Last week’s issue had a short article about the “Arkansas Cherokees,” who’ve been struggling to get federal recognition, while dealing with attempts by Cherokees across the border in Oklahoma to prevent it. The article did a great job of discussing both the issues that caused this group to split off from the rest of the tribe (C. 1828) and how casinos are causing others to lobby against their recognition. Also interesting was the comment in the article that the descendents of the original group were frequently called “Black Irish,” a term that’s been applied to my dad’s family (who’ve been rumored to be Cherokee). HOWEVER, the illustration that went with the article was a befuddled looking man in a feathered headress. Basically they put a drawing of somebody in Plains Indian clothing with an article about a group that’s in another. part of the country and culturally/linguistically different. So I wrote a letter to them saying “great article, but talk about adding insult to injury – they can’t even get the Economist to recognize them for who they are.” Who knows if it’ll get published, but I absolutely love the Letters to the Editor section of the Economist because they always begin with “SIR”
tela has written 2 entries about this goal
I’ve been skimming it but don’t seem to have the mental focus to read it cover to cover like I’d hope (more luck in that area with the Wall Street Journal). But I’m doing better about reading each issue on the day that it arrives.
tela has gotten 2 cheers on this goal.
Stacey cheered this 3 years ago
jenniferdenoya cheered this 3 years ago
