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.
Well I've always heard the cherokee and poss. choctaw heritage my family has. I couldn't verify it and seemingly many other people claim the same. We got choctaw, Scots-Irish on my Mom's side and German Cherokee on Dads. Mom always said Irish and never said Scots. She must not have liked that part-I don't know why. Maybe this is all a big brotherhood we don't know about, somehow we are all related
Which is why they're not "Native Americans" any more than I. They prefer to call themselves and be called "Indians" or "American Indians". "Native American" is a misguided attempt at political correctness. They really don't mind if you call them Indians.
Wait, what? I thought they were called Indians because Christopher Columbus who was supposed to go to India when he found this continent, saw these people, and figured "Wait, hey um this place doesn't look like India, and you people don't look like...oh whatever hey there Indians!" and called them such.
If you watched the PBS genealogy show, where they used DNA to trace the ancesrty of some people, I believe that the native Americans originally came from Asia. So on a pie chart of percentages of one's ancestry NAs would be shown on a chart as Asian.
True, the people who were already in the Americas when the Europeans arrived came across teh Bering Strait land bridge that was there during the ice age. Percentages for Native American on genealogy DNA test results do come back as Asian because of that origin.
True, the people who were already in the Americas when the Europeans arrived came across teh Bering Strait land bridge that was there during the ice age. Percentages for Native American on genealogy DNA test results do come back as Asian because of that origin.
Uh, wut?
The "Land Bridge Theory" has been debunked for decades now. A few die-hards still cling to it.
There was never a "land bridge" to cross, and as it stands, everyone came by boat, even the Inuits in Alaska.
There are settlements in Chile dating back to 35,000 to 30,000 BCE.
If you remember the 9,000 year old Kennewick Man from about 15 years ago found in Washington state, he was more Polynesian and European than Indian, which casts doubts that the Indians are the "original" inhabitants.
Actually the land bridge "theory" has not been debunked. There are plenty of artifacts spread from the Bering Strait to Central america to prove such. And if you want to debate peoples origins then ALL people, including Europeans, would have to be called Africans.
Speaking of Africans, there are a lot of Americans with African ancestry. There are even books about 5 presidents and 1 vp potentially having African ancestry. Of course this goes the other way with lots of blacks having white ancestry as well.
As for the American Indian thing, I supposedly have some as well I forget which tribe though. I certainly don't look it though as most of my ancestry is Nordic.
Wait, what? I thought they were called Indians because Christopher Columbus who was supposed to go to India when he found this continent, saw these people, and figured "Wait, hey um this place doesn't look like India, and you people don't look like...oh whatever hey there Indians!" and called them such.
Yes, it came about because of Columbus's and others' intent of finding a Western route to the East Indies which resulted in the Caribbean islands being referred to as the West Indies. However, since then, the pre-European residents adopted the name.
As to the Bering land bridge theory, it has not been debunked and has actually been strengthened by recent DNA research.
The "Land Bridge Theory" has been debunked for decades now. A few die-hards still cling to it.
There was never a "land bridge" to cross, and as it stands, everyone came by boat, even the Inuits in Alaska.
There are settlements in Chile dating back to 35,000 to 30,000 BCE.
If you remember the 9,000 year old Kennewick Man from about 15 years ago found in Washington state, he was more Polynesian and European than Indian, which casts doubts that the Indians are the "original" inhabitants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcrackly
Actually the land bridge "theory" has not been debunked. There are plenty of artifacts spread from the Bering Strait to Central america to prove such. And if you want to debate peoples origins then ALL people, including Europeans, would have to be called Africans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990
Yes, it came about because of Columbus's and others' intent of finding a Western route to the East Indies which resulted in the Caribbean islands being referred to as the West Indies. However, since then, the pre-European residents adopted the name.
As to the Bering land bridge theory, it has not been debunked and has actually been strengthened by recent DNA research.
During the ice age water between Alaska and Asia would have been frozen over. In additon with so much of the world's water tied up in glaciers during the ice age the sea levels were lower so more land was exposed.
Just to complete the cycle (Asia to the Americas back to Asia) Thor Heyerdahl did demonstrate in the 1940s that some native South Americans likely crossed the Pacific ocean back to the isles of Polynesia in open boats.
Ultimately, tcrackly is correct. The human species originated in Africa. That has been proven via DNA. The other races developed differently in Europe and Asia before spreading to the Americas. Why the changes? Whites and Asians, including Native Americans, are adapted for colder weather than typically found in Africa.
So, how many times do each of you guys hear from people "Oh, I'm 1/16th cherokee" or something similar. Do you guys actually think its true? I don't honestly. Perhaps it is true for a small number of Americans, but nearly every blonde/blue-eyed person I speak too swears they have a native american great grandmother.
The people saying these things show no signs of that ancestry, and in much of a America, during the 19th century, it was a considered a blight on your social status to marry a native american, which would of course deter whites from breeding with them.
I, too, am part of one of those families that swears that my great great grandmother was a Cherokee......I have done extensive research on all my family lines and have found nothing to indicate that we have any Cherokee ancestry in us. That great great grandmother of mine has a Scottish surname and one of her branches reached back to Germany, though.
On that note, are there any genetic tests that I could take to actually find out if I carry any Cherokee DNA?
My great Grandmother on my Father's side was a full blooded Cherokee Indian,So having Indian blood isn't a myth!
I have Cherokee and Choctaw in my family. I am also 1/4 Italian. I am about as white as they get. You would never guess I have Indian and Italian blood in me. My two sister's both have the olive skin and dark hair and eyes. I take after the German side.
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.
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.
I thought they were called Indians because Christopher Columbus who was supposed to go to India when he found this continent, saw these people, and figured "Wait, hey um this place doesn't look like India, and you people don't look like...oh whatever hey there Indians!" and called them such.
