Yes, but she is now a First Nations Canadian.
My wife did the test, got a zero, and is sure there’s some sort of mistake, because of what she was always told about native blood by her mother, which is what her mother was always told by her mother, and I think I understand religion a little better now.
Telling a version of the truth now does not mean she didn’t lie previously.
As discussed about, those DNA tests arent very good at spotting small percentages.
Or, she honestly thought that was the truth, but was wrong.
She is neither First Nations nor Canadian. She is and always has been an American citizen.
So her siblings knew they were Americans of Italian descent but somehow she didn’t?
She was born in Boston to a father of Italian heritage and a mother of English heritage.
She claimed (wiki source)
Sainte-Marie claimed[69] that she was born on the Piapot 75 reserve in the Qu’Appelle Valley, Saskatchewan, Canada, to Cree parents.[16][70][71] She also claimed that, at the age of two or three, she was taken from her parents as part of the Sixties Scoop—a government policy started in 1951 (at which time she was in fact ten years old, not two or three), in which Indigenous children were removed from their families, communities, and cultures and placed with families not of First Nations heritage.[
Which is a far fucking cry from something like “I have a Native grandmother”. There is no way she belived that.
Allowing the tribe to accept someone is rife with problems as was seen with the Cherokee and Muscogee Nations who had elements that excluded Black descendents of slaves. I understand it’s a problem in many other tribes as well. There are a variety of reasons one might be rejected by the tribe that aren’t fair.
During a casual conversation with my sister, she mentioned our Irish heritage. I had to correct her and explain most of our ancestors on both sides of the family hail from Scotland and the northern part of England. I have no idea where she got Irish from.
I happen to be 6% Amerind, and know positively it’s Pima on my maternal grandfather’s side.
However, it seems to me that for all my life, whenever anybody claims to be “part Indian” they nearly ALWAYS say it’s “Cherokee on my grandmother’s side.” I’ve always rolled my eyes when I hear this, assuming people want to be part Indian, and “Cherokee” sounds noble or romantic or something, and “grandmother’s side” who knows why.
My question is… might there be truth to this? An objective explanation for Cherokee Grandmother to be statistically likely? At least in the Western USA.
I’ve heard growing up that my great-grandmother (on my mother’s side. The Dutch/German story relayed upturned was my father’s side) was a full-blooded Cherokee who married a full-blooded Irishman.
Of course, everyone I know who can confirm or deny this information and supply any evidence either way is dead, so it remains speculation for the time being.
You know, I remember reading an article or something along these lines. The thesis was that it became popular for white supremacists in the South, around the time if the Civil War and thereafter, to claim Native American ancestry, because it was like a way of saying “We’re the true Americans, we were here first, so believe us when we say it’s totally not about slavery, it’s about freedom [for white people, even though we ironically also claim indigenous ancestry].”
And Cherokee was just a go-to tribe, being considered one of the “civilized” tribes and having roots in the deep south (up until the whole trail of tears thing, that is).
I believe this was the article (yes, yes, it’s only a Medium piece, still…):
Thank you! VERY interesting and would explain how the custom (or whatever it is) became established.
I think it was more along the lines of, “Grandma was way too dark skinned to be completely white, and of the two sources a white family might get a little melanin from, one is a lot less socially damaging than the other.”
It makes sense being a grandmother; men were expected to bring the status (and money), while women traditionally left to join the man’s family. It would have been much more socially acceptable for a white man to marry a Native woman than the reverse.
Given that, it follow that it would be more socially acceptable for an ancestor from a different culture or race to be in the female line, so that’s more likely to be the story passed down, even if it’s not true. Also it’s harder to disprove, as women traditionally change their surnames and don’t pass them down to the kids so are often harder to identify from older records.
The Cherokee used to have the largest membership when measured by tribal rolls, so it makes sense why Cherokee would be the most commonly claimed ancestry. I think the Navajo are the largest by tribal roll these days, so maybe 40 years from now everyone will claim Navajo ancestry instead of Cherokee.
Good points. Plus, as a matter of law, citizenship and nationality for the children of a marriage passed through the *father. So much so that, up until the early 20th century, an American woman who married a foreigner was stripped of her US citizenship and might even become stateless upon a later divorce.
Considering that birthright citizenship was not extended to native Americans until the… 1920s, I believe, it makes sense you’d want to make clear that one’s paternal line was US citizens all the way down.
*Unless, of course, the mother was a slave. Then, suddenly, status derived from the mother.
My older (half-) sister’s father claimed Seminole heritage. His mother has Scottish roots going all the way back, so we knew it wasn’t from her. Her father was bornin Florida, but. . . both his parents were born in Cuba. There are no Seminoles in Cuba. DNA showed her to be 12% African ancestry, so her grandfather was actually racially mixed. Much safer in JimCrowistan back in those days to claim Seminole.
While your point about her qualifications as a spokesperson is well-taken, the fact that she was a voice that was not ignored is also relevant. IMHO.
(Note the IMHO. Those are very rare from me. I rarely post humbly; and what I do post is, as a default, objective fact.)
Word. I remember a Thanksgiving dinner when I was a kid. My mom told me that my great-aunt was a direct descendant of Sacagawea. Aunt Kate had always been very tanned and wrinkly since I’d first known her, and it seemed plausible to an eight-year old kaylasdad.
She lied to support a cause, but she knew supporting that cause also supported her career. She has allowed her opponents to oppose her and the causes she supports.
Cite?
(I haven’t followed any of this. That’s a real request.)