U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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)
 
Old 07-10-2015, 09:00 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,707 posts, read 4,280,411 times
Reputation: 1855

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mhundred View Post
If someone told you they were only 1/32nd native american but identified as a native american would you find that strange at all?
No--as long as he or she always identified as a Native American rather than only when it is convenient for him or her to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-11-2015, 07:50 PM
 
191 posts, read 147,372 times
Reputation: 308
The bottom line is this.

If you are not an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, whatever you think about what Chief Baker's eligibility for Cherokee membership, including his ability to run for and hold Tribal office, means precisely zero.

The Cherokees and ONLY the Cherokees decide on that.

I am not an enrolled Cherokee ,so my opinion has the same value as yours; however my statement above is fact, not opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2015, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, not Paris. #MAGA.
9,693 posts, read 5,275,637 times
Reputation: 9671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip OK View Post
The bottom line is this.

If you are not an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, whatever you think about what Chief Baker's eligibility for Cherokee membership, including his ability to run for and hold Tribal office, means precisely zero.

The Cherokees and ONLY the Cherokees decide on that.

I am not an enrolled Cherokee ,so my opinion has the same value as yours; however my statement above is fact, not opinion.
Your above statement is "fact," but has nothing to do with the OP. The OP, using Baker as an example of a member of a NA tribe with a relatively "low" blood quantum, asked a broader question. The OP isn't trying to determine/change tribal membership requirements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2015, 01:34 PM
 
Location: On The Road Full Time RVing
2,342 posts, read 2,786,342 times
Reputation: 2214
.
I believe the only true Native American, is a person who in born
in North American, and is 100% Indian.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2015, 02:17 PM
 
191 posts, read 147,372 times
Reputation: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Your above statement is "fact," but has nothing to do with the OP. The OP, using Baker as an example of a member of a NA tribe with a relatively "low" blood quantum, asked a broader question. The OP isn't trying to determine/change tribal membership requirements.

Let me quote the OP:

"The Current Chief of the Cherokee Nation is Bill John Baker and he is only 1/32nd native american. Is this enough to really identity yourself as a native american?"

My response:

Unless you are an enrolled member of the particular Tribe, you (OP or anyone else) have no right to decide. If a German started querying whether Barack Obama should be president since his father wasn't an American for example, I would be just as offended; it wouldn't be any of the German's business.

As to the second part of the post:

"If someone told you they were only 1/32nd native american but identified as a native american would you find that strange at all?"

I would point out that being 1/32 anything (English, Irish, Chinese, Peruvian; anything) means that that person had a Great, Great, Great, grandparent that was whatever race, nationality, ethnic group mentioned. Five generations back is quite a while, but I bet there are many here on this genealogy board that can trace at least some of their family back that far; figuring a "generation" at about 30 years, five back from now, would be about the American Civil War. I'm pretty sure I can go back to at least 1635 AD, and if I can "fill in some blanks" I could get back to the Domesday book. My half sister has her genealogy back to about 800 AD, but her family is descended from one of our Founding Fathers, so once they got that far it was already done.

So, all I am left with is a vague sense that that the OP was, in fact, directed at whether or not Chief Baker should be "allowed" to be Indian. If the OP is not one of the few people (Cherokee) who can have a legally valid opinion, I consider the entire question to be arrogant, ignorant, condescending and racist.

If the OP is, in fact, a Tribal member, I question whether soliciting unqualified opinions on-line is any reasonable way to express his/her concern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2015, 03:11 PM
 
858 posts, read 748,088 times
Reputation: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip OK View Post
Let me quote the OP:

"The Current Chief of the Cherokee Nation is Bill John Baker and he is only 1/32nd native american. Is this enough to really identity yourself as a native american?"

My response:

Unless you are an enrolled member of the particular Tribe, you (OP or anyone else) have no right to decide. If a German started querying whether Barack Obama should be president since his father wasn't an American for example, I would be just as offended; it wouldn't be any of the German's business.
Fair enough opinion, though I have to agree with the previous poster that you used the word "fact" in response to an opinion related question. The question wasn't should being 1/32rd Cherokee really allow you to be a member of the tribe or the chief. As you quoted it was:

"Is this enough to really identify yourself as native american?"

A very opinion based question, not about tribal rules and qualifications etc. It also wasn't a question about the right to decide either, they again weren't asking about official membership etc, it is about identity which is a very subjective and non-specific thing so there is no hard-fast rule about who should or shouldn't identify as what.


Quote:
As to the second part of the post:

"If someone told you they were only 1/32nd native american but identified as a native american would you find that strange at all?"

I would point out that being 1/32 anything (English, Irish, Chinese, Peruvian; anything) means that that person had a Great, Great, Great, grandparent that was whatever race, nationality, ethnic group mentioned. Five generations back is quite a while, but I bet there are many here on this genealogy board that can trace at least some of their family back that far; figuring a "generation" at about 30 years, five back from now, would be about the American Civil War. I'm pretty sure I can go back to at least 1635 AD, and if I can "fill in some blanks" I could get back to the Domesday book. My half sister has her genealogy back to about 800 AD, but her family is descended from one of our Founding Fathers, so once they got that far it was already done.

So, all I am left with is a vague sense that that the OP was, in fact, directed at whether or not Chief Baker should be "allowed" to be Indian. If the OP is not one of the few people (Cherokee) who can have a legally valid opinion, I consider the entire question to be arrogant, ignorant, condescending and racist.

If the OP is, in fact, a Tribal member, I question whether soliciting unqualified opinions on-line is any reasonable way to express his/her concern.
So you quoted the word allowed but the OP didn't use that word, you should probably have mentioned that was your emphasis based on your interpretation. As many times as I re-read the OP I can only conclude you are putting words in their mouth. You are taking their comment forward multiple steps they themselves are not. They are simply asking if someone who is 1/32nd something but identifies it (and in a strong way such as being a chief of a tribe) is strange. That was it.

Now some of the responses have taken it further but I don't think it's fair to exaggerate the OP's question which was clearly about your opinion on identity not official tribal membership. I think your trying to make their question into something far more offensive than it really was.

I think you are confounding the issue even if I actually agree with a deeper point behind what you are saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2015, 04:33 PM
 
191 posts, read 147,372 times
Reputation: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alandros View Post
Fair enough opinion, though I have to agree with the previous poster that you used the word "fact" in response to an opinion related question.
Here is the "fact" mentioned in my first post:

"If you are not an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, whatever you think about what Chief Baker's eligibility for Cherokee membership, including his ability to run for and hold Tribal office, means precisely zero.

The Cherokees and ONLY the Cherokees decide on that."

Do you wish to argue that the electorate of ANY political entity is the sole arbiter of a person's qualification for office?

Do you understand that the Cherokee Nation has made a conscious decision that those Cherokees, regardless of blood quantum, who can trace their ancestry back to a person who was on the Tribal allotment roll?

Another neighboring Tribe, the Muskogee Creek Nation instituted a blood quantum in order to vote and/or hold office.

Which was right? They both are; each Tribe has the right to determine how their government is elected (this is an opinion).

But, that doesn't mean that either Tribe (or anyone else; which is the situation here) should have any say in how the other Tribe operates (again my opinion).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2015, 09:46 PM
 
Location: Poshawa, Ontario
2,986 posts, read 3,155,317 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mhundred View Post
The Current Chief of the Cherokee Nation is Bill John Baker and he is only 1/32nd native american. Is this enough to really identity yourself as a native american?

If someone told you they were only 1/32nd native american but identified as a native american would you find that strange at all?
It is strange, especially if the person in question is 31/32nds white. Of course when money and power are involved, people will pretty much claim anything these days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2015, 11:20 PM
 
858 posts, read 748,088 times
Reputation: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip OK View Post
Here is the "fact" mentioned in my first post:

"If you are not an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, whatever you think about what Chief Baker's eligibility for Cherokee membership, including his ability to run for and hold Tribal office, means precisely zero.

The Cherokees and ONLY the Cherokees decide on that."

Do you wish to argue that the electorate of ANY political entity is the sole arbiter of a person's qualification for office?

Do you understand that the Cherokee Nation has made a conscious decision that those Cherokees, regardless of blood quantum, who can trace their ancestry back to a person who was on the Tribal allotment roll?

Another neighboring Tribe, the Muskogee Creek Nation instituted a blood quantum in order to vote and/or hold office.

Which was right? They both are; each Tribe has the right to determine how their government is elected (this is an opinion).

But, that doesn't mean that either Tribe (or anyone else; which is the situation here) should have any say in how the other Tribe operates (again my opinion).
Did you read anything I posted... I mean at all. About how it seems clear the question is about your opinion on identity and not official tribal membership. I won't continue to respond, you seem to want to distort what everyone's saying. Obviously I agree with you since I never made the argument you were arguing against.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2015, 11:31 PM
 
858 posts, read 748,088 times
Reputation: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
It is strange, especially if the person in question is 31/32nds white. Of course when money and power are involved, people will pretty much claim anything these days.
To be fair the Cherokee commonly mixed with whites back to the 1700s. The chief during the trail of tears (that was strongly supported by the tribe and vehemently fought relocation) was John Ross who was only 1/8th Cherokee, that means two generations of white intermarriages later you would have someone who was also 1/32nd, a grand-son of that famous chief would be of equal quantum. His ancestor was listed on the Dawes rolls which qualifies him for membership. On quick look it seems he lives in Cherokee County, OK where his family lived for generations... other that that I know nothing of him but personally I'm careful to call people with little Native American blood (that can prove it) not Native American, it's not their ancestors fault that white people invaded their lands and subsequent intermixing happened. Doesn't make anyone any less of their ancestry just because it represents one of thirty two ancestors.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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