Native American Colorism: From Historical Manifestations to the Current Era

Introduction

Colorism among Native Americans is a product of European conquest and/or various forms of emotional, psychological, and cultural domination. Initially said colorism was maintained and carried out via threat of violence where all manner of European ideology was cast in the idealization of Whiteness via light skin. Therefore, colorism relative to the idealization of Whiteness remains consistent in proximity to White culture, White norms, White traditions, and so on at the expense of more civil Native phenomena. In the aftermath, those Native Americans, especially full-bloods, characterized by dark skin relative to Caucasian skin are stigmatized in tribal affairs as descended from an inferior origin regardless of their racial or tribal status. Evidence of this differentiation today is contained in the Native regard for White-mixed versus Black-mixed tribal members as pertains to their acceptance (Katz, 1986). Extended from Euro-American domination such colorism has directed much of Native American life unknown prior to the arrival of settlers from Europe.

Designation as inferior by dark skin is learned attributed to colorism not irrelevant to the Native American psyche and subsequent quality of life. In 1951, two psychiatrists named Abram Kardiner and Lionel Ovesey published their now classic work: The Mark of Oppression. Their primary theses suggest that colorism has imposed psychological “scars” on the dark-skinned, that is, Native American to the point of critical and tenacious pathology. These scars are manifest among otherwise sane dark-skinned Native Americans commensurate with a clinically disturbed comparable light-skinned Euro-American population. However, the origins of psychopathology for the two groups may differ. For Euro-Americans, their psychopathology is derived from established, personal pathogens. For Native Americans via colorism their pathology is derived from adaptation to a pathogenic, alien, Eurocentric environment having nothing whatsoever to do with them personally. Therefore, the origin of Euro-American pathology is internal to the victim compared with that of Native Americans where it is external. Subsequently, Native Americans as victims of colorism are less culpable for their psychopathology compared with their Euro-American counterparts. This Native American adaptation to a societal ill according to Kardiner and Ovesey (1951) is then tantamount to a basic personality typology. Said typology is indicative of the entire Native group to some extent regardless of class, intelligence, or other demographic circumstances carried throughout the life span (Kardiner & Ovesey, 1951). It dictates the most personal affairs of their lives as per the Native American family, location of residence (on vs. off the reservation), social contacts, political views, marital patterns, and so on. The extent of the pathology may be determined by intratribe complexion relative to melanin content. Consequently, the result is a quality of life imposition, which Kardiner and Ovesey (1951) assessed in a mental context. The authors’ conclusions were thus, limited by the omission of pre-European domination when colorism was irrelevant (Snowden, 1983).

Native American colorism describes the acceptance of White mixed-blood Indians and the exclusion of Black mixed-bloods. On August 30, 2017 the U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled against the Cherokee tribe in its attempt to exclude Freedmen from the tribe’s membership. Much of the media attention to this issue has framed the Cherokee Tribe as racist and uncaring about the Freedmen—African American mixed-race Natives. The authors offer an alternative perspective that includes a broader understanding of the context of tribal enrollment and an important analysis of historical and modern-day facts. One of the most important features often left out of the discussion is the foundational basis for these oppressive systems, namely colorism. In order to understand the relationship between and among Cherokee Freedmen and Cherokee Indians as pertains to color, one must include an explanation of tribal enrollment and the concept of blood quantum.

Sociological investigations of racism consistently focus on manifestations between African Americans as victim and Euro-Americans as perpetrators, that is: the “Black/White” dichotomy (Feagin, 2000). As pertains to Native Americans the implications of skin color vis-à-vis racism has been all but ignored as it is politically volatile and infinitely more complex. In the milieu of mascot and treaty issues investigations into the implications of skin color among Native Americans is thus seemingly less urgent. Conversely, in the elimination of social problems it is incumbent on sociologists and other scholars of the social sciences to investigate the incidents of racism beyond the traditional “Black/White” dichotomy, which may in fact serve the elimination of other social pathologies as well (Hudson, 1995).

Akin to the elimination of racism as pertains to Native Americans is the stigmatization and denigration of groups characterized by dark skin including African Americans. Succinctly put, the issue of racism relative to Native Americans will be more contingent on skin color than race in the aftermath of Euro-American domination (Germain, 1991). Skin color will therefore allow for deviations from the “Black/White” dichotomy and similar constructs deemed less relevant.

In consideration of Native-American colorism, the objective of this article is to inform various sectors of the Native community and the social science academy at large. It aims to illuminate the significance of skin color that has dominated tribal affairs otherwise irrelevant or absent in Europe. By documenting the historical and modern-day implications of colorism, a new perspective of Native American issues will become apparent documented via the following: (a) early Native American colorism, (b) Cherokee colorism and the history of slavery, and (c) Native American colorism in the modern era.

Early Native American Colorism

A Native American and a Euro-American are obviously similar in genetic structure: Both frequent a common existential space and both rely on nourishment from the environment of that space to evolve. But their environmental evolution within that space may differ significantly: For darker skinned Native Americans, skin color in a racist Eurocentric society is a critical aspect of existence, whereas for lighter skinned Euro-Americans though relevant skin color is all but totally inconsequential (Frost, 1988). In human genes, as in social development, groups may have much in common, but otherwise navigate a unique pathway around social transgressions. A most dramatic display of this navigation is memorialized in the everyday affairs of early Cherokee students.

Considering the historical influence of Euro-American settlers on Native American norms, the Cherokee Nation was one of the most amenable to colorism. To a considerable extent, this characterized the initial manner in which dark-skinned and light-skinned Native American tribal members interacted with one another. As is frequently the case, the denigration of dark skin was projected onto the Native American psyche that manifested as an intratribal social dynamic.

In the nation’s dawn Cherokees were not the savages they had been made out to be by Euro-American factions. They maintained a National Council that was orchestrated by educated, “white-blood-mixed” tribesmen, many of whom adhered to the value system of Southern plantation slave owners. They organized schools, which were modeled after same, where Euro-American values could be passed on to Native American youth. In many instances, it was the “full-blood” Cherokee Natives more often dark-skinned, who were a minority within such populations. The primary interest of the tribe was the “refinement” of their daughters so that they might serve as dutiful wives of the elite of the Cherokee Nation. Another interest was in the successful assimilation of the darker skinned, “full-blood” Cherokee girls, but apparently, this idea did not come about until 1871, after which the Council was pressured by disgruntled tribesmen to establish a department to provide education free of charge to the poorer, darker skinned “full-bloods” (Halliburton, 1977).

While it was true that many of the Cherokee students were from affluent lighter-skinned Cherokee families, the very wealthy were in fact a minority. The majority could afford tuition, but they were not necessarily from among the nation’s upper class. In fact, the daughters of such families frequently attended schools outside the Cherokee Nation. And each year, dozens of dark-skinned “full-bloods” attended the schools free of charge. At some point (1851-1856), a class system at some of the schools was based on wealth, but from 1872 until 1910, status was based more on skin color as implied by Euro-American racial heritage (Cherokee and white-blood quantums), appearance (Native or Caucasian), and degree of assimilation (Halliburton, 1977).

Certain of the Cherokee students and teachers took pride in their Caucasian light skin. Students frequently taunted those Native girls who had inherited less Euro-American blood and were hence darker in skin. What’s more, a few of the “full-bloods” also scorned those who had limited knowledge of Euro-American cultural ways. It was thus generally assumed among the “mixed-blood” students that the “full-blood” girls were “a little bit backward,” and that the dark-skinned “full-bloods” were well aware of their assumed inferior status. This sentiment of colorism learned via Euro-American domination had gained significant momentum among members of the tribe at large.

Even wealthy “mixed-blood” girls who were dark-skinned were subjected to victimization by colorism. One five-sixteenths Cherokee student was told by a lighter skinned classmate at the time that she could not take part in a class play because: “[a]ngels are fair–haired and you are too dark for an angel.” Thus, the Cherokee early on were obviously defensive about colorism. In an 1855 issue of A Wreath of Cherokee Rose Buds, students complained in an editorial document about the Townsend, Massachusetts female seminary’s paper, the Lesbian Wreath, which referred to the Cherokee girls as their “dusky sisters.” Not to be outdone the Cherokee girls responded in turn with anecdotes and stories in which appearance, particularly blue eyes, was a prominent factor. For example, one story describes the consequences that young “Kate” confronted after plagiarizing a poem for one of her classes: “Fun and abundance,” student Lusette writes, “peeped from her blue eyes . . . and the crimson blush stole upon her cheeks.” In the same issue, student author Inez considers what her schoolmates might be doing in 4 years. One student among the author’s schoolmates is described as a ‘‘fair, gay, blue-eyed girl,” and another is a “fairylike creature with auburn hair.” Still another story by a Cherokee student author, titled “Two Companions, pairs Hope” (“the very personification of loveliness”) with a “tiny, blue-eyed child” named Faith. It is likely that due to colorism, the Cherokee students who wrote the aforementioned stories, considered that those blue eyes, so foreign to their population, were assumed the essence of feminine beauty and poise (Halliburton, 1977).

Cherokee female students who graduated from the color-conscious tribal schools were for the most part assimilated in manner; to that end, the school served its Eurocentric purpose. Following graduation, many entered a profession, such as teaching, or medicine commensurate with their status. They also did what was expected by their elders by “marrying well.” Marrying well, meant marriage to Euro-American men for light-skinned children or to men who had less Cherokee blood than what they inherited. When that was unlikely, the potential husbands were invariably physicians, politicians, or members of prominent (usually wealthy) Cherokee families. Clearly, by colorism the more Euro-American blood a Cherokee woman had, the lighter her skin and the more likely she was to marry a non-Cherokee, a tribal member with high social status, or a man who at least had the same measure of Euro-American blood that she possessed. As time elapsed, Native Americans similar to other people of color have shown minimal attitudinal change toward dark skin relative to colorism (Boulangerm, 1974).

The Euro-American colorism traditions and social norms acted out in school settings prevailed no less in other areas of society. The pressure on Native Americans to act out slavery as practiced by White slave owners has been subject to Eurocentric historical interpretation. According to said interpretation, initially Native Americans were enslaved along with African Americans, which was necessary for their labor. History documents Native American slavery as early as the 1500s under De Soto and other Spaniards. Most had been the casualties of war. The Spanish justified Native slavery as necessary that they might Christianize their uncivilized heathen subjects. Regardless of European power Native Americans were not comfortable with the bondage of men culturally. That is, this so-called “uncivilized” peoples thought of slavery as barbaric. On learning of this perception, the so-called more “civilized” Europeans pressed the institution of slavery to reinforce it as a norm of tradition. The tension this caused can be gleaned from recorded rhetoric in 1760, during the Cherokee War in North Carolina which states that: “. . . those who could capture ‘an enemy Indian,’ could hold him in slavery” (Halliburton, 1977).

Nevertheless, Native Americans did in fact operate as slave owners. However, the practice among them was subject to the bias of Euro-American historians. Compared with the White version, Native slavery appeared to value the slave’s humanity. Therefore, the Cherokee might work in the fields side-by-side as master and slave. There might also be slave–master unions, which brought red-black offspring validated by marriage. This arrangement was a stark contrast with the Euro-American version where slaves were reduced to animals. Still for Native slave owners the institution was profitable. In North Carolina where many Cherokee tribes located farming was the primary source of income that drove the local economy. Little acknowledged in Eurocentric text in addition to differentiations between the White and Native versions of slavery, Native Americans also owned Euro-Americans as well (Halliburton, 1977).

Despite the implications of slavery for Native-American colorism traditional logic does not apply. In fact, in spite of Native Americans as slave owners alliances between them and African Americans were unusually strong. The strength of these alliances had been victimized by Euro-American historians who rather than record the facts as they witnessed them took to writing about slavery via ulterior motives. Perhaps most tragic of all is the fact that by ulterior motives critical truths had been deemed virtually irrelevant, which may be far more damaging than the biased distortions recorded. They are truths that can never be retrieved by any other than the testimony of participants or eyewitnesses. Unlike fabrications and biases that can be disproved, discredited, or challenged using historical documents, once facts are omitted they are dismissed permanently. In the aftermath, artists who depict history are in grave error. For example, George Catlin painted well-known portraits of the Seminole Chief Osceola. What Catlin omitted in text and on canvas from any of his works was mentioning the fact that Native-American Chief Osceola’s personal bodyguard consisted of 55 fearless warriors, which included 52 who were red-black (Katz, 1986).

Most Euro-Americans did not approve of the manner in which the Cherokee regarded their slaves because it threatened the institution. They were not indifferent to the nondiscriminatory behaviors that might take place on the farm or church setting. And while in the beginning the Cherokee presented themselves as equal to the White man, in fact, their conduct of business was ever mindful of White reactions to their behavior. Thus, as recorded in history a Native-American slave owner named Shoe Boots married his favorite slave, a dark-skinned girl named Lucy. Their union produced two red-black children, to whom Shoe Boots eventually acted to award them freedom. To do so, he petitioned the local tribal Chief. Freedom for the children was granted by the Chief, but Shoe Boots was admonished by him not to request such freedom again because doing so might cause unnecessary problems and upset the White man (Katz, 1986).

How widespread and the number of slaves held by the Cherokee is often disputed. Following colonization, slavery shifts, and tribes participated in chattel slavery as discussed by Tiya Miles who

. . . 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 . . . 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. (Miles, as cited in Onion, 2016)

Most historians point to evidence that the Cherokee tribe did not have slaves until colonization made it essential for survival. This means that the Cherokee tribe is accountable for their participation in a racist process. But the context of slavery and the force behind it should not be discounted. Tiya Miles (2009) makes a powerful statement in relation to this reality,

At the same time that we must confront the reality of black slavery in Indian nations, it is equally important to recognize the much longer period that indigenous Americans and African Americans, as well as Afro-Indians, were enslaved together by European colonists and early Americans. (p. 149)

The Freedmen had become the slaves of Cherokee as a response to colonization. The strategy of the federal government to define Natives and Africans as different and opposed to one another worked historically for the government, but not for the Cherokee tribe.

Native American Colorism in the Modern Era

In the modern era, much controversy has been stirred about tribal membership qualifications attributed to colorism. In fact, membership requirements within Native American tribes in the United States are very complex. They are overwhelmingly built on a lack of science, racist ideologies meant to get rid of the “Indian problem,” and rolls that are incomplete and misleading at best. The Cherokee are not alone in the complexities of tribal membership but offer an example of policies not irrelevant to colorism.

Most non-Indians do not know how someone becomes an “Indian” in the United States. Many Native Americans believe that people simply self-identify. This informal category is really only available to “White looking” light-skinned people. There are concerns about White-looking individuals who claim Native ancestry even though they know nothing of the tribe such as its history or the language. On the other hand, individuals with a brown face will often be categorized as other whether they identify as Native or not. This informal process of race and colorism by skin color is drastically different from formal procedures. Historically, Native individuals had little choice considering the federal government about their formal Native American identity.

Following the creation of treaties, the U.S. federal government took control of tribal membership by having its agents go into the field and determine the number of tribal members. This was based on skin color guised under the false science of blood quantum and the desire to decrease and eventually get rid of “Indians” altogether. This became even more important when the federal government created the Dawes Act, also known as the Allotment Act in 1887, which was to divide the communal land of Natives to individuals. Each individual tribal member was given a specific amount of land. Any land left over would be for sale. The added feature of this Act was that if individuals were “white” enough it meant they were capable of selling their land. The Dawes Commission was charged with the purpose of identifying tribal members and their respective “blood quantum.” Wakim Dennis, Hirschfelder, and Flynn (2016) describe what occurred.

Among the Five Civilized Tribes, communal lands were shifted to individual members with remarkable speed. In order to assign individual plots of land, the Dawes Commission had to create lists of tribal members, which were called rolls. . . . During this process, enrollment was complicated by the foreign concept of blood quantum percentages. “Blood quantum” was a term used by federal agents that referred to how much “Indian blood” a person had. The agents had strange ways of determining Native people’s heritage. One method was to scratch a person’s chest and judge his or her amount of Indian blood by the color of the scratched skin. In all, the commission placed 101,526 persons on the final rolls of the Five Civilized Tribes. Of this number, federally designated “full-bloods” constituted 26,794; another 3,534 were enrolled as having three-fourths or more Indian “blood”; 6,859 were listed as one-half to three-fourths Indian; and 40,934 were listed as having less than one-half Indian blood.

Today, Native Americans have to apply for tribal membership through their tribe and with the federal government. Tribal membership requirements vary by tribe and some tribes will only enroll members based on the Native blood they possess from their own tribe. Some tribes go by lineage and ignore the blood quantum aspect. Others will accept the collective blood of all one’s lineage, but a person can only be enrolled in one tribe, never in dual or multiple tribes.

The federal government uses the Dawes rolls to determine the legitimacy of an individual’s claim of blood. The following is the application procedure one must fulfill for the federal government to get a Certificate Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB), which will list your blood quantum (the amount of Native blood you have) and your tribal affiliation:

You must show your relationship to an enrolled member(s) of a federally recognized Indian tribe, whether it is through your birth mother or birth father, or both. A federally recognized Indian tribe means an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community which appears on the list of recognized tribes published in the Federal Register by the Secretary of the Interior (25 U.S.C. § 479a-1(a)). • Your degree of Indian blood is computed from lineal ancestors of Indian blood who were enrolled with a federally recognized Indian tribe or whose names appear on the designated base rolls of a federally recognized Indian tribe. • You must give the maiden names of all women listed on the Request for CDIB, unless they were enrolled by their married names. • A Certified Copy of a Birth Certificate is required to establish your relationship to a parent(s) enrolled with a federally recognized Indian tribe(s). • If your parent is not enrolled with a federally recognized Indian tribe, a Certified Copy of your parent’s Birth or Death Certificate is required to establish your parent’s relationship to an enrolled member of a federally recognized Indian tribe(s). If your grandparent(s) were not enrolled members of a federally recognized Indian tribe(s), a Certified Copy of the Birth or Death Certificate for each grandparent who was the child of an enrolled member of a federally recognized Indian tribe is required. (25 U.S.C. § 479a-1(a))

Figure 1 can be found on the Bureau of Indian Affairs (2018) website and is used to determine an individual’s blood quantum.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Blood quantum percentage table.

The process of blood quantum is not traditional to Native-American tribes in the United States and rests on colorism via racist assumptions even though it is considered legitimate science. The blood quantum formula assumes that a Native lineage can eventually have zero blood, even though that is impossible. It is also a problem because it assumes that the rolls created by the federal government identifying the level of tribal members’ blood quantum are accurate. Unfortunately, it is drastically inaccurate and often lowered the blood quantum of tribal members. Many tribes developed blood quantum measures similar to the federal government because their vulnerability made them susceptible to pressure from the government to conform. These decisions come on the heels of a long history of colonization involving physical and cultural genocide. The case of the Cherokee included the added feature of colorism as pertains to the Freedmen. Currently, membership requirements for the Cherokee Tribe according to the tribal registry requirement are the following (Cherokee Tribal Membership Application Package, 2018; http://www.cherokee.org/Services/Tribal-Citizenship/Downloadable-Forms):

To be eligible for a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB)/Tribal Citizenship with the Cherokee Nation, you must be able to provide documents that connect you to an enrolled lineal ancestor, who is listed on the DAWES ROLL FINAL ROLLS OF CITIZENS AND FREEDMEN OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES, Cherokee Nation with a blood degree. This roll was taken between 1899-1906 of Citizens and Freedmen residing in Indian Territory (now NE Oklahoma).

Notice that eligibility rests on an individual’s connection to an ancestor listed on the Dawes Rolls, which includes Freedmen despite their skin color. The Freedmen are listed as a separate category with no inclusion of Cherokee blood. But how was it that the Freedmen subjected to colorism were slaves of the Cherokee? Such a complex question may never conclude in an answer.

Among Native Americans today there then exists various forms of stratification on the basis of colorism. Particularly among those of mixed parentage is the issue of skin color apparent (Katz, 1986). A few scholars have approached this topic as it existed during the Antebellum. However, the contemporary, urban manifestations have commanded less attention for various reasons. The fact is that among Native Americans’ colorism on the basis of dark skin denigration has resulted in an unspoken hierarchy that is particularly evident among those who reside in urban areas. Mixed-parentage Native Americans in such areas experience tribal recognition status commensurate with their “white” blood quantum assuming light skin.

Gramsci offers a useful reference for the illumination of the colorism issue among Native Americans residing in the San Francisco Bay Area. This area boasts one of the largest concentration of urban Native Americans in the country. It came about as the result of relocation programs during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. In the aftermath of such urbanization, those who relocated experienced increased associations with the dominant Euro-American ethnic. Thus, socially they exemplified increased assimilation and acculturation to the dominant group mainstream. In the aftermath, Native American urbanization distorted the multiplicity of individual tribal identities into one monolithic population characterized as Native American. This postbellum social dynamic enabled a Native American conglomerate that pushed dark-skinned African–mixed-parentage Native Americans to the fringes of acceptance and tribal recognition.

Among scholars this emerging Native American monolith is referred to as “pan-Indianism.” Pan-Indianism is little more than a dominant group Euro-American concept validated by the academic prestige of anthropology. Beyond its influence, pan-Indianism is likely to be irrelevant, as is typical of much of disciplines such as anthropological theory. In America, anthropologists would suggest that urbanized Native Americans will negate their tribal heritage and merge with others to become a Native American monolith (Deloria, 1999). Not a few scholars such as Deloria have attempted an analysis of the situation, which not only demonstrates that a diversity of Native Americans can be merged commensurate with light skin but also suggests by the existence of closed racial, ethnic, and cultural mechanisms how the darker skinned can be excluded.

Conversely, African–mixed-parentage Native Americans are well aware of their Native American roots and are not ashamed to make reference to it (hooks, 1992):

Speaking primarily to the folks who have always denied the many truths of U.S. history that tell of imperialist expansion, cultural genocide, and racism, Katz makes it seem that it is important to convince his audience that “black Indians” even existed. (p. 184)

Katz, the author of Black Indians, is criticized by hooks for not acknowledging Euro-American domination that has made the African–mixed-parentage Native American by colorism “invisible.” Furthermore, the invisibility of African-mixed Native Americans has been facilitated by the social discourse of “full-blooded” Native Americans and their Euro–mixed-parentage counterpart particularly in urban locations. Arguably that discourse contributes to the colorism directed at dark-skinned Native Americans of whatever parentage by light-skinned Native Americans: “full-blooded” or otherwise.

The Eurocentrism of racial constructs validates blood quantum by skin color, which impairs the ability of African-mixed Native-Americans to be accepted as authentic and circumvent colorism. For example, their claiming Native-American identity may be problematic for reasons including (1) African-mixed Native Americans may be seen as wanting to escape the social stigma associated with being “black” and (2) discrimination on the basis of their dark skin may disqualify them because in appearance, unlike their lighter skinned Euro-mixed counterpart, they are more physically similar to African Americans, that is, Lumbee, Pequot, Seminole, and so on (Wilson, 1992).

Thus, under the circumstances it is plausible to suggest that Native Americans–especially the urbanized–have been encouraged to discriminate against their own by African blood quantum as pertains to colorism via dark skin. In the outcome, dark-skinned Native Americans, regardless of their parentage, have been denied legitimate acceptance into the fold of group nationhood. That denial is Eurocentric in essence because the Native American psyche, like others among oppressed populations of color, has been shaped, transformed, and constructed in such a way as to create a hierarchy which validates dominant race category and diminishes by color. The acceptance of light-skinned Native Americans into the fold of archetypical has resulted in their inculcation of “white” ways, “white” culture, and on occasion “white” racism as in the case of modern-day Native American Chris Simon.

Apparently, Mr. Simon—a professional hockey player and member of the Ojiba tribe—was fined $36,585 and suspended three games for directing racist remarks at an African American player named Mike Grier (National Hockey League, 1997). In arguably the most “white” and homogeneous of major sports the behavior of modern-day Native Americans is analogous to that of their conquered, slave-owning forebears. What’s more, such elements of Native Americans given to colorism have criticized African Americans for playing on sports teams which degrade them by mascot such as the NFL Washington “Red Skins,” and the major league baseball Cleveland “Indians.” Yet no African American has ever hurled racial slurs or degraded Native Americans in their use of mascots for professional sports teams—their ownership of such teams is all but nonexistent. Criticism by Native Americans of team ownership is all too tacit and the aftermath of their White fear. This oversight on their part is arguably a Eurocentric marginalization by colorism affecting all people of color (1997).

Conclusion

Bias in Native American history is the mainstay of American historical scholarship. Omitted are the numerous battles waged jointly by African Americans and Native Americans against imperialist settlers who fought and died for the same freedoms, such as that in New York, which occurred before the famous battle fought at Lexington and Concord, on April 19, 1775. This less-known revolt was a confrontation that involved considerable numbers of Black slaves, red-Blacks, and more than 500 Native American full-bloods. Their courage in battle was not dramatically “heard around the world,” as historians have said of the American Minutemen. But their willingness to risk their lives was equally worthy.

The numerous battles fought in New York by Native Americans, African Americans, and their red-Black counterparts are a neglected example of some of the joint ventures by Blacks, Natives, and mixed-bloods that are so sparsely noted throughout the narratives of American history. In fact, prior to the onset of European colonization there existed numerous battles involving such intergroup alliances, which are in truth a significant aspect of the American story. The fact that such information has been overlooked has resulted in an ignorance of which the most informed and educated of African Americans and Native Americans know little. That ignorance as pertains to African American and Native American joint ventures in battle is no less dramatic than the courage of mixed-race African/Native individuals for the most part unknown.

“On the snowy night of March 5, 1770, Crispus Attucks, a black linked by blood to Native Americans, stepped dramatically into American history. He was the first to fall in the Boston Massacre” (Halliburton, 1977). While many Americans are knowledgeable as to the bravery of Crispus Attucks, they are ignorant of his African/Native ancestry. Their ignorance is a result of an oversight in most traditional texts, wherein Attucks by colorism is represented solely as an African American. That representation is little more than a misrepresented half-truth. His life is celebrated annually during Black History month as the great African-American hero that he was, but nowhere in the Native-American community is he accorded any degree of celebration—perhaps because being of mixed-blood and colorism he is not considered by some to be truly Native American. Thus, not free of White influence, modern-day Native Americans may be more given to colorism via White domination.

An imperative conclusion commencing the postcolonial Native American community is that, despite a multitude of sociohistorical obstacles, many dark-skinned Natives continue to thrive in a less than idyllic social environment. There can be little doubt that current scholarship is unwittingly fueled by distorted public perception. Native American scholars must acknowledge the taboo nature of the skin color issue to accommodate its resolution. This notion facilitates the potential for regaining lost African American/Native American racial harmony.

While it is well known that responsibility for the genesis of colorism in America is derived, at least in part, from Europe and its Euro-American settler counterpart, the role assumed by Native Americans must be acknowledged. If not, the aftermath will enable tolerance of a dual standard of social investigation that will denigrate the struggles of all—regardless of race and/or color—who made the ultimate sacrifice for the welfare of African- and Native-American communities jointly oppressed. Oppressive social systems set the narrative for everyone. It is intentional that African Americans and Native Americans were characterized as pitted against one another. According to scholar Theda Perdue, “By emphasizing the actual, exaggerated and imagined differences between Africans and Indians, Whites successfully masked the cultural similarities of the two races as well as their mutual exploitation by whites” (Theda Perdue as cited in Katz, 1986, p. 13). As African Americans and Native Americans unknowingly disserve one another, the emphasis of the history of what really happened and is happening is diverted leaving Euro-American systems with no accountability. This facilitates blame of the Cherokee Tribe for accusations of racism and in particular colorism. White mixed-blood Natives because of colorism are rescued because they have the “correct” skin color, the desirable skin color. They have the advantage of dual race. Dark-skinned Freedmen by colorism have been historically defined unlike the light-skinned White-mixed narrowly by their African-ness. In fact, it would not be incorrect to point out that the Cherokee tribal decisions on membership today are racist by colorism. However, failure to acknowledge the prevailing complexity of tribal membership and other such critical matters prevents authentic solutions to the problem that will unfortunately enable colorism to persist in the modern era.