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.
Brutal honesty, some tribal benefits aren't really relevant to some Natives.
Just saying.
True. For example, with the Cherokee in Oklahoma, every year there are allottments given out to those who apply, for school kids to get new clothing, shoes and school supplies. Certainly it's not something every family needs, but it helps out some families.
I'm not trying to upset anyone but there's a subculture of Caucasian people who adopt African-American culture. It's cute.
Cultural approbation isn't cute. Putting on someone else's culture like you'd put on an item of fast fashion is the epitome of white privilege. Better to read some Colin Woodard instead of playacting and playing dressup.
Did anyone claim they were? That's a little beside the point.
Nonetheless, benefits are substantial enough in some areas that tribes have created strict blood quantum enrollment requirements.
This is true in many instances. But, not that you're claiming otherwise, there's often no connection between blood quantum enrollment requirements and benefits/wealth of a tribe. For instance, one of the wealthiest tribes in the country, the Mashantucket Pequot in Connecticut, does not have a blood quantum, though members tend to selectively reproduce in order to keep the roll small and the benefits more plentiful. Of course, the Mashantucket Pequot aren't unique in this regard among wealthier tribes.
Then you have other tribes like the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians--not among the wealthiest tribes--that has a blood quantum requirement of 50% Mississippi Choctaw blood for membership. It seems like tribes like this cares more about keeping the bloodline pure than preserving some great wealth.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 09-25-2023 at 08:43 PM..
I've put everything you say after the dots to be possibly horsebleep...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyLark2019
...there's a subculture of Caucasian people who...
Now I'm tuned out beyond this because I see you as being someone who has already made their mind up about something, so I have no comment for you beyond this, nor do I believe anything else you might set forth.
But the thread title did catch my attention, and not in a good way.
I hope you find the comfort you seek.
Checking to see who bumped up this dog of a thread... oh, they're no longer a member, so never mind.
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?
I had been told that we had Native American blood all my life but when I got my DNA results nothing was there to support it. I had looked up what constituted being Native American and the information I found was that it required 1/4 which meant that the information I had been given was that my grandfather could have been listed as Cherokee. Of course at that time I didn't know which tribe it would have been.
I am doing genealogy and finding distant relatives that have DNA of maybe 1%. This is making me curious as to how DNA works such as can siblings have different mixtures of DNA? Can one child in the family have traits more of one parent and their ancestors and another child be more like the other parents line. I find the subject fascinating.
When I visited Cherokee, N. C. I felt I looked more like the Cherokees than the people living on the reservation.
I had been told that we had Native American blood all my life but when I got my DNA results nothing was there to support it. I had looked up what constituted being Native American and the information I found was that it required 1/4 which meant that the information I had been given was that my grandfather could have been listed as Cherokee. Of course at that time I didn't know which tribe it would have been.
I am doing genealogy and finding distant relatives that have DNA of maybe 1%. This is making me curious as to how DNA works such as can siblings have different mixtures of DNA? Can one child in the family have traits more of one parent and their ancestors and another child be more like the other parents line. I find the subject fascinating.
When I visited Cherokee, N. C. I felt I looked more like the Cherokees than the people living on the reservation.
Yes, very much so. I have one great-great-grandfather who was Jewish......doesn't sound like much. Yet, I always test at 10-15% Jewish on various testing sites and using additional DIY tools. The reason why I have so much is that my dad tests at about 20% Jewish, despite having just one great-grandfather who was of that genetic profile. He can test up to 4-5% Arabian on some calculators that look for deeper ancestry.
This is just the chance of random selection. At least in two generations (myself and my dad) we likely didn't get an even split of ancestral DNA, this one ancestor was randomly boosted up at the expense of another. I carry as many Jewish DNA as one of my dad's brothers because of this randomness. I have far more than my dad's first cousin(twice the amount,) who also has this same great-grandfather as him and his brothers.
As for the "Indian grandmother" myths, I had two in my family and neither have amounted to anything, either in paper trails or DNA tests. It was just a myth, none of my other cousins in these lines show any NA blood either . Maybe your situation was different, but many of those old myths are just tall tales, the ones in my family were. The truth is that one "Indian" was an adopted child, the other was a much maligned old granny who came from a very closely bred family with weird names...think Minerva, Cinderella, Aurelia, Cephas, I always wonder what their story was.......but literally nobody in my family remembered, even the now gone old timers.
This is making me curious as to how DNA works such as can siblings have different mixtures of DNA? Can one child in the family have traits more of one parent and their ancestors and another child be more like the other parents line. I find the subject fascinating.
Only identical twins have the same combination of DNA (hence the term "identical"). Full siblings have 50% of the same DNA. Each parent passes on a random combination of their own parents' DNA to their children. So you might inherit a trait or health condition from one maternal grandparent (for example) that your sibling did not, because they inherited the other maternal grandparent's DNA in that location.
I think everyone knows siblings who resemble different parents. One is blonde like one parent, another is dark-haired like the other, or has a nose like one parent and not the other. Expected. I have a friend whose hair turned white at an early age, and this trait was known to go back several generations (from old photos) along a specific line on her mother's side. Those who had the trait were often reminded of the ancestor it came from and their surname by relatives, who would say "You're a [Smith]!" (not the real name).
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.
