U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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 08-04-2017, 09:18 AM
 
375 posts, read 971,270 times
Reputation: 512

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by naadarien View Post
There are, of course, always exceptions. The British tended to not prefer any kind of mixing but colonial america is filled with colony marriages or bondings or common law marriages of Brits and POCs. It happened. It didn't become outlawed in most places for another good 100 years, and even then, all one did was move out into the frontier where there were no nosy busy bodies meddling in your affairs.

...
There have always been people who didn't play by the rules of the far away government. There was a pre-removal census of Cherokee in the southeast in 1835. In Tennessee about 15% of the tribe was intermarried with white people. Among my relatives on the list were two of my 4th/5th great aunts (mostly Welsh, all euro descent) who were married to full blood Cherokee men, most of my direct ancestors in the census were either half or quarter bloods, the product of mixed marriages in the 1700s. Quakers were more open minded about mixing and didn't much care what the rest of society thought. In the mid 1800s one of my 3rd g-uncles married a black woman in Hamilton county TN. They were married in the church, the state didn't recognize the marriage, the local community did, life is complicated.

Also, something that is often glossed over because of who wrote the history books, the British were late comers to the southern Appalachians. The area was first claimed by the Spanish, who didn't colonize but did have military outposts and mixed with the local people, then was claimed by the French, who didn't colonize but did have trading outposts and mixed with the local people. By the time anyone under a British flag showed up the natives had been mixing with white people for almost 200 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2017, 08:07 PM
 
12 posts, read 6,667 times
Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawnbeth View Post
I have my 23and me data results, It shows broadley european, no surprise, and .08 native american, gramps told me this was cherokee. What year would this make my native american relatives, I am quite sure this is too low to get schooling benefits correct?
You would honestly need to know your Native American ancestors, know what Native tribe they came from and show documentation for a federally recognized nation. Also, they would have to recognize you as a member of the community. If native blood automatically made you illegible for tribal benefits, the millions of Mexicans, Cental Americans, and South Americans in the USA would be illegible for benefits too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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. The time now is 03:46 AM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top