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.
I don’t think teh gays existed back then.
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… 
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.
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.”
Because if he were cheating with a man “distant cousins” couldn’t possibly have resulted from it?
Bisexuals didn’t exist in the 1800s?
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.
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.
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.
**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.
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.
Well, most Black americans are around 1/4 White, but they are still considered different.
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.
And we know that by the time slaves were already White looking, isn’t?
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 ;).
Are you suggesting Indian census figures are wrong?? You take that back!
Meh. Some black Americans have Native American ancestry, some don’t. Nothing to get excited about either way.
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.
[QUOTE=pinguin]
And we know that by the time slaves were already White looking, isn’t?
[/QUOTE]
¿Que?
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.