I knew a girl in college who was "Black." I remember she said that she was a quarter Cherokee. Then she turned to the side and said, "Look. I could stand outside of a dimestore holding cigars. Other than this nappy hair and dark skin, I look like an Indian." And she did. I asked her if she was a member of a tribe, since her tuition would be covered. She said no. She said her family was from the south and they had a lot of Indian blood, but the black part of the family was excluded from the tribal roles. She said that she took it personally, because she saw it every time she looked in the mirror, and they felt that they had the right to deny her blood. She said that her sister looked like the African side of the family and the tribal situation didn't bother her. She said that as an intellegent, "black" woman, she had her tuition covered. She was very funny. It's just strange after all of these years to see that her situation wasn't strange at all. Her story always stuck with me. It was a very emotional conversation.

Thanks, I've really enjoyed Salon's articles on Indian country lately. I thought Saunt's examination of the role of the plenary powers of Congress versus the growth of a people's moral backbone was very nicely done.

That said, I'd like to see more articles addressing Native issues regarding land and identity that are still being fought. The elders at Big Mountain on the Navajo Nation in Arizona are still hanging on after more than 35 years. When will we hear their story? Yes, I know that casino-rich tribes are utilizing their powers in terrible ways, but the majority of Native people in this land still face the same problems as before. Focusing on the very few rich Indians as straw men to knock down does little to alleviate the great suffering of most American Indians. Indian reservations still possess the poorest counties in the United States, the highest suicide rates in the United States, the highest mortality rates, the highest drop out rates--I could go on and on. By every measure our people have paid the greatest price to make way for this world power called America. When will this be examined?

Some balance would be nice that's all.

Jacqueline Keeler, writer

member of the Navajo tribe and Yankton Sioux

Let's face it. The "Five Civilized Tribes" were called "civilized" because they aped the life of the Southern planter elite. White men who married into those tribes produced "Indians" who were physically and culturally white. These "white Indians"

ran the tribal governments and despised the "full bloods" and their traditional ways. The "white Indians" still control the tribes. THEY, more than anyone else, want to maintain the illusion that "white blood" honors or improves the Indian while "black blood" degrades him and destroys his identity.

Perhaps liberals should stop feeling guilty about the "Trail of Tears" and start

holding these so-called "Indians" to the same moral standards expected of "whites"

(which is what most of these so-called Indians are, anyway).

I still remember my great-grandmother, Granny Lou, who was a full blooded Cherokee. I also remeber some of the family who were connected with the Lumbee tribe in North Carolina. While it seems a bit of a betrayal to the love that she gave all of our family for generations, I reject any part of me that is Cherokee. There, I've said it. Her tribe has, in my estimation, forfeited its claim to the wonderful human being that was Granny Lou. I am also saddened because my daughter will little know about the ethnicity of her forebear. Nor, for that matter will I teach her that she has anything in common, or in struggle, with the "Civilized Tribes." When I see Granny Lou again, I hope she will forgive me and I hope she will understand.

DNA typing will tell the truth. If they're not -- then they deserve some compensation for enslavement. If they are, they belong to the tribe. Either they are or they aren't. Most likely they are. Most geneologists and will tell you that the color of skin is not the best way of determining race, as DNA is more accurate. There are families with member appearances rival the colors of the rainbow, yet they came from the same parents. Only in this country are we so naive, blind and ignorant about race -- primarily because it economically benefited the ruling class for so long. The Puritans' had to have some justification for Slavery. They held the bible in one hand and a whip in the other. They walked into their houses through their front doors, and crept into the bedrooms of Slave women through their back doors. They held debutante balls for their white female girls, and auctions for their black female girls -- although those with a conscience secretly educated them. That double standard permeates American history, and thus, its politics and policies to this day; to their own detriment. It's more pervasive in this USA; however, human history demostrates one aspect of our nature common to us all; we seem to all need someone to look down on. Where it benefits us economically, we then justify it.

DNA typing will tell the truth. If they're not -- then they deserve some compensation for enslavement. If they are, they belong to the tribe. Either they are or they aren't. Most likely they are. Most geneologists and will tell you that the color of skin is not the best way of determining race, as DNA is more accurate. There are families with members whose appearances rival the colors of the rainbow, yet they came from the same parents. Only in this country are we so naive, blind and ignorant about race -- primarily because it economically benefited the ruling class for so long. The Puritans' had to have some justification for Slavery. They held the bible in one hand and a whip in the other. They walked into their houses through their front doors, and crept into the bedrooms of Slave women through their back doors. They held debutante balls for their white female girls, and auctions for their black female girls -- although those with a conscience secretly educated them. They then used the consequences of those policies as markers of inferiority. That double standard permeates American history, and thus, its politics and policies to this day; to their own detriment. It's more pervasive in this USA; however, human history demonstrates one aspect of our nature common to us all; we seem to all need someone to look down on. Where it benefits us economically, we then (need to) justify it.