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 know right? That's about as odious, racist, and oxymoronic as the term of "light skinned black". There is absolutely no such thing as a light skinned black.
I love how everyone is bashing her because I am the same exact way and YES there is such thing as a blonde hair blue eyed with some Cherokee in their blood. Everyone saying she's lying obvisouly has no knowledge what so ever on genealogy. What happens when a white woman and a black man get together? There's a bi racial baby meaning that baby has BOTH black & white in them and will carry BOTH genes. But depending on what's in the parents blood it won't always be "half & half" for example my mom and her line of genes is blonde hair blue eyes fully & my dad is 1/4 Cherokee because his grandmother was a full blown cherokee. So that makes me 1/8 Cherokee. BUT I still have some features of a Cherokee like the eye & brow shape my bone structure like my high cheekbones and my full lips and my skin, I'm tan all yr long even if I don't go outside. But my moms genes were stronger than that 1/8 of Cherokee I do have so therefore I have blonde hair & blue eyes as well. All my dad's side looks native but my moms side is all the typical blonde hair blue eyes. Don't knock something you know nothing about
Sounds logical to me that many whites would have beliefs and stories about being Cherokee related, if they lived and grew up in the Western North Carolina area particularly. Look at the history.
Cherokee frequently adopted and captured whites into the clans. Cherokee was a civilized nation who lived and farmed the land, and for all practical purposes had many good and bad dealings with their white neighbors.
Many of the myths we get from those old movies might have applied to plains and western indians more than the Cherokee. Point being, the life style of a pioneer family and a Cherokee family varied less than it was similar - in broad scope. You got up in the morning, you hunted, you tilled the land, you lived in log cabin, you lived in small groups, and you supported each other. Many of the Cherokee were adopted or were half white, since Cherokee was matrilineal; traders and settlers would marry Cherokee women but the children remained as Cherokee by custom and law.
Cherokee were removed based upon the 1830 removal act. Chiefs or sons of chiefs were part white, they were often Harvard/Yale educated, and some went to the Supreme Court about the removal and won.
Many Cherokee escaped from the round up of Cherokee and remained hidden in isolated terrain. Often they were shielded by their white neighbors. The adopted son who was white of the principal chief bought land in Western North Carolina since the Cherokee couldn't and many of the remaining Cherokee lived on this land.
It became the landtrust of Qualla in 1870 something and a reservation in the 1970. So there was a lot of intervening time in an isolated area that Cherokee and Whites lived near each other as neighbors (1830 to 1870) before formal established boundaries for the Cherokee were established.
So it is not unreasonable to believe any number of circumstances where subsequent generations of white neighbors might believe they had Cherokee relations and maybe they did. This could have led to beliefs of Cherokee blood or heritage as the stories were told; because Aunt Nancy was part Cherokee or an ancestor had a wife who was part Cherokee. That didn't mean the particular child was Cherokee but his/her brothers or sisters might have been. Then the story grows through time.
A grain of truth, a bit of plausibility, and a bit of history contributed to the story and until the DNA says otherwise it could be.
Just my opinion and why I don't get all upset about many whites believing they have some Cherokee. I guess full blooded Cherokee might get a laugh out of total strangers making claims. I can see why.
I was raised by people who never adopted me and I did not know this until the day I enlisted in the US Army - the same day I learned my true last name.
Jack, the man who claimed to be my father, would not talk about it. His brother told me the story that my birth mother was a hooker working who Long Beach, CA who got pregnant by a sailor off a ship in harbor. Thus, the names on my birth certificate were most probably aliases. What I was told was that bother parents came from eastern Tennessee and probably had Cherokee heritage.
The only way I'll ever know for certain is by taking a test and having my DNA analyzed. Wonder if it shows a percentage of Cherokee blood it'll make me a member of the tribe.
With that in mind, I've written two novels where the main character is half-Cherokee with a full-blooded Cherokee girlfriend/wife.
Part of me wants to post a pic of my great grandmother just to quiet the naysayers on here. You take one look at that photo and you will NOT be able to deny that she was Choctaw. I understand this is titled, "Cherokee", but it has turned in to, "no whitey has Indian blood, they are all Europeans". That's b.s.
The other part of me says, "Who cares what the naysayers think. I know what is true, and I'm not going to reveal a photo of my great grandmother to a bunch of people who do not deserve to even look at her."
I have found a name on the Dawes Roll that is in my family, although the name is spelled just a little different than what I've found in other places. That doesn't mean much, however, because no one can seem to agree on how to spell my bio mother's maiden name. It is one "L" or two "L"s? It got changed along the way, back in time, so a small difference in spelling doesn't mean I have the wrong person.
Having said that, while I am interested to find out if that is indeed a family member, (not my great grandmother by the way), I would only want the information. I do not want to make a claim to get some card. I have never suffered, I don't want anything, I don't believe it's for me anyway, regardless of any ancestry, (whether the naysayers want to believe it or not, that's their own personal problem, not mine). I only want the information. That. Is. It.
Do some people claim to be NDN when they are not? Yes, of course. It's "exotic" to them. Does everyone who is white make false claims? Absolutely not.
What I want to know is, why is a white person ONLY allowed to research and make claims to European ancestry and not any other? I am only allowed to make claims to my Irish ancestry? I'm only allowed to make claims to any English ancestry? I'm not allowed to be proud of any other parts of my ancestry just because it might offend someone? Tough cookies. It IS in my ancestry, that is MY family, and any naysayer can just get the hell over themselves. You will not bully me in to dismissing my family members no matter how much of a problem you have with it.
Sounds logical to me that many whites would have beliefs and stories about being Cherokee related, if they lived and grew up in the Western North Carolina area particularly. Look at the history.
Cherokee frequently adopted and captured whites into the clans. Cherokee was a civilized nation who lived and farmed the land, and for all practical purposes had many good and bad dealings with their white neighbors.
Many of the myths we get from those old movies might have applied to plains and western indians more than the Cherokee. Point being, the life style of a pioneer family and a Cherokee family varied less than it was similar - in broad scope. You got up in the morning, you hunted, you tilled the land, you lived in log cabin, you lived in small groups, and you supported each other. Many of the Cherokee were adopted or were half white, since Cherokee was matrilineal; traders and settlers would marry Cherokee women but the children remained as Cherokee by custom and law.
Cherokee were removed based upon the 1830 removal act. Chiefs or sons of chiefs were part white, they were often Harvard/Yale educated, and some went to the Supreme Court about the removal and won.
Many Cherokee escaped from the round up of Cherokee and remained hidden in isolated terrain. Often they were shielded by their white neighbors. The adopted son who was white of the principal chief bought land in Western North Carolina since the Cherokee couldn't and many of the remaining Cherokee lived on this land.
It became the landtrust of Qualla in 1870 something and a reservation in the 1970. So there was a lot of intervening time in an isolated area that Cherokee and Whites lived near each other as neighbors (1830 to 1870) before formal established boundaries for the Cherokee were established.
So it is not unreasonable to believe any number of circumstances where subsequent generations of white neighbors might believe they had Cherokee relations and maybe they did. This could have led to beliefs of Cherokee blood or heritage as the stories were told; because Aunt Nancy was part Cherokee or an ancestor had a wife who was part Cherokee. That didn't mean the particular child was Cherokee but his/her brothers or sisters might have been. Then the story grows through time.
A grain of truth, a bit of plausibility, and a bit of history contributed to the story and until the DNA says otherwise it could be.
Just my opinion and why I don't get all upset about many whites believing they have some Cherokee. I guess full blooded Cherokee might get a laugh out of total strangers making claims. I can see why.
Very true... it went both ways, whites who captured NA - Native Americans (especially women) and had descendants, as well as NA who captured whites. There are confirmed stories of NA who passed for white as well and then married in... often they would call themselves some other immigrant nationality such as "Black Dutch" to try and explain some different features.
In many ways this was very similar to African Americans, so far from DNA you find many more African Americans and Native Americans with European DNA than vice-verse. Which makes complete sense due to the social structure.
Of course people did pass and integrate in very specific situations, but these seem to be a much rarer case than many of our "family histories" suggest. Which again, like you said, makes sense, when you hear these stories then people start picking them up themselves or misunderstanding and thinking it was their own.
In my case I had rumors of NA ancestry. One ended up being a first wife of my ancestor, so my ancestor from him was raised alongside half-NA sisters. So it makes sense where my stories came from in that case, just no blood relation.
Some rumored NA ancestry turns out to be African Americans as well, since at certain times that was a more interesting or more embraced story for a family to pass down. This in fact might be the case with me, since I came up about 1% African and no Native American. Still confirming either, it's still possible I could have NA from a more distant ancestor, but I won't say I do until I see any evidence actually suggesting it... and no family stories aren't evidence.
I love how everyone is bashing her because I am the same exact way and YES there is such thing as a blonde hair blue eyed with some Cherokee in their blood. Everyone saying she's lying obvisouly has no knowledge what so ever on genealogy. What happens when a white woman and a black man get together? There's a bi racial baby meaning that baby has BOTH black & white in them and will carry BOTH genes. But depending on what's in the parents blood it won't always be "half & half" for example my mom and her line of genes is blonde hair blue eyes fully & my dad is 1/4 Cherokee because his grandmother was a full blown cherokee. So that makes me 1/8 Cherokee. BUT I still have some features of a Cherokee like the eye & brow shape my bone structure like my high cheekbones and my full lips and my skin, I'm tan all yr long even if I don't go outside. But my moms genes were stronger than that 1/8 of Cherokee I do have so therefore I have blonde hair & blue eyes as well. All my dad's side looks native but my moms side is all the typical blonde hair blue eyes. Don't knock something you know nothing about
At 1/8 or 12.5% I would really doubt you look native. I'm 50% and I don't have all those features you just listed. Then again the high cheeks, bone structure, and full lips are just stereotypes, you don't really know anything about natives.
Part of me wants to post a pic of my great grandmother just to quiet the naysayers on here. You take one look at that photo and you will NOT be able to deny that she was Choctaw. I understand this is titled, "Cherokee", but it has turned in to, "no whitey has Indian blood, they are all Europeans". That's b.s.
The other part of me says, "Who cares what the naysayers think. I know what is true, and I'm not going to reveal a photo of my great grandmother to a bunch of people who do not deserve to even look at her."
I have found a name on the Dawes Roll that is in my family, although the name is spelled just a little different than what I've found in other places. That doesn't mean much, however, because no one can seem to agree on how to spell my bio mother's maiden name. It is one "L" or two "L"s? It got changed along the way, back in time, so a small difference in spelling doesn't mean I have the wrong person.
Having said that, while I am interested to find out if that is indeed a family member, (not my great grandmother by the way), I would only want the information. I do not want to make a claim to get some card. I have never suffered, I don't want anything, I don't believe it's for me anyway, regardless of any ancestry, (whether the naysayers want to believe it or not, that's their own personal problem, not mine). I only want the information. That. Is. It.
Do some people claim to be NDN when they are not? Yes, of course. It's "exotic" to them. Does everyone who is white make false claims? Absolutely not.
What I want to know is, why is a white person ONLY allowed to research and make claims to European ancestry and not any other? I am only allowed to make claims to my Irish ancestry? I'm only allowed to make claims to any English ancestry? I'm not allowed to be proud of any other parts of my ancestry just because it might offend someone? Tough cookies. It IS in my ancestry, that is MY family, and any naysayer can just get the hell over themselves. You will not bully me in to dismissing my family members no matter how much of a problem you have with it.
Most people aren't saying "no whitey has Indian blood"... at least I'm not. I'm a case where I had NA stories and I have no NA blood. I have seen many others find this out as well. More often than I find people who confirm they do have NA blood.
You may in fact have NA blood, many white people do, just not as much as family stories suggest. I have pictures of ancestors that look very Native American, even one who dressed what I may consider NA... but again no blood. It's possible the blood was too distant and I didn't inherit any, waiting on my parents DNA test to further confirm... but until I get concrete evidence why would I claim an ancestry that may be wrong.
The point isn't what "white" people can claim. Henry Louis Gates Jr. has mentioned many times that African Americans often have the same stories of NA ancestors and in most of his research they often are wrong and most African Americans don't have NA blood... just like white people.
To me it's about the truth. It's just as if I hear from an aunt or grandmother that "hey we have royalty in our blood due to X ancestor". If you've done any solid genealogy work you learn that the majority of those sorts of claims are false. It doesn't mean we don't link to royalty (many people of English descent in fact do in some way or another), but it means you need to verify the data and rely on accurate data.
Whats the point of discovering your ancestry if it may in fact not be your ancestry. Thats where DNA can be such a boon... it helps you confirm things you may suspect and sometimes lends supporting evidence against others. It doesn't disprove anything (at least beyond 3-4 generations or so, since you may have no DNA on that branch), but if you have a rumored say great grandparent thats NA and you have no NA blood, then you have to take that evidence into account.
With all that said I'm all for everyone embracing any and all of their ancestry they choose. I came up 1% African and am waiting to confirm that with my parents DNA and if so hopefully I can find where that ties in. Sure it's just a small sliver, but it's part of me. Just like my English, Irish, Scottish, and German ancestry that I've traced. The thing is to be sure of what is in fact in your ancestry, at least that's my view on it. I'd rather have accurate than interesting data.
At 1/8 or 12.5% I would really doubt you look native. I'm 50% and I don't have all those features you just listed. Then again the high cheeks, bone structure, and full lips are just stereotypes, you don't really know anything about natives.
True... but may I ask you a question and this is meant as an offense. Have you taken a DNA test? Or by "50%" do you mean one parent was a full Native American?
I ask since this is where things get a bit confusing and people can mean different things. Many Native Americans, like many African Americans, have European blood mixed... due to the way European immigrants intermixed and due to the social situations in the US at times.
This means that though you come from a parent that is fully in a Native American tribe and by all cultural standards Native American, they may in fact have given you a much smaller than 50% "Native American" DNA. This of course doesn't diminish your cultural heritage, but could explain features that seem more European.
For example many of the Lumbee tribe DNA tests have shown that they do have NA blood, but in fact have a majority of African and European blood. This makes sense when you examine their physical traits. Now I suspect they are the extreme to that end, but it seems quite likely that many other tribes have integrated some European (or African, since some did in fact have slaves as well) DNA into their culture.
Again this is where the DNA vs the cultural lines blur. Personally I think they both give us different perspectives and different stories and we shouldn't conflict them.
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.
