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.
Every so-called "Native American" poster on the city-data forum looks like a White European Gringo. There is not a single self identified Native American here that looks like an Indigenous Brown person. You don't see that with posters who identify as African American on city-data forum, the vast majority of them do look Black and not like White European Gringos.
And you know this how? Well, I "look it" (for what that's worth), am enrolled, grew up in the community, mom's a full-blood, I can speak my language, my uncle was our past tribal chairman, am a member of two tribal societies, dance my dances and all that great stuff.
Look, I despise wannabes and twinkies just as much, if not more, than any other NDN, but I also know that there are members of my nation (Comanche Nation of Oklahoma) who are of fairer skin tone or may have light brown hair and maybe have "not so native eyes" because of inter-marriage. Despite that, they grew up native, were raised native, live native and are recognized by the members of the Nation as one of them. Because of this, I try to reserve judgment until I see what type of person they are as my grandfather taught me.
The Nations determine who is and isn't one of them as is our sovereign right to do so and is not subject to the opinion of some taibo on an internet forum who thinks he knows something.
"White" Americans do generally possess a minority of Amerindian admixture and a smaller amount of West African admixture. This conservative estimate notes that, "In European Americans from [Pennsylvania] State College, the west African and native American genetic contribution are low (0.7% and 3.2%, respectively)." Since this admixture is generally so low as to have no influence on phenotype, I believe that these people, technically "impure" though they are, should identify as white, Caucasian, or with whatever European, Middle Eastern, Central Asian, or North African background they possess.
I agree. I have a couple of uncles that have bought into this whole "i'm indian" nonsense. I would understand it if they weren't both fair skinned and blued eyed. Quite frankly it's rediculous.
You are talking about distinct groups of people who were separated geographically and climatically for thousands of years. You cannot compare an Andean and an Iroquois and call them the "same" no more than you can compare a Spaniard and an Irishman and call them the same. Americans have some real misconceptions about their own Native people. How very sad that we are so undereducated. Even more sad is the tendency for certain people to just lump all brown people together in the same category when they have distinct identities and cultures.
There are many interesting posts in this thread to comment on; I'll try to get to them if I can. A picture's worth a thousand words, so here are a few that can hopefully shed a bit more light on the points people have been making.
The generation above mine, which included my dad and my aunt, is lighter-skinned, probably because of the influence of my grandmother's admixture. So in this picture, for example, you can see that my dad and aunt were (relatively) light-skinned, though they were children and possibly just hadn't had as much time and opportunity to tan.
My dad's skin tone didn't change much in adulthood, though. He's at Teotihuacan here...Mesoamerica and Aztec civilization has remained a fascination for people who consider themselves Mexican-American/Chicano, though my paternal family is from the Southwestern cultural region. Neither he nor his pictured second cousin would be considered "Indians" in Mexico.
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/12637_1237146698223_1515908588_646588_6642160_n.jp g (broken link)
He's clearly still darker than his dad, though again, being much younger, it's possible that he would have tanned more as he aged:
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/12637_1237146578220_1515908588_646586_7288216_n.jp g (broken link)
Now I, on the other hand, am darker skinned than either of my parents, and look like my grandfather does, more or less. This is in Guatemala City with two second cousins, one who looks admixed and one who looks relatively white:
Again, none of us would be considered Indians in Guatemala; they are regarded as Ladinos, and I would be too. If I was dressed like an Indian, though, I doubt that anyone would bat an eye.
And this is in Alhambra, in Spain (a historic Moorish complex), in the southern region of Andalusia. I saw many people there that looked like me...
My maternal great-grandfather was from Costa Rica (and apparently later became Guatemalan), considered a predominantly "white" country.
Is that really true? If you buy the fact that there've been people in the New World for at least the last 13,500 years wouldn't there have been quite a bit of mutation occurring over the succeeding years? Wouldn't these mutations have led to significant variations in different traits? I'm sure I have a lot of differences from Europeans and Asians with whom I share a common ancestor that long ago.
And you know this how? Well, I "look it" (for what that's worth), am enrolled, grew up in the community, mom's a full-blood, I can speak my language, my uncle was our past tribal chairman, am a member of two tribal societies, dance my dances and all that great stuff.
Look, I despise wannabes and twinkies just as much, if not more, than any other NDN, but I also know that there are members of my nation (Comanche Nation of Oklahoma) who are of fairer skin tone or may have light brown hair and maybe have "not so native eyes" because of inter-marriage. Despite that, they grew up native, were raised native, live native and are recognized by the members of the Nation as one of them. Because of this, I try to reserve judgment until I see what type of person they are as my grandfather taught me.
The Nations determine who is and isn't one of them as is our sovereign right to do so and is not subject to the opinion of some taibo on an internet forum who thinks he knows something.
The reason I say this is because every poster in the geneology section who claimed to be "Native American' also claimed to look Caucasian in phenotype.
You don't see Native Americans in Bolivia, Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, etc that resemble Caucasians. Only in the United States with it's one drop rule can a Native American look Caucasian. Since here in the U.S somebody with only 1/16 Native American ancestry for example is considered the same race as a full blooded Native American. Not the case in Latin America.
Is that really true? If you buy the fact that there've been people in the New World for at least the last 13,500 years wouldn't there have been quite a bit of mutation occurring over the succeeding years? Wouldn't these mutations have led to significant variations in different traits? I'm sure I have a lot of differences from Europeans and Asians with whom I share a common ancestor that long ago.
I really really would like to take a good course at the University of Tulsa dealing with Anthropology, Human Evolution, etc. There is so much out there that my highschool biology teacher knowledge just doesn't encompass.
Funny, I seem to meet more black people who claim Cherokee ancestry than white people...
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.
