U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Kentucky
 [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 09-02-2011, 11:30 PM
 
11,004 posts, read 9,212,615 times
Reputation: 20231

Advertisements

It's much more than just DNA: culture, place, attitude of the dominant society, individual family and overall ancestral group history and traditions all play huge roles in defining ethnic identity, be it Melungeon, part-Cherokee, or anything else.

As noted, most members of these two particular "groups" are very assimilated into mainstream American society now, but may know of and value their families' heritage. Thus they may identify with their ancestral backgrounds and may try to learn more about it to pass along to their children and other young family members.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-05-2015, 12:23 PM
 
294 posts, read 528,004 times
Reputation: 498
The Cherokee people did not have cities in Kentucky. It was hunting grounds and battle grounds of a few tribes. For Cherokee, hunting grounds. Cherokee did not have any villages in KY. We were in TN/GA/AL/NC. Cherokee were forced to cede lands very early before the 1800's. I don't care what hogwash is being espoused here to reach for some extraterrestrial ancestral lineage.

What is being promoted here is cackle hatchery of blood myth-ers that birthed itself in myths and family lore of phantom ancestors that are never found but somewhere waaaay back in the family tree with claims that can never be validate. Do some people have distant Native American? Sure, but many would not actually know about and most that claim to know for sure are reaching. However they talk about it as if it were "right over their shoulder."
There was only one Kentucky family documented in Cherokee rolls related to the Cherokee people. So all these Kentuckians who have QUITE a bit of Indian blood, where are they at? Rhetorical question.
Yes fur traders and trappers (very small % of the population, an eye drop), some had taken Cherokee wives and mostly for property gain because Cherokee women owned property, owned the household. A few Cherokee women did not turn 90% of the US Colonial White population into Indians.

Secondly, core Melungeon families were tested regarding DNA and only one surname had a Q3 (Seizmore) Amerindian halpogroup. The dominant were European and African. So there you go, be as proud to claim the more realistic Sub-Saharan African and Mulatto ancestors.
The DNA of White Americans, especially from the Southeast does not support mixed ancestral origins as say African Americans or Latin Americans. More turned up trace African than Native American and less than 3% of the [colonial roots] US White population has Native American and/or African ancestry.

Thank you for tuning into this broadcast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2015, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Eastern Kentucky Proud
912 posts, read 1,352,699 times
Reputation: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppalachianGumbo View Post
The Cherokee people did not have cities in Kentucky. It was hunting grounds and battle grounds of a few tribes. For Cherokee, hunting grounds. Cherokee did not have any villages in KY. We were in TN/GA/AL/NC. Cherokee were forced to cede lands very early before the 1800's. I don't care what hogwash is being espoused here to reach for some extraterrestrial ancestral lineage.

What is being promoted here is cackle hatchery of blood myth-ers that birthed itself in myths and family lore of phantom ancestors that are never found but somewhere waaaay back in the family tree with claims that can never be validate. Do some people have distant Native American? Sure, but many would not actually know about and most that claim to know for sure are reaching. However they talk about it as if it were "right over their shoulder."
There was only one Kentucky family documented in Cherokee rolls related to the Cherokee people. So all these Kentuckians who have QUITE a bit of Indian blood, where are they at? Rhetorical question.
Yes fur traders and trappers (very small % of the population, an eye drop), some had taken Cherokee wives and mostly for property gain because Cherokee women owned property, owned the household. A few Cherokee women did not turn 90% of the US Colonial White population into Indians.

Secondly, core Melungeon families were tested regarding DNA and only one surname had a Q3 (Seizmore) Amerindian halpogroup. The dominant were European and African. So there you go, be as proud to claim the more realistic Sub-Saharan African and Mulatto ancestors.
The DNA of White Americans, especially from the Southeast does not support mixed ancestral origins as say African Americans or Latin Americans. More turned up trace African than Native American and less than 3% of the [colonial roots] US White population has Native American and/or African ancestry.

Thank you for tuning into this broadcast.
I have heard, all my life, that I have Indian blood flowing through my veins and have also questioned the statement.

At this point in my life/time...I am an American.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2015, 10:38 PM
 
1,394 posts, read 1,831,715 times
Reputation: 850
Well, I've read that americans have a tendency to exaggerate claims of native american heritage. According to some DNA studies I remembered reading about, it's actually very little across the US population to be quite honest. However, african-americans DO have a fairly high percentage of european ancestry, some estimates are at more than 50 to 60 percent or african-americans today have at least some european ancestry.

Most contact by our ancestors with native americans was not amicable to say the least, especially in Kentucky where there were historically LOTS of problems with the local indian populations. Most were either killed or pushed further west or north. Mixing with native americans was very rare actually and some of the latest DNA research of US population with older ancestry has proven it. It's not nearly as wide spread as folks like to claim. It certainly wouldve been frowned upon and definately would've rarely been recorded since socially it was major taboo to marry or have relations with a "heathern" or a native or even a slave in those days, it's true. Besides not just Cherokee but also Shawnee were very active hunting in Ky but they were fairly quickly killed or pushed out by early settlers, mixing of any kind was very rare, especially considering the prejudices of the day. You need to remember, Indians amongst early pioneers had a very bad reputation and were considered in many cases even worse than african americans as far as prejudices go. So, I just dont buy the argument from so many folks about native american ancestry. It would be near impossible to prove genealogically and even so DNA would be the best bet, but it's really rare. We just didn't mix with the natives that much LOL. It's kind of a romanticized idea I guess, but in actuality, super rare.

Actually I remember reading where some of the most pure ( and oldest ) European ancestry in the USis actually amongst traditional families in the southeast, appalachia and upland south, this would include alot of Kentucky. Melungeons also are very rare and are mostly intermarriages between whites and freed african americans from what I've read

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2...many-americans

Last edited by EricOldTime; 06-05-2015 at 11:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2015, 08:57 AM
 
294 posts, read 528,004 times
Reputation: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricOldTime View Post
Well, I've read that americans have a tendency to exaggerate claims of native american heritage. According to some DNA studies I remembered reading about, it's actually very little across the US population to be quite honest. However, african-americans DO have a fairly high percentage of european ancestry, some estimates are at more than 50 to 60 percent or african-americans today have at least some european ancestry.

Most contact by our ancestors with native americans was not amicable to say the least, especially in Kentucky where there were historically LOTS of problems with the local indian populations. Most were either killed or pushed further west or north. Mixing with native americans was very rare actually and some of the latest DNA research of US population with older ancestry has proven it. It's not nearly as wide spread as folks like to claim. It certainly wouldve been frowned upon and definately would've rarely been recorded since socially it was major taboo to marry or have relations with a "heathern" or a native or even a slave in those days, it's true. Besides not just Cherokee but also Shawnee were very active hunting in Ky but they were fairly quickly killed or pushed out by early settlers, mixing of any kind was very rare, especially considering the prejudices of the day. You need to remember, Indians amongst early pioneers had a very bad reputation and were considered in many cases even worse than african americans as far as prejudices go. So, I just dont buy the argument from so many folks about native american ancestry. It would be near impossible to prove genealogically and even so DNA would be the best bet, but it's really rare. We just didn't mix with the natives that much LOL. It's kind of a romanticized idea I guess, but in actuality, super rare.

Actually I remember reading where some of the most pure ( and oldest ) European ancestry in the USis actually amongst traditional families in the southeast, appalachia and upland south, this would include alot of Kentucky. Melungeons also are very rare and are mostly intermarriages between whites and freed african americans from what I've read

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2...many-americans
Elementary my dear Watson. Elementary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2015, 10:33 AM
 
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
10,392 posts, read 21,923,665 times
Reputation: 10096
There was a lot of race mixing between the first White settlers and Indians but most of the time the mixed offspring was raised back in the Indiana community as White America had the whole One Drop mentality. Most Native Americans have a lot of White ancestors and are lighter complexioned than their ancestors. Later on Indians were rounded up and placed on reservations and anyone that looked Indiana was caught in the dragnet. In these parts a few escaped capture and later got their own reservation in western NC.

Where the stories of Indian ancestry started I'm not sure. But I think they've gained traction in recent decades as people feel guilt over what their White ancestors did and feel that somehow being 1/132nd Indian takes about that guilt. I'm supposed 1/64th but there's no way to prove it without an expensive DNA test as it's not on my direct father to son line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2015, 08:06 AM
 
294 posts, read 528,004 times
Reputation: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata View Post
There was a lot of race mixing between the first White settlers and Indians but most of the time the mixed offspring was raised back in the Indiana community as White America had the whole One Drop mentality. Most Native Americans have a lot of White ancestors and are lighter complexioned than their ancestors. Later on Indians were rounded up and placed on reservations and anyone that looked Indiana was caught in the dragnet. In these parts a few escaped capture and later got their own reservation in western NC.
Another urban legend that under review with today's DNA testing is another farce regurgitated and recycled from year to year.
If we had so many Indians not documented or those numerous claims of people whose ancestors were never documented Indians, we should find more positive results rearing its head with population studies within the US itself. We have a large portion of people claiming to descend from American Indigenous Indians with no documented ancestors from any tribe claiming they are 1/64, 1/16 and even 1/4 this tribe or that tribe who produce results of 100% European ancestry. All these claimants have one thing in common, no documented ancestry and no Amerindian results which is highly indicative of an Indian Blood Myth. You have IBM syndrome.
Claims that US is a genetic melting pot appear overblown–if you’re white | Genetic Literacy Project

"There was a lot of race mixing between the first White settlers and Indians" - censusdata

Most Colonial White Americans fail to produce a robust amount (within the US White colonial population) an Amerindian mtDNA or YDNA halpogroup that would support a large degree of mixing, even with early settlers. White Americans halporoups are mostly entirely European (M/Y) and their admixture mapping shows little to no admixing. Only less than 2% of self identified Whites have non-European admixture and less with halpogroups. There was a lot of race mixing in Latin American which is why many Latin Americans and outlying islands produce mtDNA/YDNA halpogoups from Native Americans, Europeans and Sub-Sahara Africa.
Do Native American have non-Amerindian mtDNA or YDNA? Yes they do. While it was introduced more into the Native American communities, it was rarely contributed back to the "White" population to change the racial and genetic landscape of White Americans both in mtDNA, YDNA and autosomal.

If all "this race mixing" had truth, we'd see it today in the form of the mtDNA. Mainly mtDNA since most Native men (North America) did not take European wives or engaged in such unions on a modest basis. Even with the lack of findings in admixture mapping, mtDNA and YDNA would still support early mixing if it so happened. White Americans since the population was much smaller in colonial times, would have recycled any Amerindian admixture within the gene pool. I've provided an attachment to further back this scientific find. Nothing new has shown otherwise.

I cannot say this enough, there is no way to prove tribal affiliation with DNA testing but only by ancestors recorded on rolls as being a member of a tribe is the only verification. The only thing DNA testing will show is a geographical similarity to the Americas (if that is what you are seeking) which would be indicative of ancestry from anyplace within the Americas.


Do many Appalachians have a bit of Cherokee in them?-main-qimg-ae870c2bb4c049fcb01d8f5f59d88a77.jpg

Last edited by AppalachianGumbo; 06-14-2015 at 09:04 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2015, 03:23 PM
 
Location: WV/Va/Ky/Tn
708 posts, read 996,826 times
Reputation: 325
Everybody I know has a Great-Great Grandma who was a full blooded Cherokee Indian, just look there cheekbones and they seem to tan easy when there out in the sun over a long period of time....

Ask the whitest person you know and I guarantee they will say they have Cherokee blood in them.

Now I spoke to a Self Confessed Melungeon who said there that their genetic makeup was of European/Mediterranean/Turkish and Sub Saharan descent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2015, 05:22 PM
 
9,981 posts, read 16,782,862 times
Reputation: 16972
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogsrus View Post
I have heard, all my life, that I have Indian blood flowing through my veins and have also questioned the statement.

At this point in my life/time...I am an American.



So are they!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2015, 06:07 PM
 
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
16,127 posts, read 19,070,580 times
Reputation: 33058
I have a bunch of ancestors with high cheekbones who tan easily. They all lived in Norway. Those Cherokee sure got around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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 > U.S. Forums > Kentucky
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 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