U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-19-2015, 09:14 PM
 
1 posts, read 4,461 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

My son-in-law thinks he is 1/4 Micmac but in an article written about his grandfather in 1942, the grandfather stated he (the grandfather) was 100% Mohawk. Is there a source where we can do research on this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2015, 09:24 PM
 
Location: SC
2,967 posts, read 3,953,632 times
Reputation: 6809
Quote:
Originally Posted by dottie joslin View Post
My son-in-law thinks he is 1/4 Micmac but in an article written about his grandfather in 1942, the grandfather stated he (the grandfather) was 100% Mohawk. Is there a source where we can do research on this?
I would start by going to 23 and Me, ordering a dna kit for him and going from there. Genetics wont lie, and will give you a starting point as far as whether or not the family stories are true or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2015, 11:05 PM
Status: "Gone hunting until December!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Lost in Montana *recalculating*...
10,943 posts, read 14,584,566 times
Reputation: 11404
I know a bit about Montana tribes, and no- there is no 'check' from the government to an individual just because you are a Native American. They are eligible for S.S. and welfare just about like any of us non-Natives are, but there is no direct subsidy just because you are a Native. Some tribes do offer some assistance IF you live on the reservation (typically), but it's not anything more substantial than housing assistance, health care/clinics, free education, food assistance etc..

I've seen and been involved in quite a bit of training with regards to working with the tribal communities. This is a top 3 misconception that seems to always permeate the landscape.

The short answer is- check with the tribal government for specific benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2015, 07:46 AM
 
269 posts, read 425,965 times
Reputation: 429
First, which territory Mohawk? The US or Canada? First Nations Kahnawake (Mohawks) you can contact them here http://www.kahnawake.com/ They can advise on tracing ancestry to the Mohawk people. Your son in law would need to find an ancestor who was "status."
The US federally recognized Mohawk's you can inquire here Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe | Home.

The post regarding dong a DNA test is not sound geology for tracing ancestral roots to a particular tribe. No tribe, US or Canada accepts DNA testing as any proof of connection to their tribe. After finding no evidence on paper of Native American ancestry, if one wants to dabble in DNA testing is the last alternative for highly questionable ancestry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2015, 04:50 PM
 
858 posts, read 747,628 times
Reputation: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppalachianGumbo View Post
The post regarding dong a DNA test is not sound geology for tracing ancestral roots to a particular tribe. No tribe, US or Canada accepts DNA testing as any proof of connection to their tribe. After finding no evidence on paper of Native American ancestry, if one wants to dabble in DNA testing is the last alternative for highly questionable ancestry.
I'm guessing the intent was that doing a DNA test is a good first step, if you don't come up with any traces of Native American DNA then you shouldn't even bother looking and chalk it up to the many Americans with false Native American ancestor stories.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2015, 01:54 PM
 
269 posts, read 425,965 times
Reputation: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alandros View Post
I'm guessing the intent was that doing a DNA test is a good first step, if you don't come up with any traces of Native American DNA then you shouldn't even bother looking and chalk it up to the many Americans with false Native American ancestor stories.
I understand the intent. I don't agree one needs to officially rule out the other if one is a negative.

If someone hears in their family they have some "unknown" tribal related Native American ancestry and doing it quick and dirty with a DNA test, that is fine. Once they shoot blanks they move onto something else. However, when people start naming tribes it is my personal belief they should do some good genealogy if they really have an interest and not some quick passing fad. People serious in family ancestry will perform the paper trail and can dovetail nicely with DNA testing.

DNA testing is optimal at 3rd great grandparents, 4th or 5th may or may not show. However many 4th or 5th great grandparents in the US and Canada can appear on tribal rolls and not manifest on one's DNA test. A careful need, about telling people "not to bother" if their DNA shows no evidence. If people are that curious looking for ancestors further back, if you do it with DNA, you need to give a swing with researching it as well.

Last edited by AppalachianGumbo; 06-24-2015 at 02:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2015, 02:11 PM
 
858 posts, read 747,628 times
Reputation: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppalachianGumbo View Post
I understand the intent. I don't agree one needs to officially rule out the other if one is a negative.

If someone hears in their family they have some "unknown" tribal related Native American ancestry and for a good quick fix a DNA test, that is fine. Once they shoot blanks they move onto something else. However, when people start naming tribes it is my personal belief they should do some good genealogy if they really have an interest and not some quick passing fad. People serious in family ancestry will perform the paper trail and can dovetail nicely with DNA testing.

DNA testing is optimal at 3rd great grandparents, 4th or 5th may not show. However many 4th or 5th great grandparents in the US and Canada can appear on tribal rolls and not manifest on one's DNA test. A careful need, about telling people "not to bother" if their DNA shows no evidence because they could have an ancestor recorded with a tribe.
I think it all depends on the context of "recent" ancestry. If you have a story that a great grandparent was full blooded Native American and you show no DNA signs at all then it's far more likely your story was wrong. That of course could mean maybe that ancestor was just 1/4th, 1/8th, or 1/16th NA maybe even unknown to that individual how mixed they were, which might put it back enough generations back to explain things.

In fairness I did over-exaggerate the intent to not look. In truth I would never truly suggest not looking or at least keeping any eye out for any type of ancestry, things are always done to degrees. If the story you have is of genuinely recent full blooded NA ancestors and you come up with no DNA signs then you can still look of course, but you should temper your expectations and start to consider the stories may be wrong.

I guess what I didn't express well is that stories of a NA ancestor (or stories of any sort in genealogy) is not strong evidence. If you get a DNA test and see NA/East Asian DNA that is strong evidence, the lack of it isn't proof against, but doesn't lend you any credence to such a story.

I finally found that I probably do have a NA ancestry, but quite far back, probably 200-300 years or more... though my family has at least 3 "stories" of NA ancestors and all of them are far more recent, more like 100-200 years. I haven't found anything to substantiate any of those stories and in genealogy have found many other stories (for myself and others) to be false.

A story is a hint, a rumor, a possibility. DNA is much more concrete (though the lack of it isn't disproof of course)... and in an attempt to be as objective as possible if I have a story and no DNA then that story remains a very small piece of evidence compared to any sort of paper trail etc. Basically before you start looking for a tribe determine if there's any merit to the story at all and DNA is one way to test for that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2015, 02:25 PM
 
Location: North Idaho
20,999 posts, read 25,737,156 times
Reputation: 39362
Quote:
Originally Posted by sp31 View Post
Are you one of those who are 1/8 or 1/16 Native American and get benefits from the state and or government?
If you want benefits, perhaps you could arrange to be Alaskan Eskimo. They receive oil royalties. Not who is usually meant when someone says Native American, but of course they are natives of America, just not indians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2015, 02:54 PM
 
269 posts, read 425,965 times
Reputation: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alandros View Post
I think it all depends on the context of "recent" ancestry. If you have a story that a great grandparent was full blooded Native American and you show no DNA signs at all then it's far more likely your story was wrong. That of course could mean maybe that ancestor was just 1/4th, 1/8th, or 1/16th NA maybe even unknown to that individual how mixed they were, which might put it back enough generations back to explain things.

In fairness I did over-exaggerate the intent to not look. In truth I would never truly suggest not looking or at least keeping any eye out for any type of ancestry, things are always done to degrees. If the story you have is of genuinely recent full blooded NA ancestors and you come up with no DNA signs then you can still look of course, but you should temper your expectations and start to consider the stories may be wrong.

I guess what I didn't express well is that stories of a NA ancestor (or stories of any sort in genealogy) is not strong evidence. If you get a DNA test and see NA/East Asian DNA that is strong evidence, the lack of it isn't proof against, but doesn't lend you any credence to such a story.

I finally found that I probably do have a NA ancestry, but quite far back, probably 200-300 years or more... though my family has at least 3 "stories" of NA ancestors and all of them are far more recent, more like 100-200 years. I haven't found anything to substantiate any of those stories and in genealogy have found many other stories (for myself and others) to be false.

A story is a hint, a rumor, a possibility. DNA is much more concrete (though the lack of it isn't disproof of course)... and in an attempt to be as objective as possible if I have a story and no DNA then that story remains a very small piece of evidence compared to any sort of paper trail etc. Basically before you start looking for a tribe determine if there's any merit to the story at all and DNA is one way to test for that.
Your point was well stated. You were just expressing on the comment I replied too regarding the DNA.
By "recent" I mean in terms of DNA testing within 6 generations. Within 3-6 gens. is the inevitable cliff were segments fall off. Some hold at 6, many can drop off at 3. If someone "thinks" they have Native American ancestry, I would suggest DNA as well to confirm. With the pool of people claiming ancestry DNA testing is quicker to rule out such ancestry. This particular poster, I would point him in the area of doing genealogy. Many Mohawk people are extremely mixed with European.
David Faux (Davidfaux.org under his section Young-Mohawk) is a descendent of Mohawk people, he tested 100% European but has a documented Mohawk ancestor. He had to test another family member to see it in the DNA.

Trace amounts need to be carefully interpreted as well, anything under 1% can (I say that carefully) be very "iffy." I've seen US White Americans get 0.2 or 0.5 East Asian and claim this is proof of Native American. East Asian at these low levels should never be interpreted as such, not even as genuine East Asian. Doug McDonald has often ruled it out as noise. East Asian mixed with Native American, valid? You bet. I've seen people do this with traces of South Asian = Their phantom Gypsy ancestor. If someone sees 2% East Asian or South Asian on their autosomes (not the X older ancestry) is another story. I've seen 0.5 Native American (specific) with a person with a solid paper trail so it is not always noise but has a high rate of being so under 1%.

It is very easy to jump to conclusions even with DNA testing this needs careful interpretation before drawing any final conclusions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2015, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Lake Nona
601 posts, read 355,818 times
Reputation: 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb64282 View Post
I'm 1/16th, but I don't believe in affirmative action. I think it promotes the idea that being of a different ethnicity is a disadvantage.
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
This
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top