Coates Course

I found Dr. Coates' course in Cherokee history generally to be engaging, and her skill in lecturing is undeniable. I was also pleased with her refreshing iconoclasm, particularly on the subject of Indian removal policy. Rather than viewing the Trail of Tears with misty-eyed emotionalism, she demonstrated a strong commitment to factual accuracy and presented us with a meticulously researched, largely non-traditional interpretation. Though she clearly condemned federal removal policy, Dr. Coates recognized the important role that careful research plays in maintaining the credibility of a historical narrative. I learned a tremendous amount on the subject--I have to admit, I had unthinkingly swallowed the eighth-grade textbook narrative. I had thoroughly internalized the 4,000-deaths figure and the account of military brutality along the trail, only to learn that the deaths figure had no significant documentary support and that there was no US military presence along the trail. That’s a pretty intellectually bold position, and Coates deserves credit for presenting that information while keeping the tragedy of the removal largely intact. That sort of commitment to nuance and research is the mark of a good historian.

On the other hand, at times I was acutely aware of the fact that I was in a government-sanctioned history class taught by an elected official. I was extremely bothered by her handling of the Freedmen controversy, which sounded more like propaganda than objective history. At least as far as I can recall, her argument for the official Cherokee Nation position on the Freedmen was twofold. For one, she argued that the Freedmen had been culturally separated from Cherokee life for “100 years,” if I remember correctly. Her second justification is largely that the federal intervention on behalf of the Freedmen is a threat to tribal sovereignty—in short, the US government can’t tell an Indian nation how to manage its citizenship.

In response to the first assertion, I’m probably not qualified to question that judgment. But Coates’ assertion to be seemed more visceral than intellectual, and she did not include any justification for this idea. I feel there is probably a good bit of evidence to refute that claim. Additionally, I wonder who gets to decide who is and isn’t culturally Cherokee. Are only Cherokees who grew up in Oklahoma culturally connected? Are only Cherokee speakers? People with a certain blood degree? I imagine there are arguments to be made that Dr. Coates herself is not, under some definitions, “culturally connected” to the Cherokee Nation. But I don’t think she’s under any threat of being stripped of her citizenship, nor do I think she should be.

Also, the second assertion is problematic. On the one hand, I firmly agree that federal intervention would be a restriction on tribal sovereignty, and I don’t think that the federal courts—and sure as hell not Congress—should have any say-so in who gets defined as Cherokee. On the other hand, I think that by hiding behind the tribal sovereignty fortress, it masks the real issue, which isn’t a legal issue. It’s a policy issue, and it’s one that, to my mind, has pretty grave implications for tribal sovereignty. By redefining citizenship, the amendment threatens the integrity of the Nation from the inside. Independent, recognized governments generally don’t shrink their citizenship, and when a Cherokee Supreme Court decision in the Freedmen’s favor is reversed by a special election with such abysmally low turnout, it looks pretty dysfunctional. When such a tiny minority of the population can amend the constitution to revoke the citizenship eligibility of thousands of people, it undermines the Cherokee Nation's claim to be a legitimate government and one that respects the rule of law.

So no, the federal government shouldn’t intervene, and it is, in some measure, a tribal sovereignty issue. But that’s not really the main issue, and I feel that the CN government is hiding behind that in an attempt to reclaim to moral high ground. The main issue here is about maintaining a stable definition of citizenship and the viability of tribal law. Failure to do that is as much a threat to the CN’s sovereignty as federal intervention. And Dr. Coates’ failure to recognize that point demonstrated her bias as a member of the current CN government.