 Billion.

Many choose to take up expensive hobbies. They are big game hunters and breeders of thoroughbred horses. All of the children attend private schools. It's a remarkable turnaround for a group once hunted down by US Army soldiers - before finding refuge in Minnesota. The source of the almost unbelievable wealth is a pair of luxury casinos and resorts the tribe has built on its land - drawing tens of thousands of gamblers from the Minneapolis-St Paul region, and across the state. The Mystic Lake Casino Hotel is build on a man-made lake. It includes five restaurants, a 600-room hotel, convention center, 2,100 seat showroom, 8,350 seat outdoor amphitheater and a top-notch golf course. The theater venue competes for major touring acts with venues in Minneapolis and St Paul. The Mystic Lake Casino is the fourth-largest Indian casino in the nation. Combined with the tribe's Little Six Casino, revenues reportedly make up the lion's share of Minnesota's $1.4billion gambling profits, according to the Times. The tribe has used the money to generous donations to other Indian tribes - lending money and giving grants. It's always used the money to gain clout in the community.The Shakopee people have donated more than $243 million since 1996 and lent out nearly $500 million.

Among the major grants is a $12.5 million gift to the University of Minnesota to build a new football stadium and endow scholarships for American Indian students. Not everyone sees the windfall of money as good. Some tribal elders worry the $1million salary is making members complacent. 'Why dig a hole when you don’t need to dig it - when you can pay someone to dig a hole?' Keith B Anderson, the tribe’s secretary and treasurer, told the Times. 'Instead of budgeting a dinner and movie, you can go to dinner and a movie and have dinner again and see another movie, but you can’t see enough movies and dinners to spend all your money.'

HERE IS WHAT THE SIOUX "USED" TO LOOK LIKE.

(We know that the original American Indian was either Black or Mongol; yet these are neither.

That is because Blacks and Mongols were producing Mulattoes for thousands of years).

THE ALBINO MULATTO SIOUX

More Fake Albino Indians getting headlines

(CNN) Senator Elizabeth Warren has released the results of a DNA analysis showing she has distant Native American ancestry, in an apparent attempt to pre-empt further questions and attacks should she run for president in 2020.

Warren first faced scrutiny for her purported Native American heritage during her 2012 Senate race. But President Donald Trump has revived and amplified the controversy as he eyes Warren as a possible rival, frequently mocking her with the nickname "Pocahontas." But Warren now has documentation to back up her family lore -- an analysis of her genetic data performed by Carlos Bustamante, a professor of genetics at Stanford and adviser to Ancestry and 23 and Me. Bustamante's analysis places Warren's Native American ancestor between six and 10 generations ago, with the report estimating eight generations. He concluded that “the vast majority” of Warren’s ancestry is European, but he added that “the results strongly support the existence of an un-admixed Native American ancestor.”

Trump tweeted of his potential 2020 challenger."She took a bogus DNA test and it showed that she may be 1/1024, far less than the average American. Now Cherokee Nation denies her, "DNA test is useless." Even they don't want her. Phony!" Trump said.

Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr.

released a statement Monday in response to Warren's test and claims.

"Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong," the statement said in part. "It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage." Most tribes use their membership rolls dating back decades, requiring a direct descendant or blood quantum. Warren claims Cherokee and Delaware heritage - both of which use membership rolls to determine who qualifies for tribal citizenship, which Warren has never claimed. Cherokee Nation principal chief Bill John Baker is 1/32 Cherokee by blood. (Only in a world run by other Albinos could such ridiculousness exist).

Interestingly, it appears the Cherokee from early-on, decided on a strategy of

electing European Albinos as Chiefs to represent them to the Albino Governments.

Here is our Chief Murderer.

Andrew Jackson: the Father of Genocide of the South and Eastern Tribes

By Donna M. Loring, May 8, 2017

The Indian Removal Act displaced thousands of Native people from their homelands and thousands died on that journey. Andrew Jackson is the father of Native American genocide in the Southeast. We should not forget that the United States Congress passed that Act by one single vote, either. Although the concept was Jackson’s, Congress was an accomplice. Greed was behind the creation of the Removal Act. Fifteen years after his death and after this horrendous act of genocide, the Civil War broke out. The two bloody periods remind me of the Christian story of good and evil in the Garden of Eden and how the devil tempted Eve to take a bite of the apple. That was the first bite and look where it got them! No more Eden. Today, Jackson’s portrait is proudly displayed in the oval office. President Trump, wants to be just like Jackson.

Jackson slaughtered thousands of Native families during his lifetime. He murdered men, women and children because they stood in the way of progress. Their homes were on land that was rich with resources and gold was discovered in Georgia at the time—nothing more than greed motivated this Removal Act. Now it’s oil. Oh how history does repeat itself! In this present-day story of good and evil, the devil wins again, as good Christians take a second bite of the apple…they blindly follow the master liar and manipulator giving up their moral values. Congress once again is poised to help nightmares come true. Andrew Jackson after all was said and done was a bottom line President. He murdered thousands of people whose crime was that they were living in their homes and occupying space.

The Trail of Tears is this monster’s legacy. Many innocent people died as a result of the Removal Act. Today’s media is not pointing this out nearly enough. This should not be ignored: There was a Native American holocaust and Jackson was the architect of it. His killed more than 30 percent of the Native population in the Southeast and forcibly removed the majority of the tribes that occupied territory there.

He was the leading advocate of an Indian Removal policy and signed that policy into law after he was elected President in 1830. The effect of this law was that the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw and Choctaw) could leave by treaty or by force. They were called civilized tribes because they had assimilated in many ways into white society. They had built homes and operated farms and some owned slaves. They had their own newspapers, governments and police forces. Their communities were for all intents and purposes carbon copies of the non-Native towns surrounding them.

The Choctaw were the first to be removed; their removal served as a model for the methods employed against the other tribes. The Choctaw were moved in three phases. The first phase started in November of 1831 and ended in 1833. They were hampered by bad weather, floods and snow. They were low on food, surviving on a handful of boiled corn, one turnip and one cup of heated water a day. When they reached Little Rock, a Choctaw Chief referred to their journey as “A Trail of Tears and Death.” Approximately 17,000 Choctaws made the trip. It is estimated approximately 6,000 died along the trails.

The Seminoles refused to leave their homelands and war was declared on them. The U.S. spent over $40 million on that war over two decades. It is estimated there were 5,000 Seminoles. The U.S. removed approximately 3,000. Many were killed, captured or starved to death, and the rest were forced to move to Oklahoma. A small band fled into the Everglades. The U.S. gave up trying to subjugate them when they retreated into the Everglades. The Seminole band of the Everglades claim to be the only federally recognized tribe that did not relinquished its original independent existence spiritually and politically.

The Muscogee (Creek) - In 1836, they were forcibly removed from Georgia to Indian Territory in the west. 15,000 Creeks were forced marched from their lands. 3,500 did not survive the trip to Oklahoma.

The Chickasaw received financial compensation from the U.S. government for their lands. They then purchased land from the Choctaw in Oklahoma and moved in 1837. They traveled from Memphis, Tennessee with all their belongings and livestock. Three thousand crossed the Mississippi River, following routes taken by the tribes before them. Nearly 500 died from dysentery and small pox. Upon arrival, they were merged administratively with the Choctaw Nation. They have since re-established their own government now in Ada, Oklahoma.

The Cherokee were forced out after contentious legal battles. By 1838, 2,000 Cherokee had voluntarily relocated to Oklahoma. The U.S. began forcible removals that same year. An armed force of over 7,000 forced the Cherokee from their homes, often physically dragging them away onto wagons and then taking them to holding camps. Over 13,000 Cherokee people were taken from their homes and their land given away in a lottery. They were marched 1,000 miles in the winter from Red Clay, Tennessee to Oklahoma. They were not allowed to enter any villages along the way because of fear of the spread of disease. Many died from disease, others from starvation and exposure to the cold. They froze to death.

One Georgia soldier who participated in the removal said “I fought through the War Between the States and seen many men shot, but the Cherokee Removal was the cruelest work I ever knew.” (Note this quote was made by the soldier after he had participated in the civil war from 1861-1865.) Another soldier who participated in the removal produced a vivid account on his 80th birthday. Private John G. Burnett retold to his children his experience while in Captain McClellan’s company 2nd Regiment, 2nd Brigade, Mounted Infantry, Indian Removal 1838-1839. He described how the Cherokee (some bereft of blankets and barefoot after being driven from there homes) were loaded “like sheep or cattle into six hundred forty-five wagons.” Excerpts follow:

And then: “However, murder is murder whether committed by the villain skulking in the dark or by uniformed men stepping to the strains of martial music. Murder is murder, and somebody must answer. Somebody must explain the streams of blood that flowed in the Indian country in the summer of 1838. Somebody must explain the 4,000 silent graves that mark the trail of the Cherokees to their exile. I wish I could forget it all, but the picture of 645 wagons lumbering over the frozen ground with their cargo of suffering humanity still lingers in my memory.

Let the historian of a future day tell the sad story with its sighs, its tears and dying groans. Let the great judge of all the earth weigh our actions and reward us according to our work. Children—Thus ends my promised birthday story. This December the 11th 1890.” It is estimated that over 4,000 Cherokee lost their lives on this death march. Over 51,000 Native human beings were torn from their homes and over 15,500 perished. Donna Loring is an author, playwright, and Penobscot Tribal Elder.

A word of confusion - contrary to the lies of the Albinos, our own calculations indicate that there is going-on 100 million Blacks in the United States. If we adjudge half of them to be American Indians, then Jackson didn't do that much damage after all. It has occurred to us, that perhaps the Albinos take credit for murders they did not do, in order to intimidate.

THE GENETICS BULL**

Asked of 23andMe Customer Care: (a genetic testing company).

Question: Can 23andme detect Native American? Can 23andMe identify Native American ancestry? Answer: Currently 23andMe has several features that can reveal genetic evidence of Native American ancestry, although they are not considered a confirmatory test or proof of such ancestry in a legal context.

Tribal Enrollment and Genetic Testing

By Jessica Bardill (Cherokee), PhD

When the NCAI Policy Research Center began developing this resource guide, tribal leaders asked many questions such as, “What is genetic testing? What are good sources of information about genetic testing? What kinds of DNA testing can we use for tribal enrollment? How do we respond to individuals claiming tribal membership based on DNA tests?” This paper was developed to provide tribal leaders with more information on genetic testing related to tribal enrollment. Tribes are sovereign nations and so will decide their own views on genetic testing. This paper provides information to assist in those decisions.

American Indian Researcher

Genetic information (i.e., DNA) collected from individuals, families, and communities can be used in many different ways and it is becoming more of a discussion topic in tribal communities. While research is one possible use of genetic information, this information can also be used to examine how people are related to one another by comparing the similarity of their DNA sequences. Genetic information can also provide clues to ancestral relations. DNA is obtained by collecting biological samples (e. g., blood, hair, cells from a cheek swab, or even from spitting in a cup). Genetic testing has been advertised to tribes as a tool for determining their enrollment (TallBear 2003). Historically, tribal nations have used a variety of ways to determine their own membership. More background information on tribal determination of enrollment is available in the section entitled Tribal Sovereignty and Enrollment Determinations. This section discusses the use of genetic information in determinations of tribal enrollment. For a quick overview of relevant issues, please see this summary handout.

Types of DNA Testing and Considerations about their Use

What do people mean by DNA testing?

DNA testing has become an umbrella term that refers to many different kinds of genetic testing that provides information about an individual’s genes. Genetic information, or DNA, is found in nearly every cell in the human body. DNA testing technology is constantly changing, and so are the efforts to engage tribes in testing on an individual and group basis. One type of DNA testing called DNA fingerprinting can be used to help document close biological relationships, such as those between parents and children, as well as among other close family members. Other kinds of testing for genetic ancestry use markers to see how similar an individual is to a broader population or group, based on probabilities drawn from databases of research on populations and group genetic characteristics. However, no DNA testing can “prove” an individual is American Indian and/or Alaska Native, or has ancestry from a specific tribe. Genetic testing can provide evidence for the biological relationship between two individuals (e.g., paternity testing), but there are no unique genes for individual tribes or American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) ancestry in general. While research scientists have found that some genetic markers are found mostly only in AI/ANs, these markers are neither unique to AI/ANs nor predictive of AI/AN identity. This section will discuss various types of DNA testing as well as considerations for tribal leaders and members when engaging with testing companies.

Types of Genetic Testing

Genetic Ancestry Testing – This kind of testing looks at many genes from an individual and compares their sample to a larger database of research information. This test is based on probabilities and can provide information about how different or similar an individual’s DNA is to that of most people within a larger group of people (“population”). However, these results are limited by the information in current databases, many of which do not contain a lot of information for particular groups (AI/ANs among them). This limitation in the data can produce problems for tribes and individuals seeking information as results may not be accurate or even possible to generate given limited availability of comparative data.

There are many ways to test for genetic ancestry, such as mitochondrial DNA testing (mtDNA), Y-chromosome testing, and analysis of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The discussion below explains why these methods are of limited use in tribal enrollment issues.

Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs): DNA is made up of nucleotides, and these building blocks vary between people and groups. Variations in the building blocks are called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Specific variations, or SNPs, can be common in a group, but they are also seen in individual genomes. These small changes help to provide an overall profile of an individual’s genotype, which is their whole genetic makeup. This kind of genetic test uses statistical probability to estimate how likely it is that an individual comes from a certain region of the world. However, this kind of test cannot conclusively prove that an individual is from a certain tribe. In fact, there are no genetic tests that are specific to a tribe or even American Indian/Alaska Native heritage. Therefore, while individuals may approach tribal enrollment officials with genetic ancestry test results, other records would be of more value and provide more certainty in determining eligibility for enrollment.

One type of genetic testing called Ancestry Informative Markers (AIMs) uses SNPs to examine a person’s genetic ancestry. AIMs convey important information about an individual’s likely ancestry and differences between populations from different geographic areas. Research in recent years has attempted to link genes with specific ancestry related to geographical locations. For example, Mark Shriver and his lab group have identified genetic variations that are most common in particular populations, and he suggests these can be used to help determine the geographic ancestry of modern people, small groups, and individual persons. Shriver and colleagues write, “Ancestry informative markers (AIMs) are genetic loci showing alleles with large frequency differences between populations. AIMs can be used to estimate biogeographical ancestry at the level of the population, subgroup (e.g. cases and controls) and individual” (Mark Shriver et al 2003).

As research generates more information, some genetic markers, such as SNPs, appear more commonly in some populations than others. However, these genetic markers do not reflect all of the genetic information in a person’s ancestry. With genetic ancestry testing, there are limits to the information available for AI/AN individuals because there are few samples from the AI/AN population in the current databases being used for these tests. Further, these tests do not provide information about all of a person’s ancestors. Kim TallBear describes this limitation well in her articles, including an explanation of how a person with AI/AN ancestry may not show up on a genetic test as AI/AN, or may be told they are of East Asian or other descent (TallBear 2003, TallBear and Bolnick 2004). Brett Shelton and Jonathan Marks have also described the limits of DNA testing with respect to Native identity. There is also some concern, highlighted by Marks and Shelton, that both false positives and false negatives occur in these tests. In other words, genetic ancestry testing using AIMs is not totally accurate or precise. With this testing, an individual can be misidentified as AI/AN even if they do not have the genetic markers that are more common among AI/AN peoples.

On the other hand, an individual could be misidentified as non-AI/AN even if they do have the genetic markers found more often in AI/AN groups. For this reason, genetic ancestry testing can be viewed as just one piece of a larger puzzle about an individual’s ancestry. Other tools should be used to fill in the information throughout the puzzle, or the enrollment application. Kenneth Weiss and Jeffrey Long highlight that “not many documented single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are useful [ancestry informative markers]….For example, an AIM intended to reveal Native American ancestry may also be common in East Asians, and not private after all.” These authors conclude that “Although DNA data have the aura of providing definitive answers to population and individual ancestry questions, they require careful interpretation in terms of both the laws of inheritance and the evolutionary process. Untrained individuals, and even some professionals, will have a difficult time reconciling the nuances of interpretation with the bottom-line aura that DNA carries” (Weiss and Long 2009). Thus, scholars have argued that genetic ancestry tests should be interpreted with caution, especially because there is currently not enough data from AI/AN populations to make specific claims to ancestry based on genetic testing.

The use of DNA testing for tribal enrollment raises many issues. Tribal enrollment criteria each represent a different value or set of values that the community holds. Over time, as the community changes so too might the membership criteria or the value that they represent. For example, lineal descendancy demonstrates a value of proven biological relation to a particular historical census record of tribal members. DNA testing may provide another tool to uphold such a value, but it has limits and is not the only tool that may be useful. When considering tribal membership requirements and whether DNA testing should become one, tribal leaders and community members might consider the values of the current criteria, the added (or not) value of DNA testing, the potential challenges associated with using a particular kind of DNA test, and particularly how it compares to other DNA testing. While genetic tests cannot determine whether an individual is AI/AN or not, they can determine whether people are likely related to one another. This limitation means that genetic testing will not be helpful in many enrollment cases, but it can be helpful for some areas with less documentation of family relationships or the need to confirm direct biological relationships.

Enslavement of the American Indian

An article from SLATE By Rebecca Onion - Jan. 18 2016 America’s Other Original Sin (This article has NOT been vetted: we know it's Bull** because it mentions "Black Slaves" after we have just finished proving that "REAL" Indians were Black people. So it is probably part Albino nonsense, with some facts thrown in. Hopefully more fact than nonsense). Europeans didn’t just displace Native Americans—they enslaved them, and encouraged tribes to participate in the slave trade, on a scale historians are only beginning to fathom. There are three scenes from the history of slavery in North America. In 1637, a group of Pequot Indians, men and boys, having risen up against English colonists in Connecticut and been defeated, were sold to plantations in the West Indies in exchange for African slaves, allowing the colonists to remove a resistant element from their midst. (The tribe’s women were pressed into service in white homes in New England, where domestic workers were sorely lacking.) In 1741, an 800-foot-long coffle of recently enslaved Sioux Indians, procured by a group of Cree, Assiniboine, and Monsoni warriors, arrived in Montreal, ready for sale to French colonists hungry for domestic and agricultural labor. And in 1837, Cherokee Joseph Vann, expelled from his land in Georgia during the era of Indian removal, took at least 48 enslaved black people along with him to Indian Territory. By the 1840s, Vann was said to have owned hundreds of enslaved black laborers, as well as racehorses and a side-wheeler steamboat.   A reductive view of the American past might note two major, centuries-long historical sins: the enslavement of stolen Africans and the displacement of Native Americans. In recent years, a new wave of historians of American slavery has been directing attention to the ways these sins overlapped. The stories they have uncovered throw African slavery—still the narrative that dominates our national memory—into a different light, revealing that the seeds of that system were sown in earlier attempts to exploit Native labor. The record of Native enslavement also shows how the white desire to put workers in bondage intensified the chaos of contact, disrupting intertribal politics and creating uncertainty and instability among people already struggling to adapt to a radically new balance of power. Before looking at the way Native enslavement happened on the local level (really the only way to approach a history this fragmented and various), it helps to appreciate the sweep of the phenomenon. How common was it for Indians to be enslaved by Euro-Americans? Counting can be difficult, because many instances of Native enslavement in the Colonial period were illegal or ad hoc and left no paper trail. But historians have tried. A few of their estimates: Thousands of Indians were enslaved in Colonial New England, according to Margaret Ellen Newell. Alan Gallay writes that between 1670 and 1715, more Indians were exported into slavery through Charles Town (now Charleston, South Carolina) than Africans were imported. Brett Rushforth recently attempted a tally of the total numbers of enslaved, and he told me that he thinks 2 million to 4 million indigenous people in the Americas, North and South, may have been enslaved over the centuries that the practice prevailed—a much larger number than had previously been thought. “It’s not on the level of the African slave trade,” which brought 10 million people to the Americas, but the earliest history of the European colonies in the Americas is marked by Native bondage. “If you go up to about 1680 or 1690 there still, by that period, had been more enslaved Indians than enslaved Africans in the Americas.”   Between 1670 and 1715, more Indians were exported into slavery through Charles Town than Africans were imported.   The practice dates back to the earliest history of the European colonies in the future United States. Take the example of the Pequot who were enslaved in 1637 after clashing with the English. As Newell writes in a new book, Brethren by Nature: New England Indians, Colonists, and the Origins of American Slavery, by the time the ship Desire transported the defeated Pequot men and boys to the Caribbean, colonists in New England, desperate for bodies and hands to supplement their own meager workforce, had spent years trying out various strategies of binding Native labor. During the Pequot War, which was initially instigated by struggles over trade and land among the Europeans, the Pequot, and rival tribes, colonists explicitly named the procurement of captives as one of their goals. Soldiers sent groups of captured Pequot to Boston and other cities for distribution, while claiming particular captured people as their own. Soldier Israel Stoughton wrote to John Winthrop, having sent “48 or 50 women and Children” to the governor to distribute as he pleased: A few years after the conclusion of the war, in 1641, the colonists of Massachusetts Bay passed the first formal law regulating slavery in English America, in a section of the longer document known as the Body of Liberties. The section’s language allowed enslavement of “those lawful Captives taken in just wares, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold to us,” and left room for legal bondage of others the authorities might deem enslaved in the future. The Body of Liberties codified the colonists’ possession of Native workers and opened the door for the expansion of African enslavement. Europeans did not introduce slavery to this continent. Many, though not all, of the Native groups in the land that later became the United States and Canada practiced slavery before Europeans arrived. Native tribes, in their diversity, did not have a uniform approach to enslavement (given Americans’ propensity to collapse all Native people together, this bears reiterating). Many of those traditions also changed when tribes began to contend with the European presence. “There are many slaveries, and colonialism brings different slaveries into contact with one another,” historian Christina Snyder, who wrote a history of Native slavery in the Southeast, told me. Contact pushed Native practices to change over time, as tribes contested, or adapted to, European demands. But, broadly speaking, Native types of enslavement were often about kinship, reproductive labor, and diplomacy, rather than solely the extraction of agricultural or domestic labor. The difference between these slaveries and European bondage of Africans was great. Historian Pekka Hämäläinen, in his 2009 book The Comanche Empire, writes of Comanche uses of slavery during their period of dominance of the American Southwest between 1750 and 1850. The Comanche exercised hegemony in part by numerical superiority, and enslavement was part of that strategy. Hämäläinen writes that Comanches put captives through a rigorous process of enslavement—a dehumanizing initiation that brought a non-Comanche captive into the tribe through renaming, tattooing, beating, whipping, mutilation, and starvation—but stipulates that once a person was enslaved, there were varying degrees of freedom and privilege she or he could attain. Male captives might be made blood bondsmen with their owners, protecting them from ill treatment and casual sale; women might be married into the tribe, after which time they became, as Hämäläinen puts it, “full-fledged tribal members”; younger, more impressionable children might be adopted outright. After a period of trauma, captives could, quite possibly, attain quasi-free status; their own children would be Comanches. In his book Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries in New France, Brett Rushforth writes about a similar tradition of “natal alienation” practiced by enslaving tribes in the Pays d’en Haut (the French name for the Great Lakes region and the land west of Montreal) in order to strip a captive of his or her old identity and life. Rushforth does not sell short the awfulness of these processes; still, he pointed out: “Rather than a closed slave system designed to move slaves ‘up and out’—excluding slaves and their descendants from full participation in their masters’ society, even when freed—indigenous slavery moved captives ‘up and in’ toward full, if forced, assimilation.” This was more than Africans enslaved by Europeans could hope for, after the legal codification of hereditary chattel slavery in the 17th and early 18th centuries. Native American Slaves in New France As many as 10,000 Indians were enslaved between 1660–1760. Here are the names we know. The disconnect between Native uses of slavery and European understandings of the practice often made for miscommunication. In some places, ironically enough, Native groups themselves initiated the trade in captives to the Europeans. In the Pays d’en Haut, Rushforth found in his research, Indian groups believed in “a diplomatic function of captive-taking.” Early in their time in the area, French officials found themselves offered Native slaves as tokens of trust, peace, and friendship. “When the French embedded themselves in these Native systems of alliance and trade and diplomacy, they found themselves engaged in these captive exchanges—not unwillingly, of course,” Rushforth told me. “At the same time, the French were trading African slaves in the Caribbean and South America, so it’s not like the Indians forced this upon the French. The French found the diplomatic function of it to be kind of confusing. They didn’t know what to make of it at first, and then they sort of manipulated it to their own advantage.” In some places, Native groups themselves initiated the trade in captives to the Europeans. Rushforth notes that the political equilibrium that prevailed before the arrival of Europeans had kept the Native slave trade minimal. “If you’re a Native group in the Midwest and it’s hunting season, you have to make a choice,” he said. “ ‘Are we going to go after an enemy, or are we going to stock up on meat and hides and other things?’ It’s either hunting or captive-raiding. And so that created these disincentives to go after captives, because there were all kinds of reasons you wanted to have peace, all kinds of reasons you wanted to have your economy running.” Soon, however, French officials, desiring more slaves, began to incentivize Native people to take captives by promising desirable goods in return. Nearby tribes began to raid one another in earnest, often venturing far into the interior of the present-day United States to grab Pawnee and other Plains Indians. With French traders now offering goods and comestibles (groceries) in exchange for captives, the old political balance was disrupted. “If you can go raid your enemies and trade them, for food and cloth and other things, you can actually sort of collapse those two choices into one,” Rushforth said. “That means the choice to raid for captives was much less costly for them. And so they actually did it much more often.” The French, wanting to be secure from violence in Montreal, made rules that pushed the chaos of raiding farther away—circumscribing the sale of Native slaves from nearby tribes, for example. “So they can create all of this extractive force,” Rushforth noted, “and it just makes everything chaotic and destructive out there.” As in the Pays d’en Haut, so in the American South, where the demand for Indian slaves changed the political relationships between tribes. “Once Europeans showed up and they demanded that the supply of Native slaves amp up to meet the demand, Native practices regarding slaves changed,” Snyder said. “So people who might once have been adopted or killed now became slaves.” Captives experienced enslavement by 17th-century Europeans in a much different way than enslavement by another Indian tribe. If a Native person was made captive by a rival tribe, a set of relatively predictable traditions governed his or her treatment. But after a Native captor sold a captive to a European, the person was swept into a global system. She, or he, was now a commodity. In the South, Snyder said, “[Natives] basically became slaves in a really similar way to African slaves, who were also arriving at the same time in South Carolina.” Reduced to a source of labor, and caught up in a wide-reaching web of exchange, the Native slave could be sold very far away. Rushforth points to instances of Apaches and other Plains peoples being sold, through Quebec, to the Caribbean. “There were Plains Apaches who showed up on sugar plantations in Martinique,” he said. While the histories of Native enslavement and enslaving might seem to be separate spheres of study, they too are intertwined. Tribal groups could find themselves shifting from enslavers to enslaved, as their relationships to Euro-Americans, and with other tribes, changed over time. To illustrate this concept, Snyder points to the story of the Westo Indians, a group originally from around Lake Erie, who spoke an Iroquoian language. They left the North in the middle of the 17th century, Snyder says, “probably because of Iroquois competition over guns and slaving,” and moved to the Southeast, where they enslaved local Indians for sale to colonists. “But then the colonists got anxious, or they were afraid that this group was too powerful,” Snyder said; in 1680, a group of Carolinians armed the Savannah Indians and empowered them to break the Westos’ strength in the area. The remaining Westos were, themselves, sold to the Caribbean as slaves. The Vann family In the late-18th-century Southeast, the Native relationship to slavery took a surprising turn. There, a relatively small group of Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws held Africans in bondage. Historian Tiya Miles has written two histories of Cherokee slaveholding. Miles places the number of enslaved people held by Cherokees at around 600 at the start of the 19th century and around 1,500 at the time of westward removal in 1838-9. (Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, she said, held around 3,500 slaves, across the three nations, as the 19th century began.) “Slavery inched its way slowly into Cherokee life,” Miles told me. “When a white man moved into a Native location, usually to work as a trader or as an Indian agent, he would own [African] slaves.” If such a person also had a child with a Native woman, as was not uncommon, the half-European, half-Native child would inherit the enslaved people (and their children) under white law, as well as the right to use tribal lands under tribal law. This combination put such people in a position to expand their wealth, eventually operating large farms and plantations. This was the story of James Vann, the father of Joseph, the steamboat owner; the elder Vann’s mother was Cherokee, while his father was white. The Cherokee tried to "Fit-In" In the second and third decades of the 19th century, the Cherokee strategy to keep the American government from taking their land was to prove their own sovereignty as a “civilized” people. They were trying, Miles said, “to form a Cherokee government that looked like the U.S. government, to publish laws, establish a Supreme Court, establish a principal city, to create a police force, to create a newspaper.” These efforts were concurrent with the growth of slavery, another adopted tradition that would show that Cherokees were truly assimilating. The United States government—Congress considered itself in charge of Indian affairs and, starting in the 1780s, established a series of governmental structures meant to manage tribal relations—“had really clear ideas about what it meant to be civilized,” Miles said. “That included a different gendered differentiation of labor, so men were supposed to stop hunting; they were supposed to come back and farm. Women were supposed to be in the household. And enslaved people were supposed to be out in those fields, helping to produce even more crops and eventually allowing the native man to have more of a supervisory role.” Indian agents—white men appointed by Congress to liaise with the tribes—would report to their supervisors on the degree to which Cherokee slaveholders were fulfilling the expectations of white observers. Some white onlookers thought James Vann far too lenient in the way he socialized with the (by one count) 70 enslaved Africans who worked on his plantation. Still, he prospered, eventually owning 400 to 800 acres of land, a store, a tavern, and a trading post. The material success of slaveholders such as Vann did not, in the end, save the Cherokees from removal. While some Native slaveowners in the South may have been “temporarily enriched” by slaveholding, historian Claudio Saunt argues, “as the demand for captives rose, it destabilized the entire region. The dehumanization of non-Europeans ultimately allowed white colonists to justify the killing of Southeastern Indians and the appropriation of their lands.” The explicitly racist underpinnings of slavery in the South left Native people there, even slaveholders who participated in the system, vulnerable. When white demand for land prevailed, the Native population would inevitably lose.   Dance with the Devil - the Devil Kills you!   During removal, some wealthy Cherokees were able to take their enslaved people along. Many walked the Trail of Tears, along with the Natives who held them in bondage. “If you were rich in the Southeast, you got to basically start over again with a captive labor force,” Miles said. “Which doesn’t mean that removal wasn’t awful; it was still awful. But it meant that you had a leg up in rebuilding your wealth.” Slave narratives—there are Works Progress Administration oral histories given by black slaves (Clearly the author is simply repeating what she was told by other Albinos), who were once owned by Cherokees and other tribes—report favorably on the experience of being held by Natives. Miles told me that she thought the historian should take these narratives with a grain of salt, pointing out that there are also many stories of Native slaveholders selling or punishing their black bondsmen. “There were more ways to have a margin of autonomy in Native American contexts. There are examples of Native people freeing their slaves and marrying them,” she said. “But at the same time there are many instances of very violent behavior that tended to take place on the larger plantations. … So it depended on where you were enslaved and who you were enslaved by.” Some Native people who held Africans on small farms, where they might “eat out of the same pot as the master” (as Miles put it), treated them as a kind of family. In her first book, however, Miles wrote about a Cherokee farmer who enslaved an African woman, lived with her for decades, and never freed her, despite her bearing his children. In that particular case, years of intimacy did not lead to emancipation. The historians I spoke with said that they found this history challenging to talk about in moral terms—perhaps more so than the history of African slavery. “I think popular history likes to talk about good guys and bad guys,” Snyder told me. The complexities of the history of Native enslavement leave such clear distinctions behind. “Some may think that I do not philosophize enough,” Alan Gallay writes in the introduction to his book, “that I have the responsibility of always separating good from evil, of creating a parable from which the moral of the story may easily be drawn. I wish that it were so simple.” The fact that Native people so often assisted in the enslavement of people from other tribes makes this story a complicated one. Yes, Europeans did have Native assistance in implementing their ends; they were also the ones who put Native tribes under the existential pressures that forced many Indians to sell fellow Natives into slavery. This tragedy does not make for so clear-cut a narrative as, say, the bravery of the fugitive African Americans who took the Underground Railroad to freedom. Yet it is a tragedy nonetheless. The many stories of Native slavery force us to think about the strategies Native people used to respond to the relentless European desire for labor. Some, like the Yamasee—who, with their allies, rose up to challenge British colonists in South Carolina in 1715-16—fought enslavement with violent resistance. Some, like the warriors who brought the long coffle of Sioux to Montreal in 1741, or the Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, and Choctaw who took their African slaves to Indian Country in the 1830s, tried to adapt by becoming part of the system. Later, some worked within European law to challenge a tradition of Indian enslavement. In 1739, a Native man known only as “Caesar” sued for his own freedom in New London, Connecticut. He argued that his mother, Betty, who had surrendered during King Philip’s War in 1676, should have been set free after 10 years of servitude, rather than enslaved, and that he himself should have been born a free man. More than a few second- and third-generation Native slaves brought such cases in New England in the 1730s and 1740s, and in so doing, writes Margaret Ellen Newell, they fueled New England’s growing abolitionism, forcing men in power to reconsider the legal basis for enslavement. Natives were thus part of the history of American slavery at its beginning, and at its end.