The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share (MPSIMS)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 04-17-2011, 01:39 PM
levdrakon levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarahfeena View Post
It's funny this thread was bumped. A Black contestant on Survivor mentioned being part Cherokee this week, and I thought to myself, "it's always Cherokee."
I've fallen behind on Survivor. Did the guy also insinuate that his Cherokee blood would somehow give him a "survivor" advantage in the game? That stuff cracks me up.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #152  
Old 04-17-2011, 01:43 PM
Sampiro Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zsofia View Post
I have to agree with those who say it ain't just black people. I have a lot of geneaologists as library patrons, and I can't tell you how many people upon meeting me tell me either about their Indian Princess Ancestor or how they're related to George III. It's always an Indian princess, too - I mean, princess? Whatever.
If they're related to G3 through his wife Queen Charlotte they've probably got black blood, as does the British royal family today.


I have a theory that a lot of white people who claim Native American ancestry actually have (if there's any basis to non Euro ancestry at all) black ancestry. Admittedly my sample group is small- my family and a couple of others- but also

*There was a lot more racial mixing between whites and blacks than there was between whites and Indians in the original 13 colonies and territory

*There were unions (marital or just procreative) of blacks and natives

*Many if not most free (or escaped) blacks who were light enough crossed the color line if they could and sometimes claimed native blood to explain a broad nose or darker-than-Euro skin or coarse hair

Also, there have been Africans in America reproducing with Indians since 1526 when the African slaves of the Spanish builders of San Miguel de Gualdape in what's now South Carolina said adios when their masters abandoned the colony. Accounts vary as to whether the slaves revolted, ran away or were intentionally left behind due to limited room on the evacuation ships, but it's relatively certain they intermarried with the natives. (Many natives found black skin [and these being Africans as opposed to biracial that accounted for many if not most slaves centuries later would have been very black indeed] not only aesthetically appealing but religiously significant in a good way.) It's not certain how many slaves were left behind, but at least a few dozen, and while that may not sound like many anybody who has studied genealogy knows that in 2 centuries a small group can result in thousands of descendants. This being in South Carolina, those genes would have spread all up and down the Atlantic seaboard, and the children of African-Native unions would probably have been much healthier than most since Africans had as much resistance to Old World diseases as Europeans.
So it's very possible that even Pocahontas or the Creek chieftains or others who were known to have intermarried with white settlers already had some black ancestry.

Last edited by Sampiro; 04-17-2011 at 01:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 04-17-2011, 01:46 PM
Sampiro Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Sorry- I didn't realize this thread was 3 years old when I posted.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 04-17-2011, 01:51 PM
Nzinga, Seated Nzinga, Seated is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
Projection, your issue onto others...
No clue what 'issue' you think I have, but if I'm 'projecting' anything, I hope it is a message, loud and clear, "please, don't come up to me spouting bullshit about your Indian Princess grandma, cause I ain't buying it."

For the record, elbows, I'm not in the business of disbelieving every single person who swears they have NA ancestry. You say you, yourself, have NA in your ancestry. Fine. Ok. Sure. I'm just very tired of being fed bullshit from people about their history when I never asked in the first place. It's annoying.

ETA: Sampiro, why apologize? It's been bumped and folks are posting to it. No need for us to apologize for that.

Last edited by Nzinga, Seated; 04-17-2011 at 01:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 04-17-2011, 01:54 PM
Sarahfeena Sarahfeena is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
I've fallen behind on Survivor. Did the guy also insinuate that his Cherokee blood would somehow give him a "survivor" advantage in the game? That stuff cracks me up.
Of course. And he's been wearing a feather, too. Course, he's crazy for many reasons, but the feather is just too much.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 04-17-2011, 01:58 PM
elbows elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 8,909
So you admit you don't know if they do or don't have such ancestry but are certain they are claiming so out of shame of being black?

Projection. Text book.

So you're really annoyed by people volunteering this info when you didn't ask? Really? Are you equally annoyed when people volunteer other unrequested information? Or just this one that touches your issue?
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 04-17-2011, 02:10 PM
Nzinga, Seated Nzinga, Seated is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
So you admit you don't know if they do or don't have such ancestry but are certain they are claiming so out of shame of being black?

Projection. Text book.

So you're really annoyed by people volunteering this info when you didn't ask? Really? Are you equally annoyed when people volunteer other unrequested information? Or just this one that touches your issue?
No. Not info. Just bullshit. When people feed you bullshit, and you know it's bullshit, it is more than annoying, it is irritating as hell. You have to either call them on it or feel like a real big dummy pretending to believe it.

I honestly didn't realize white folks did this shit all the time, too. This thread enlightened me. If, as Sampiro brings up, some white folks did it because they didn't want to admit their black ancestry, I find that equally self loathing and pathetic. As a matter of fact, I find it cringingly off-putting that anyone would pretend to be something they aren't. Particularly when they are trying to get me to buy into their bullshit. I don't want to play along. Simple as that.

For the record, blacks in particular, because of our history in this society, do have parts of our culture that struggle with self-loathing. Most of us admit it is an issue in our culture. I think it should be quashed. I have no problem recognizing that as something I'm aware of when a disproportionate amount of blacks I know claim to be descended from Blackfoot royalty. I call bullshit.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 04-17-2011, 02:10 PM
levdrakon levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
So you're really annoyed by people volunteering this info when you didn't ask? Really? Are you equally annoyed when people volunteer other unrequested information? Or just this one that touches your issue?
Are people under some obligation to be equally annoyed by everything?
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 04-17-2011, 02:16 PM
Maastricht Maastricht is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Dutch in the Netherlands
Posts: 8,044
This heritage thing reminds me of the time my mom dabbled in reincarnation therapy, and the house was full of books with case studies. Lots of Indian Princesses and heirs to George III there, as well. A subset of people, more in need of borrowed victimhood perhaps, were slavegirls and flogged-to-death labourers.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 04-17-2011, 03:09 PM
Sampiro Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
I'd always heard my family had Cherokee ancestry too of course. I found out we do have some native ancestry but it's a tribe I had never even heard of- the Saponi/Tutelo a Sioux tribe that somehow wound up in Virginia and the Carolinas. They were very small and got absorbed by intermarriage with other tribes and non natives. This was also a very long time ago- early 18th century; most people who claim native ancestry seem to think it was much more recent, that there's probably an actual photo of one of their ancestors in buckskin and feathers somewhere.

It's interesting to speculate on how Siouan Indians wound up in the Mid-Atlantic I'm guessing some of their chiefs caught hell from the wives ("Turn right, I said, right is west, but he's "Oh noooooo, I know what I'm doing, you just shut up and start thinking of recipes for buffalo because I can practically smell 'em from right here... next thing, we're in the mountains. Anybody here ever heard of the famous mountain buffalo herds? I thought not, because there AREN'T ANY mountain buffalo herds!")

I wonder if the reason why "It's always Cherokee" is that they were the tribe that went to the most effort to "act white".

Last edited by Sampiro; 04-17-2011 at 03:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 04-17-2011, 03:18 PM
elbows elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 8,909
Yeah, except you admitted you didn't know if it was fact or not. So calling bullshit on someone when you are not in possession of the facts is really a reflection of your issues, in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 04-17-2011, 03:57 PM
Chefguy Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 29,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka View Post
What makes you sure he cheated w/ a woman?
I don't think teh gays existed back then.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 04-17-2011, 04:04 PM
Ferret Herder Ferret Herder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeghead View Post
HA! I knew just from looking at it that this was a zombie, and also who had bumped it.
I'm going to start fitting the words "Latin" and "Chile" into as many posts as possible to see how indiscriminate he gets with that search feature...
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 04-17-2011, 04:15 PM
Kevbo Kevbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Claiming Indian* ancestry: I noticed it was fairly common when I was living around Denver. In fact I remember my brother claiming he was part indian. He was anonymously adopted, so when I was young assumed this did not apply to me, and when I got older just thought it was his way of dealing with not knowing what his real ancestry might be.

When I moved to Albuquerque, not so many, but those that do are for more adamant about it.

A couple of factors are a play:

There is a large REAL Indian populace that is likely to call you on it...what tribe, what clan, etc. etc.

Almost everyone knows several Indians, and none of them are even remotely like the romanticized "noble savages" of popular fiction, and being pueblo Indians, never rode horses, hunted buffalo, etc.

New Mexico was early settled by Spanish Explorers and Missionaries. Many people carry the surnames of the men who came north with Coranado. They will tell you they are Spanish. To claim Indian blood is essentially to admit to being Mexican.

The Indian ancestry posers are mostly new-agers concentrated around Sante Fe and Taos...into the whole mother earth, father sky thing.

I will also say that it is not just an American thing. Every single European I have ever met shows absolute fascination with native american culture...many to the point of obsession. I have no doubt that could they plausably do so many would claim indian blood.


*of the dozen or more Indians I know, I have yet to hear one refer to themselves or each other as Native American.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 04-17-2011, 04:45 PM
Lucky 13 Lucky 13 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
I can't claim Native American ancestry, as I was not born in North America. I do have Spanish ancestors as well as ancestors from the tribes that were native to Central America, as do many people living there now. I actually have a great-great-grandfather who emigrated from Ireland sometime in the late 19th century, but about all that's going to get me is maybe a free Guinness on St. Patrick's Day. My grandpa on Dad's side was adopted, so no one knows where his ancestors are from. I like talking about it, but it really makes no difference as to who I am as a person. My ex felt the same - his ancestors immigrated from eastern Europe, Germany and northern Ireland, and he looks European, but when asked where he was from, he would sometimes reply, "Kenya."
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 04-17-2011, 04:49 PM
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 18,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka View Post
What makes you sure he cheated w/ a woman?
Because if he were cheating with a man "distant cousins" couldn't possibly have resulted from it?
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:07 PM
Ephemera Ephemera is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Bisexuals didn't exist in the 1800s?
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:27 PM
gravitycrash gravitycrash is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St.Louis MO.
Posts: 1,821
If I had a nickle for everyone who has claimed to be part Cherokee, come on. I mean those Cherokee women must have got around.

I've discarded women on dating sites for this claim alone. I take a look at her profile and then gaze at her picture and she is whiter than my Eastern European ass.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:48 PM
rhubarbarin rhubarbarin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampiro View Post
I wonder if the reason why "It's always Cherokee" is that they were the tribe that went to the most effort to "act white".
I think it's that they are by far the largest tribe in America (currently anyway).

And they are quite famous as a people due to their prominence in anti-NA US government policy, Trail of Tears, famous leaders, etc.

Also they are located in South-Eastern states, where a majority of the African American population was and is.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 04-17-2011, 06:01 PM
Capitaine Zombie Capitaine Zombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
So you admit you don't know if they do or don't have such ancestry but are certain they are claiming so out of shame of being black?

Projection. Text book.

So you're really annoyed by people volunteering this info when you didn't ask? Really? Are you equally annoyed when people volunteer other unrequested information? Or just this one that touches your issue?
I dont know if it's projection, but I can hear the cracks in your ego.
What he is growling about is the tedious habit (and a particular recuring trait in middle classes and lower middle classes, by my account) of forging themselves an imaginary genalogy just to feel like they have something "special". Other posters have already linked this to reincarnation freaks all believing themselves to have been a courtesan under Louis XIV or some Egyptian High Priest (for some funny reason, all past female incarnations have strong feminist tendencies, and were thinking out of the box centuries ago).
In general people babbling about their genalogy are people to be avoided. When you have to look back centuries ago along your supposed bloodline to find any traces of awesomeness, you might ass well admit to yourself, and the world, that you just plain suck.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 04-17-2011, 06:43 PM
Nawth Chucka Nawth Chucka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
It's possible that I have a distant Native American cousin out there. I have documented proof that my great grandfather was cheating on his wife when they lived in the Dakota Territory in about 1883. Not too many white wimmins out there at that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Because if he were cheating with a man "distant cousins" couldn't possibly have resulted from it?
Chefguy doesn't say they do; he just says the cheating was documented. It wasn't just white wimmin that were scarce in the Territories...

Wait - Chefguy, was this branch of your family Scottish by any chance? I may have another hypothesis.

Last edited by Nawth Chucka; 04-17-2011 at 06:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 04-17-2011, 06:43 PM
pinguin pinguin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Chile
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampiro View Post
I have a theory that a lot of white people who claim Native American ancestry actually have (if there's any basis to non Euro ancestry at all) black ancestry. Admittedly my sample group is small- my family and a couple of others- but also
Interesting theory, but doesn't match the truth. For once, mixtures between Europeans and Indians are a lote less "visible" than mixtures between Blacks and Whites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampiro View Post
*There was a lot more racial mixing between whites and blacks than there was between whites and Indians in the original 13 colonies and territory
Well, most Black americans are around 1/4 White, but they are still considered different.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampiro View Post
*Many if not most free (or escaped) blacks who were light enough crossed the color line if they could and sometimes claimed native blood to explain a broad nose or darker-than-Euro skin or coarse hair
It was a hard job for mixed AfroEuropeans to fool people, but yes, that happened. But only when people had very little Black to start with.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampiro View Post
So it's very possible that even Pocahontas or the Creek chieftains or others who were known to have intermarried with white settlers already had some black ancestry.
And we know that by the time slaves were already White looking, isn't?


Last edited by pinguin; 04-17-2011 at 06:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 04-17-2011, 06:43 PM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubarbarin View Post
I think it's that they are by far the largest tribe in America (currently anyway).
The Cherokee are the biggest per census data. But there's something really intriguing about said data that is very relevant to this thread. The number of people claiming Cherokee as their sole heritage in 2000, ( 281,069 ) is only slightly larger than the next largest tribe, the Navajo ( 269,202 ). But the number of people claiming partial Cherokee heritage ( 729,533 ) is ~2.5x those claiming partial Navajo heritage ( 298,179 ).

Given the discussion here it makes one just a bit wary about those census figures .

Last edited by Tamerlane; 04-17-2011 at 06:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 04-17-2011, 06:45 PM
Nawth Chucka Nawth Chucka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
The Cherokee are the biggest per census data. But there's something really intriguing about said data that is very relevant to this thread. The number of people claiming Cherokee as their sole heritage in 2000, ( 281,069 ) is only slightly larger than the next largest tribe, the Navajho ( 269,202 ). But the number of people claiming partial Cherokee heritage ( 729,533 ) is ~2.5x those claiming partial Navajho heritage ( 298,179 ).

Given the discussion here it makes one just a bit wary about those census figures .
Are you suggesting Indian census figures are wrong?? You take that back!


Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 04-17-2011, 06:53 PM
Belowjob2.0 Belowjob2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed...on-tv-programs

Meh. Some black Americans have Native American ancestry, some don't. Nothing to get excited about either way.


Quote:
Rapper, Snoop Dogg

0% East Asian

23% Native American

6% European

71% Sub-Saharan African

Charles Barkley's DNA results:

0% East Asian

14% Native American

11% European

75% Sub-Saharan African
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:02 PM
Belowjob2.0 Belowjob2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampiro View Post
If they're related to G3 through his wife Queen Charlotte they've probably got black blood, as does the British royal family today.


I have a theory that a lot of white people who claim Native American ancestry actually have (if there's any basis to non Euro ancestry at all) black ancestry. Admittedly my sample group is small- my family and a couple of others- but also

*There was a lot more racial mixing between whites and blacks than there was between whites and Indians in the original 13 colonies and territory

*There were unions (marital or just procreative) of blacks and natives

*Many if not most free (or escaped) blacks who were light enough crossed the color line if they could and sometimes claimed native blood to explain a broad nose or darker-than-Euro skin or coarse hair

Also, there have been Africans in America reproducing with Indians since 1526 when the African slaves of the Spanish builders of San Miguel de Gualdape in what's now South Carolina said adios when their masters abandoned the colony. Accounts vary as to whether the slaves revolted, ran away or were intentionally left behind due to limited room on the evacuation ships, but it's relatively certain they intermarried with the natives. (Many natives found black skin [and these being Africans as opposed to biracial that accounted for many if not most slaves centuries later would have been very black indeed] not only aesthetically appealing but religiously significant in a good way.) It's not certain how many slaves were left behind, but at least a few dozen, and while that may not sound like many anybody who has studied genealogy knows that in 2 centuries a small group can result in thousands of descendants. This being in South Carolina, those genes would have spread all up and down the Atlantic seaboard, and the children of African-Native unions would probably have been much healthier than most since Africans had as much resistance to Old World diseases as Europeans.
So it's very possible that even Pocahontas or the Creek chieftains or others who were known to have intermarried with white settlers already had some black ancestry.
Tri racial isolate groups often call themselves Indians, like the Lumbee Indians. DNA studies have revealed a substantial amount of African ancestry in the Lumbee and other TRI groups. When members of these groups married with whites, they probably didn't identify themselves as "black" and might not have known the source of their darker skin.

This wasn't just vanity, trying to give oneself a better pedigree. The difference between being seen as "black" versus "Indian" could mean something close to life and death.

Last edited by Belowjob2.0; 04-17-2011 at 07:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:22 PM
Sampiro Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinguin


And we know that by the time slaves were already White looking, isn't?
¿Que?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belowjob2.0

This wasn't just vanity, trying to give oneself a better pedigree. The difference between being seen as "black" versus "Indian" could mean something close to life and death.
Certainly between freedom and slavery. Some Black Seminoles successfully fought a rebellion to be counted as Indians so that they could go west- it's something when the forced removal west was considered a victory.

Last edited by Sampiro; 04-17-2011 at 07:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:30 PM
pinguin pinguin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Chile
Posts: 692
Yes, everybody knows Seminoles were a mixed bunch. But believing that the Powatan and other tribes at contact were also mixed like Seminoles, I believe it is science fiction. Something like the Black Olmecs, or the Black Vikings, I guess.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 04-17-2011, 08:10 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 54,946
Rather than calling folks out on their claims of Native American ancestry, wouldn't it be simpler to point out just how many people in the US do have some NA ancestry, and that it's therefore nothing special?

For what it's worth, I'm 1/64 Shawnee, and that and a quarter would get me a phone call, or would if there were still any pay phones around.
__________________
Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
--As You Like It, III:ii:328
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 04-17-2011, 08:34 PM
rhubarbarin rhubarbarin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
I found a Wiki article on something called Blood quantum laws, which I had never heard of before. Seems the qualifiers that can get you accepted into a tribal organization can vary a lot.

Quote:
American Indian tribes located on reservations tend to have higher blood quantum requirements for membership than those located off reservation. ...[reference to table] [O]ver 85 percent of tribes requiring more than a one-quarter blood quantum for membership are reservation based, as compared with less than 64 percent of those having no minimum requirement. Tribes on reservations have seemingly been able to maintain exclusive membership by setting higher blood quanta, since the reservation location has generally served to isolate the tribe from non-Indians and intermarriage with them.
Quote:
Many Native American tribes continue to employ blood quantum in current tribal laws to determine who is eligible for membership or citizenship in the tribe or Native American nation. These often require a minimum degree of blood relationship and often an ancestor listed in a specific tribal census from the late 19th century or early 20th century. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina, for example, require an ancestor listed in the 1924 Baker census and a minimum of 1/16 Cherokee blood inherited from their ancestor(s) on that roll. Meanwhile the Western Cherokee require applicants to descend from an ancestor in the 1906 Dawes roll (direct lineal ancestry), but the Cherokee Nation imposes no minimum blood quantum requirement. The United Keetoowah Band requires a minimum 1/4 blood quantum.
In that article was mention of the program called African America Lives, which I am going to have to dig up and watch. They included some information on this issue:

Quote:
With the help of geneticists, the historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. put African American ancestry in these terms:
  • 58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent);
  • 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent);
  • 1 percent of African Americans have at least 50 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one parent); and
  • 5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent).
Thought that was interesting.

In the article posted upthread, it said that African-Americans from the Eastern States have been found to have 6% Native American ancestry on average. So, unfortunately, did the Freedmen who were applying for tribe citizenship and hoping to be admitted on grounds of DNA testing.

Last edited by rhubarbarin; 04-17-2011 at 08:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 04-17-2011, 08:49 PM
Sampiro Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinguin View Post
Yes, everybody knows Seminoles were a mixed bunch. But believing that the Powatan and other tribes at contact were also mixed like Seminoles, I believe it is science fiction. Something like the Black Olmecs, or the Black Vikings, I guess.
It is possible though. There were 80 years between the abandonment of San Miguel and Wahunsunacock had influence that far south, plus if you know anything about his sex life he'd probably have wanted to add other races to his harem. (He used to get women pregnant then give them away to other chiefs.) Alonso, the servant who was spared from the Ajacan mission in Virginia, is also referred to as negrito (probably meaning of mixed South American-African heritage) in some sources, and Wahunsunacock absolutely in no uncertain terms knew people who had been involved with that raid and may even have been among them, so African bloodlines had been introduced.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 04-17-2011, 10:02 PM
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 18,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubarbarin View Post
I think it's that they are by far the largest tribe in America (currently anyway).

And they are quite famous as a people due to their prominence in anti-NA US government policy, Trail of Tears, famous leaders, etc.

Also they are located in South-Eastern states, where a majority of the African American population was and is.
The Cherokee were also pretty lenient about giving people marrying Cherokee full status in the tribe, as well as considering their children full members. The result was that by the time the US became an independent nation there was a fairly significant infusion of European genes into the tribe. This might have given them some resistance to European illnesses other tribes didn't have which enabled them to keep up their numbers, but it also meant that quite a few Cherokee even a couple centuries ago looked remarkably European, and there were also significant numbers of the tribe with African ancestry as well.

(They have recently tightened up their membership rules, though)
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 04-18-2011, 12:34 AM
Sampiro Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Cherokee, like the Creeks and Powhatan and most other southeastern tribes, are rigidly matrilineal. They didn't invent the term "baby daddy" but that's essentially how they view the father of a woman's children in terms of kinship; your father may or may not be important in your life- ideally he provides for your mother and your siblings- but your clan affiliation is 100% determined by who your mother is or was and it will never change in the eyes of the tribe. This is why there were Indian chiefs who were obviously of mixed heritage (both white and black) who were accepted 100% as Creek or Cherokee or whatever- their paternity made no difference and neither did their mother's, they were 100% Wind clan or Snake clan or whatever just as much as their 100% pure native cousins.

Now what DID cause a problem was the children of tribe members by white women. An example is John Ridge, a Cherokee who converted to Christianity and married a white woman. While there weren't many of these there were more than a few. Their wives had to be adopted into a clan if their children were to have any tribal clan affiliation, and that took some doings and of course the wife's consent, and since the wives would not consent since they were Christian and clan adoption included accepting their rites and mysteries their children were technically not Indians in the eyes of the tribe, BUT in the eyes of the government that's exactly what they were.

Another problem was when the white fathers did try to invoke paternal rights. Alexander McGillivray was the greatest chief in the history of Alabama (the farm I grew up on was part of his vast plantation at one time and had the remains of some structures from the 18th century [nothing standing but clear areas and parts of granite house supports]). His father was a very wealthy Scot trader who only married his mother, Sehoy of the Wind {how's that for a screen name?}, a half French/half Creek woman who was a member of the Wind clan and something of a noble by virtue of her close blood relationship with most of the greatest chiefs of her age. (Her brother and uncles were very powerful micos, or chieftains; female chiefs were rare among the Creeks but they did occur, but more common was women like Sehoy whose say could be very important and who served as powerful diplomats to the white world.) By Creek tradition all rearing of male children was done by the mother's male relatives- her brothers usually or otherwise any male member of her clan- but when Alex was 14 his father, who had no other acknowledged sons (he never married Sehoy in more than the Creek fashion if that but he did acknowledge their children) wanted to send him to school and since children were 100% the provenance of their mother- and she didn't want him to go- it was an issue. It was only hammered out by some bargaining between the two- basically he would go to school but then return and his education completed by her relatives.

Alexander was one of many chiefs- his cousin William McIntosh was another- who returned after being educated and ever after kept a legging in both worlds. They were chieftains who did all chiefly duties but they also lived in the frontier equivalent of Euro mansions and owned private property (unheard of in traditional tribal life- private property was stuff you could carry like your clothing and your weapons, but the Scots chiefs extended it to land, slaves, horses [which never really caught on in the southeast], carriages, etc.]). Many (including the Mc-cousins) were polygamists but their biracial wives dressed like white women, and they had alcohol problems. Even their dress reflected biracial heritage: feathers (but ostrich feathers), deerskin breeches, cotton shirts, jewelry and military uniforms and moccasins and tribal decorations were worn together.

Self serving addendum: the pics of McIntosh and Micanopy were done by famous eastern portrait artist Charles Bird King. Here's my self portrait in his style.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 04-18-2011, 01:08 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Amoral a Roma
Posts: 3,164
Cherokee

193 (99.999%-ile)

11.75"

Ambidextrous

SEAL
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 04-18-2011, 01:35 AM
Sampiro Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
I had an ambidextrous Cherokee seal once. You never knew which flipper he was going to catch the maize with. We called him Sealquoyah.

Last edited by Sampiro; 04-18-2011 at 01:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 04-18-2011, 06:17 AM
Attack from the 3rd dimension Attack from the 3rd dimension is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
Cherokee

193 (99.999%-ile)

11.75"

Ambidextrous

SEAL
I thought you'd be taller. Do you play the piano?
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:40 AM
pinguin pinguin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Chile
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Rather than calling folks out on their claims of Native American ancestry, wouldn't it be simpler to point out just how many people in the US do have some NA ancestry, and that it's therefore nothing special?

For what it's worth, I'm 1/64 Shawnee, and that and a quarter would get me a phone call, or would if there were still any pay phones around.
That's the statistic I am looking for years.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 04-18-2011, 08:03 AM
pinguin pinguin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Chile
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampiro View Post
It is possible though. There were 80 years between the abandonment of San Miguel and Wahunsunacock had influence that far south, plus if you know anything about his sex life he'd probably have wanted to add other races to his harem. (He used to get women pregnant then give them away to other chiefs.) Alonso, the servant who was spared from the Ajacan mission in Virginia, is also referred to as negrito (probably meaning of mixed South American-African heritage) in some sources, and Wahunsunacock absolutely in no uncertain terms knew people who had been involved with that raid and may even have been among them, so African bloodlines had been introduced.
I wonder why the American foundational myth always associate Blacks with Indians, and hides the intermarriage that happened between Indians and Europeans. I also wonder why the intermarriage always happened in the tribe, and you never know about mixed peoples in the European towns. I know from local stories, that many Amerindians didn't like blacks, particularly in South America, where blacks were usually the executioners, so when some fall at theirs hands they were killed by torture.

According to several myths, Indians were Black already when they met the first Europeans. Certainly makes sense given this another myth that says Spaniards weren't Europeans, and came first

I am sure this sort of fantastic history is something of recent invention, created to satisfied the ego of powerful communities like the black, and also to ensure the myth of purity of the dominant white community.

But what about the historical facts?

Last edited by pinguin; 04-18-2011 at 08:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 04-18-2011, 10:37 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 26,809
African-Americans have considerably mixed ancestries. Is it really inconceivable that a large proportion of African-Americans have Native American ancestors? And if that's true, is it not also possible that some large proportion of that group might specifically have Cherokee ancestry? Given the history of the Cherokees, it doesn't seem all that farfetched.

So, do we know for a fact that all these black people claiming Cherokee ancestry are wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 04-18-2011, 12:02 PM
rhubarbarin rhubarbarin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
It's not inconceivable, but DNA testing is pretty good these days, and based on research using it, most African Americans have not been found to have much NA ancestry. They have been found to have a ton of white ancestry.

Last edited by rhubarbarin; 04-18-2011 at 12:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 04-18-2011, 12:34 PM
Sampiro Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinguin View Post
I wonder why the American foundational myth always associate Blacks with Indians, and hides the intermarriage that happened between Indians and Europeans.
I'm really not sure what you're responding to, but I don't think anybody has denied intermarriage between whites and Indians. To the contrary in fact, the... ahem... foundational myth... of Pocahontas (not a myth actually but pretty very well verified) has an extraordinarily important marital union of Indian and European (Matoaka and John Rolfe). It's rarer that the intermarriage of Indians and blacks is mentioned than the intermarriage of Indians and whites.

The union of the Rolfes even has one of those rare things in history, which is when you look at the primary sources you find out it wasn't totally self serving. Rolfe actually legitimately loved her- he said so in his letters seeking permission to marry her. Ironically, today many hobby genealogists would gladly give a kidney to prove descent from their son, Thomas Rolfe, but in his own lifetime his half Powhatan ancestry was such a stigma he had to have special legal dispensation to marry a white woman and even his great-grandchildren (whose surname was Bolling) still felt some embarrassment over being "Red Bollings" as opposed to "White Bollings".

Interesting more-than-trivia I learned from researching my ancestors who had Saponi heritage: people of mixed Indian and white blood were often listed as "Mulatto" in the legal documents of the time. It was not just a term for people of mixed black-white heritage. Another term you'll often see in 18th century documents for people who had Indian heritage is "Tithable". (Very long explanation, but short version- white heads of households and non-whites of any gender were required to pay a special head tax, or tithe, but white women and children were exempt, so seeing women and children listed as 'tithable' usually means they were free but had non-white heritage.)
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 04-18-2011, 12:45 PM
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 18,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubarbarin View Post
It's not inconceivable, but DNA testing is pretty good these days, and based on research using it, most African Americans have not been found to have much NA ancestry. They have been found to have a ton of white ancestry.
DNA testing isn't really that good, actually. Oh, sure, for purposes of, say, paternity testing or establishing if two individuals are related, yeah, but it is NOT reliable to definitively use to pigeonhole people as being a certain ethnicity, race, tribe, nation, whatever. There's just too much overlap between such groups to make such testing definitive except in rare cases. So, if they say "This person is 30% West African" what they mean is that about 1/3 of their genes resemble the typical assortment of that area, but there are always a certain number of people elsewhere who have similar assortments, and there will be natives within the designated area who have a somewhat different assortment.

This is probably because throughout history people have moved around, intermarried with each other, and so forth. There are no purebreds, we're all mutts. It's just that in some cases the recent ancestry is better known that others.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 04-18-2011, 01:19 PM
pinguin pinguin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Chile
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampiro View Post
I'm really not sure what you're responding to, but I don't think anybody has denied intermarriage between whites and Indians. To the contrary in fact, the... ahem... foundational myth... of Pocahontas (not a myth actually but pretty very well verified) has an extraordinarily important marital union of Indian and European (Matoaka and John Rolfe). It's rarer that the intermarriage of Indians and blacks is mentioned than the intermarriage of Indians and whites.

The union of the Rolfes even has one of those rare things in history, which is when you look at the primary sources you find out it wasn't totally self serving. Rolfe actually legitimately loved her- he said so in his letters seeking permission to marry her. Ironically, today many hobby genealogists would gladly give a kidney to prove descent from their son, Thomas Rolfe, but in his own lifetime his half Powhatan ancestry was such a stigma he had to have special legal dispensation to marry a white woman and even his great-grandchildren (whose surname was Bolling) still felt some embarrassment over being "Red Bollings" as opposed to "White Bollings".

Interesting more-than-trivia I learned from researching my ancestors who had Saponi heritage: people of mixed Indian and white blood were often listed as "Mulatto" in the legal documents of the time. It was not just a term for people of mixed black-white heritage. Another term you'll often see in 18th century documents for people who had Indian heritage is "Tithable". (Very long explanation, but short version- white heads of households and non-whites of any gender were required to pay a special head tax, or tithe, but white women and children were exempt, so seeing women and children listed as 'tithable' usually means they were free but had non-white heritage.)
Thanks. Very interesting comment.
By the way, I wonder why in English the word "Mulato" passed from designing AfroEuropean mixtures, to mean IndigenousEuropean mixtures. In the Iberian countries those mixtures were considered different.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 04-18-2011, 02:37 PM
garygnu garygnu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
When I was in 2nd grade, we each had to dress up a paper doll in traditional clothing of our heritage. I had lederhosen on mine, after deciding I couldn't justify the kilt*. Turns out, in my lily-white Portland suburb, over half the class had lederhosen on their paper doll; it got tedious during show and tell.
The moral of the story was that the non-ordinary ones got extra attention, from the kilts to the one chick who did go for the Indian dress. People like to be special.

When it came time for my multiculturalism in the arts class in college, I had come to embrace my assorted-white-person lineage, for it is all I have, and I won't apologize for it.

*: My father's side is nearly all German, my mother's side is mostly French and English, with a side note of Scottish. And yes, there is an uncorroborated half-Indian woman mixed in during the westward migration. Whooppee.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 04-18-2011, 03:57 PM
ratatoskK ratatoskK is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Beyond the Pale
Posts: 3,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampiro View Post
I had an ambidextrous Cherokee seal once. You never knew which flipper he was going to catch the maize with. We called him Sealquoyah.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 04-18-2011, 04:19 PM
Nzinga, Seated Nzinga, Seated is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by acsenray View Post
...So, do we know for a fact that all these black people claiming Cherokee ancestry are wrong?
No.
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 04-19-2011, 12:53 AM
scratch llll scratch llll is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
I advise getting as many names of ancestors from your grands while you still can and going back through the census records. You will be surprised by how far you can get on some lines and how true some of those stories the old folks tell are. It's interesting to know your place in history. It doesn't have to be about putting on airs. The documents left behind could tell you of revolutionary soldiers or knights or Chickasaw or Scots archers or Cherokee or your relation to Elvis. It's not that it elevates you but it places YOU in history. And in the end we are ALL Africans, from the cradle of mankind.

I remember when I was discussing this with an old black gent and we found we had some of the same ancestry. He said maybe we were kin and I said maybe so and we laughed. There was a lot in that moment, it spoke of how far we have come and glad to be done with that nonsense. Maybe you had to be there. Anyway, check out your ancestry. It may surprise you.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 04-20-2011, 11:42 AM
CalMeacham CalMeacham is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
It may be true that "everyone knows the Seminole are a mixed bunch", but i suspect that's not the case. There was no "pristine" Seminole tribe -- the very name is a corruptiomn of Spanish "Cimarron" = "runaways", and the group always has been a mix of various tribes and escaped black slaves and free blacks. There were also colonies of mostly-black groups called "Black Seminoles", but there were Blacks among the "regular" Seminoles as well.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Seminoles
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 04-20-2011, 01:19 PM
limegreen limegreen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
This is why I don't go around telling about our Cherokee great-grandmother. We have a picture of her, and know that Savillion, my ancestor, 'took' her off the Trail of Tears as it wound through the Midwest. Adding up dates, she would have been 13/14ish, and surely the soldiers wouldn't have just let someone walk off with a girl, would they? I imagine there were bribes, or some underhand dealings going on. Whatever the real story was, it was Discreetly Hushed Up in my family, as has every unseemly happening since the Flood.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 04-20-2011, 03:28 PM
Sampiro Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubarbarin View Post
It's not inconceivable, but DNA testing is pretty good these days, and based on research using it, most African Americans have not been found to have much NA ancestry. They have been found to have a ton of white ancestry.
I read in, I believe, a National Geo article that a surprising number of white southerners tested positive for African ancestry. It wasn't a majority but it was over 10%.

I would love to have such a test done but I'm not even sure what they're called. The genetic genealogy tests advertised on ancestry.com and other sites are the ones that are <$100 but only test two lines: mitochondrial (i.e. your mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's ad infinitum) which changes very little over the millennia hence is mainly useful for your ancient ancestry, and the Y-chromosome (i.e. your father's father's father's father's etc.) which changes more frequently but will still let you know (providing you're male- has to be conducted on a male sample obviously) where you're patrilineal line has been over the centuries. This is the line that with African Americans is most likely to be the "white line" of course since far more people of Euro-African ancestry had white fathers than had white mothers.

The problem with these tests is that they only trace those two lines. Imagine a polyracial guy whose four grandparents, whether he knows it or not, had the following heritages:

-Paternal Grandpa: son of an Irish father and a Cherokee mother
-Paternal Grandma: daughter of a Chinese father and a Hawaiian mother
-Maternal Grandpa: son of an African father and a Pakistani mother
-Maternal Grandma: daughter of a Filipino father and an Australian aborigone mother

He takes both tests. This is only going to tell him about the Irish line and the Australian line- it will not show that he has any Cherokee or Chinese or Hawaiian or African or Pakistani or Filipino bloodlines. It's useful but rarely is a genealogical brickwall going to be answered by those (it's usually going to be your father's mother's mother's father or your mother's father's mother that you need clues about). While obviously none are going to say "Your great-great grandmother was Catherine T. Keaton of West Pepperjack, Maine who ran the concession stand at the Battle of Bull Run and had 18 children, all named Paul" it's still useful to know that you have a certain type of ancestry.

Things I would like to know are if I have Eastern European ancestry (my grandmother's maiden name is Irish but according to several sources many of that name changed it from a Polish surname and I'm curious if she's among them) and African ancestry. I'm curious what the tests that Barkley took is called and how much it costs. Anybody know?
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.