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 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?
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?
0.08 is too low, I guess is just a "noise"
Here is my FTDNA results, I am 28% native american
European 46%
New World 28%
Middle Eastern 13%
African 8%
Jewish Diaspora 2%
Cherokees must have been awfully busy back in the day to account for all of the NA ancestry claims grandpas and grandmas passed down. I don't have any NA ancestry but my 23andme test report shows .08% Ashkenazi and then it says my Ashkenazi ancestor dates to the period 1680-1770. That would be 4th to 7th great grandparent. If your paper trail shows your family was in Europe before 1800 it is probably just odd noise. If they were early colonial settlers back in the 1600s you might have something. Forget about benefits.
Cherokees must have been awfully busy back in the day to account for all of the NA ancestry claims grandpas and grandmas passed down. I don't have any NA ancestry but my 23andme test report shows .08% Ashkenazi and then it says my Ashkenazi ancestor dates to the period 1680-1770. That would be 4th to 7th great grandparent. If your paper trail shows your family was in Europe before 1800 it is probably just odd noise. If they were early colonial settlers back in the 1600s you might have something. Forget about benefits.
I am 2% Ashkenazi. I have the same results from FTDNA, Ancestry.Com, etc.
I guess one of my italian great grandparent is related to the Ashkenazi.
My uncle was 3% and my percentage was lower. We know for sure it was my great grandmother's great grandmother who was adopted as a child by a family in Virginia, around 1760.
I'm guessing your ancestor would've been from around that time too, or maybe there's a European trade explanation giving off an East Asian result of you do not have a line on the US.
I am 2% Ashkenazi. I have the same results from FTDNA, Ancestry.Com, etc.
I guess one of my italian great grandparent is related to the Ashkenazi.
My Askenazi percent is also 2-2.5% on FTDNA and 23andme. My paternal grandparents were from Poland, so that is really no surprise. They would have been very surprised because they were seriously Catholic.
If you had an enough to trace back to the tribe and gain benefits, they are going to expect you to be all in with the tribe, not just taking hand out money for any sort of claim, and they will expect you to fold into the socio-political machine that the tribe subscribes to.
If you had an enough to trace back to the tribe and gain benefits, they are going to expect you to be all in with the tribe, not just taking hand out money for any sort of claim, and they will expect you to fold into the socio-political machine that the tribe subscribes to.
Another thing related to this something I've seen is with the adoptions. IMO, you lose choices with your children. I lived in Oklahoma for a while. It appeared that kids with NA ancestry were only allowed to be adopted by those with NA ancestry. If something happened to me that would affect my children, I'm not sure I would want that to be the route taken. It appeared kids were sometimes not placed with relatives over non relatives because the relatives on the other side of the family were not Native American. I may be wrong on that, but it was the impression I had. I know there were some kids in the system who couldn't be adopted outside of the various tribes, but I'm not sure if it mattered which tribe.
Another thing related to this something I've seen is with the adoptions. IMO, you lose choices with your children. I lived in Oklahoma for a while. It appeared that kids with NA ancestry were only allowed to be adopted by those with NA ancestry. If something happened to me that would affect my children, I'm not sure I would want that to be the route taken. It appeared kids were sometimes not placed with relatives over non relatives because the relatives on the other side of the family were not Native American. I may be wrong on that, but it was the impression I had. I know there were some kids in the system who couldn't be adopted outside of the various tribes, but I'm not sure if it mattered which tribe.
I think the Cherokee Nation has their own laws, in regards to adoption.
But this only applies to Cherokee kids.
I used to live in Tulsa, for many years by the way.
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.
