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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,930,909 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodpasture
Ten Largest American Indian Tribes
Name .........Population
Navajo........308,013
Cherokee.....285,476
Sioux..........131,048
Chippewa....115,859
Choctaw.......88,913
Apache........64,869
Pueblo.........59,337
Iroquois.......48,365
Creek..........44,085
Blackfeet.....23,583
Most Navajo seem to be on the reservations or in California, although I had a waitress on Cape Cod that was Navajo. Cherokee is the second most populous nation and that is just those people who identify themselves as Cherokee. As it appears the Cherokee intermarried with Europeans from the time of the Vikings (some evidence exists that indicate a relationship to one of tribes of Israel) I would put the number of people with genuine Cherokee heritage to be double or triple the census statistics. Why princesses? For the same reason that Frenchmen try to be a descendant of Napoleon, Italians from Caesar, and Scots from William Wallace.........its just more romantic, and if you are going to make stuff up might as well make it royal.
The source is the U.S. Census.
It kind of leaves out the entire northern part of North America, doesn't it?
It kind of leaves out the entire northern part of North America, doesn't it?
I think it has to do with the number of people in the count, not their location. Although the NE nations were certainly strong and populous, they bore the brunt of the disease and genocide of early colonies. The Navajo were in one of the least desirable lands (for Europeans) and as such were left alone. The five civilized tribes integrated into white society pretty well, and were moved en masse to Oklahoma, thus the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw etc were able to retain large numbers of their population. look at the population difference between the Eastern Band of Cherokee and the Oklahoma.
I think it has to do with the number of people in the count, not their location. Although the NE nations were certainly strong and populous, they bore the brunt of the disease and genocide of early colonies. The Navajo were in one of the least desirable lands (for Europeans) and as such were left alone. The five civilized tribes integrated into white society pretty well, and were moved en masse to Oklahoma, thus the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw etc were able to retain large numbers of their population. look at the population difference between the Eastern Band of Cherokee and the Oklahoma.
... look at the population difference between the Eastern Band of Cherokee and the Oklahoma.
You can also do the same comparison between the Mississippi Band of Choctaw and the Oklahoma Band of Choctaw.
Another key comparison, btw, is between the present-day cultures and practices of the two. The Oklahoma Band is much more open and 'inclusive' (though that's not the proper word) than the Mississippi Band. This has to do, in large part, with the significant difference in the way the groups were viewed, regarded and treated by the dominant white society. Though I don't know, it may be possible to say the same thing for the two Cherokee populations.
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.
