A CHANGE OF HISTORY
What would make a people rewrite their history? As the field of archaeology grew in the United States, archaeologists began studying the ancient cultures which preceded our contemporary country. Through the years, much information was learned about their ancient cultures by excavation. Sadly, the archaeologists were at times callous about their studies. There were both human remains in drawers at universities and grave goods exhibited in museums. In 1976, the first law to protect these remains and grave goods was enacted in Iowa. Afterward, at least one native tribe soon changed their story about their history.
In 1975, a book was published by the University of Chicago Press called, Cherokee Plants: Their Uses-A 400 Year History. This time period illustrated the traditional history which was passed on from generation to generation by the southeast band’s tribal elders. Their tribe had come to the South from the North. It was no secret. It was acknowledged by the tribe. Linguists attributed their language to the Iroquois language family. as well.
So, many were perplexed when suddenly the tribe claimed that they had been in the area for thousands of years. One historian claimed that the story changed in 1977. This would have been a year after the Iowa law was enacted. If he is accurate, then for forty-six years the children of the tribe were taught this new history. Obviously, this contradicted the tribe’s previous candor. Although the Iowa graves protection law did not affect other states, the federal government enacted the North American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act by 1990.
WHY DID THE ELDERS CHANGE THEIR HISTORY?
Why would this new history be insisted upon by the tribe in their dealings with other Americans? I think that the dates and the nature of the preservation law make this obvious. The law only protects the graves and grave goods of a tribe’s ancestors. If a tribe wanted to see that all Native American graves and grave goods were protected, then they had to claim a connection to these ancient people. The law was inadequate to protect the graves and artifacts of all ancient natives.
I am sympathetic about these motives. If we have to disturb a grave, then surely, we could reinter the remains in a decent manner. Part of our humanity is that we mourn our dead. I enjoy learning about ancient cultures, but I stand behind the line that the natives drew on this issue. Yet, a better solution would have been to lobby for more comprehensive protection, rather than to revise a tribal history.
1700s HUNTING GROUNDS
This seemingly benign revision of the Cherokee history has begun to snowball into bigger issues for multiple states. Today, the tribe is claiming territory in eight states, based on their conquered land claims from the 1700s, during the Beaver Wars. At one time, the tribe had claimed this expansive area as their hunting grounds, in order, to monopolize the fur trade with England. It was not their ancestral homeland according to an old Dutch map, reprinted in 1685 from a map which was made in the 1650s.* Their tribe was from just north of the Saint Lawrence River in Canada when this map was produced in the mid 1600s.
Parts of the land which the Cherokee would later claim had also been claimed by the Iroquois and the Shawnee at various times, as well. All of these tribes were competing for larger territories to eliminate other natives from trading. The sad thing about all of this is that the Cherokee children have been raised to believe this revised history for decades now.
The Cherokee have also taught a story about the Indian Removal Act which leaves out much of the information. I cannot apologize for my ancestors being conquerors, who ethnically cleansed the land of the Indians, because they did not do what they have been accused of doing. During the Beaver Wars, the Dutch and the British monarchies were arming their native trading partners and were encouraging them to conquer lands from their neighboring tribes. Some tribes were driven off their homelands. Others were slaughtered or were sold into the slave trade. The British Crown was actually selling large parcels to investors after these areas were emptied of other tribes by Britain’s Native American allies.
PEACE TREATIES, LAND, AND MONEY
Andrew Jackson was aware of this history. He was also aware of how the British Crown had used the natives to war against American settlers, as well. President Jackson had no malice toward the natives. He had adopted a Native American baby to raise as his own child. His removal act had supplied funding to buy their eastern land, to pay them for their improvements to their land, to pay for their move to the West, and to provide protection for the tribes. The forced removal of some holdouts who refused to honor the treaties did not even occur during Andrew Jackson’s presidency. Jackson wanted the native cultures to progress under the country’s protection.
For those tribes who signed treaties, accepting the terms, many of their members left in peace to relocate to the heartland. Recently, historic records have been uncovered which showed that members of both the Creek and the Cherokee were traveling to the Bahamas and Canada. They were trading for weapons and were appealing to the British monarch to honor their alliance after the American Revolution and until shortly before the War of 1812. ** In other words, their petition was an appeal for Britain to war against the United States after the American Revolution. After the natives’ relocation to the heartland, these connections in the Bahamas or Canada would have become far more remote.
PROTECTION FROM COLONIZERS
Also, the native tribes would be protected from the ruthlessness of speculators after they relocated. These wealthy members of the European aristocracy had become Americans to buy up land. Most of the aristocracy were quite comfortable in exploiting the people of their own countries. Like the British Crown, they certainly would have exploited Native Americans, as well. Two of the contacts, mentioned in the historic documents from the Bahamas, were hoping to gain tribal land. This is why they assisted the Cherokee and Creek representatives who were asking for their help to get to England. ** Whether the natives understood their need for protection or not, our early presidents did understand.
However, natives who had refused to relocate begrudged our country and their own tribal members, who had accepted the money and land in Oklahoma. The forced removal of some of their tribal members in 1838, who had refused the offer, just made them angrier. Again, the forced removal occurred after President Jackson’s time in office. However, Andrew Jackson loved and defended his country with zeal. If he had felt that this was the only way for the country to be protected, then he would have reluctantly supported this process. To prevent more bloody wars, Jackson would have preferred this measure, rather than to allow the natives to continually be exploited by British or Spanish colonizers.
MUSEUMS SHOULD BE BASED ON FACTS
Because of the division which has been sown by an erroneous understanding of these historic events, I was inspired to address this history. Further, taxpayers are funding the reclamation of these former “hunting territories” and expensive projects to tell of a tribe’s inaccurate heritage. What good is a museum if it does not record history accurately? The Cherokee’s own heritage may be much more interesting. They came from an area close to where some of the first metal tools were made from copper in the Archaic period. Maybe their ancestors produced tools in the Great Lakes region during the Old Copper Complex. These men were some of the earliest metalworkers on earth.
The museum in Cherokee North Carolina has showcased the tribe’s historic alliance with England. They seem to still be impressed with monarchal forms of government. A couple of years ago they sent a group to England to participate in a parade. Publicly, some Cherokee tribal representatives have complained about colonizers, as they point their fingers toward their hard-working American neighbors of European and native descent. These are the descendants of those who drove colonizers out of our country, during the American Revolution. Yet, some Cherokee tribal leaders still have a proud allegiance to the British Crown, one of the biggest colonizers in history!
All Americans need to understand how detestable the British tactics were during the American Revolution and the War of 1812. The British were training their native allies to burn people alive. These actions propelled our country’s resolve in defeating the British. Many Cherokees and Creeks fought under General Andrew Jackson’s command during the War of 1812 because of the ruthlessness of the British.
THE BRITISH CROWN DOUBLE-CROSSED THEIR NATIVE ALLIES
Further, the British Crown was double-crossing the natives who were their allies. After sending them out to conquer other natives’ lands during the fur trade, the British were selling the land to investors. Two famous stories in our American history provide proof of this. George Washington had purchased land in Ohio, and a judge in North Carolina had purchased land in Kentucky. George Washington ended up starting the French and Indian War to protect his investment. The North Carolina judge sent Daniel Boone to set up a settlement in Kentucky on his land.
So, it puzzles me that any native people are still impressed with the British Crown. England is a country where the class system continues to disadvantage the majority of its people. According to recent research, less than one percent of the population in England owns fifty percent of the land. ***
OUR COUNTRY'S FOUNDERS HAD GOOD INTENTIONS
Aside from the tribal Cherokee’s admiration of a colonizing monarchy, they disdain our country based on some erroneous facts. The facts of our early country’s history matter because there were exceptional concepts behind the founders’ efforts. Our country promoted freedom in its founding documents even though it took the government time to accomplish freedom for all.
The United States also intended to establish a fairness for all people, by eliminating the class system. Americans were encouraged to live in an independent manner. By owning their own land, they could produce their own food and could profit from their own labor. Also, the founders of our country insisted on ensuring freedom of religion to prevent the persecutions which took place in Europe. Some people were burned alive for worshiping God in a different way than the mandated state religions.
OUR GOVERNMENT WAS INTENDED TO SERVE ALL OF ITS PEOPLE
If we as a country can reclaim the good which was intended from our founders, then we will better reform the “beast” that our country has become over time. An obvious example of our government behaving as a beast would be the decades-long practice of kidnapping Native American children to send them off to boarding schools. I had no knowledge of this shocking history until very recently. But, our people in our government were breaking our laws which forbid kidnapping when they did these things. If the American people had known, then I think that they would have quickly put an end to this.
However, natives are not the only victims of bad actors in our government. Many Americans have suffered from corrupt government officials, using their office to exploit the people. If all people of good will can come together, then reforms hopefully can happen. Yet, our efforts need to be based on accurate facts.
* Visscher, Nicolaes, Novi Belgii Novaeque Angliae: nec non partis Virginiae tabula multis in locis emendata, Amsterdam, 1685. [Library of Congress’s Geography & Map Division, digital ID g3715.ct000001 (https://lccn.loc.gov/97683561)]
** Hill, James, “A Curious Connection: Continental and Atlantic Histories in a Creek and Cherokee Voyage to Quebec”, The New Canadian History, February 20, 2017.
*** Rob Evans, “Half of England Is Owned by Less than 1% of the Population”, The Guardian, April 17, 2019.
Please See: