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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-15-2015, 09:02 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, not Paris. #MAGA.
9,693 posts, read 5,275,637 times
Reputation: 9671

Advertisements

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. 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.




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.
Thank you! I thought it was simple enough. Note, I agree with the other poster on a deeper level, but that's not the point here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-15-2015, 10:41 PM
 
245 posts, read 269,565 times
Reputation: 242
If they are raised to be Native American, then yes.

If they have a long lasting ancestor that just happened to be Native American but they are far removed from that culture the no. I think anything past an 8th is pretty much pushing it when it comes to ethnicity claiming.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2015, 09:55 AM
 
Location: NY
22 posts, read 23,834 times
Reputation: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppalachianGumbo View Post
I agree with you points.

Vanessa Williams was 65% SSA when she tested and comes from multigenerational mulattoes. She is fair skinned with discernible SSA features but looks admixed.
According to what I read, her test results claim she is 56% SSA. That is not a big difference and is still more than half. I agree with the rest of what you said. You have discerning eyesight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,012 posts, read 13,243,316 times
Reputation: 13787
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.

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.
Okay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2015, 10:14 AM
 
375 posts, read 924,039 times
Reputation: 510
Trivia: 1/32 is the most common blood quantum for enrolled members of the western Cherokee Nation. Seems like he fits in perfectly. The whole blood quantum system was originated by the BIA back in the day when their goal was to bureaucratically eliminate native tribes they had failed to exterminate with bullets. It doesn't tell you anything about how committed to and/or involved in tribal life anyone or their parents, grandparents, etc. are/were.

Sometimes I wonder if people who complain about things like this don't realize that not everyone has recent immigrant ancestors or can claim more than 1/32 of any specific ancestry. I can document 7/256 Cherokee ancestry, that's more than I can trace to any other people unless you want to start grouping together ethnicities with no common language, customs, etc. that have mostly hated each other since the middle ages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2015, 02:45 PM
 
858 posts, read 748,724 times
Reputation: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by yarddawg View Post
Trivia: 1/32 is the most common blood quantum for enrolled members of the western Cherokee Nation. Seems like he fits in perfectly. The whole blood quantum system was originated by the BIA back in the day when their goal was to bureaucratically eliminate native tribes they had failed to exterminate with bullets. It doesn't tell you anything about how committed to and/or involved in tribal life anyone or their parents, grandparents, etc. are/were.

Sometimes I wonder if people who complain about things like this don't realize that not everyone has recent immigrant ancestors or can claim more than 1/32 of any specific ancestry. I can document 7/256 Cherokee ancestry, that's more than I can trace to any other people unless you want to start grouping together ethnicities with no common language, customs, etc. that have mostly hated each other since the middle ages.
Exactly. For example I can trace to an English immigrant ancestor who came over around 1640. He's my 12th great grandfather, making him 12 generations away. That means my English blood quantum from this ancestor alone would be 1/4096.

My most recent immigrant ancestors are German, I only have one line that has immigrant ancestors that doesn't trace to colonial times. They came over in the mid 1800s and are 3rd great grandfathers/grandmothers which makes them 5 generations away. That means from a single of these individuals I would have a German blood quantum of 1/32.

Many people trace back to someone who came over to the US in say 1600-1700s and accepts that as part of their identity. I do with my English ancestor who makes up 1/4096 of my ancestry... why would it be invalid for people to do the same with less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2015, 07:25 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles,CA & Scottsdale, AZ
1,899 posts, read 1,513,395 times
Reputation: 1567
I'm 1/32 Native American. I don't look it at all, I really shouldn't be allowed to claim Native American nor would I ever because I grew up in a white neighborhood with no native american culture or native american features so it's not fair for someone like me to call myself native american.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2015, 08:10 PM
 
1,803 posts, read 731,052 times
Reputation: 1414
Quote:
Originally Posted by naadarien View Post
In the black community this is pretty common. There are plenty of fair skinned "blacks" whose racial composition would show that they have very little african ancestry, and yet because they grew up here and were raised by people who self-identified as black (who themselves were likely raised by people who self-identified as black) who call themselves black.

It is one of the more curious racial inconsistencies in our non-white/white racial dichotomy.
It's unreal. Open any African American history book and it's filled with people that are ridiculously white-looking (Billy Bob Thorton white). It's difficult to look at sometimes.

And the difference with white-black people, is that there's no concept of "blood quantum". It's never even mentioned, and you're left to just be curious about it. Folks usually pretend that they were all just 'fairskinned black people'. What's more is that they never had any white relatives; they usually came from families of white-black people.

I remember being a kid and asking matter-of-factly "Why are they white!?", and adults would look at me like I was crazy for even asking - as if it were completely normal for black people to look white.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2015, 06:36 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,012 posts, read 13,243,316 times
Reputation: 13787
Quote:
Originally Posted by i'm not a cookie View Post
I'm 1/32 Native American. I don't look it at all, I really shouldn't be allowed to claim Native American nor would I ever because I grew up in a white neighborhood with no native american culture or native american features so it's not fair for someone like me to call myself native american.
No one is pressuring you to sign up, are they?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2015, 08:36 AM
 
269 posts, read 426,677 times
Reputation: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tritone View Post
It's unreal. Open any African American history book and it's filled with people that are ridiculously white-looking (Billy Bob Thorton white). It's difficult to look at sometimes.

And the difference with white-black people, is that there's no concept of "blood quantum". It's never even mentioned, and you're left to just be curious about it. Folks usually pretend that they were all just 'fairskinned black people'. What's more is that they never had any white relatives; they usually came from families of white-black people.

I remember being a kid and asking matter-of-factly "Why are they white!?", and adults would look at me like I was crazy for even asking - as if it were completely normal for black people to look white.
Blood Quanta as determined within Indian Country is not by "race" or how much Indian blood, it is by degree of "tribal" blood. There are Indian peoples who are full blood by race, however inter-tribally mixed they cannot enroll with a tribal because they do not meet the Blood Quanta requirement. The degree of White blood within the Black community has no concept with Blood Quanta and American Indians. No sure what your difference is, I'm being specific about Blood Quanta being tossed around the forums.
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