I’ve never been involved with our tribe’s finances but I do know that our tribe (as well as others) are very touchy where the governmental monies are concerned. BTW - when it comes to the Cherokees, they have a business arm called Cherokee Nation Enterprises. CNE almost certainly produces more income than any grants or other Federal dollars for the tribe. (I keep referencing the Cherokee Nation because my tribe [Delaware] purchased land within their jurisdiction back in the 1860s and were considered to be a part of the CN until just a few years ago) This income is by no means just from casinos either.
Here in Oklahoma, from the Dawes Rolls in 1907 until about 1934, tribal lands were abolished, household heads were given individual allotments and tribal governments were disbanded. Then in I think in 1934, FDR and the head of what is now the BIA enacted the Indian Reorganization Act, which restored tribal governments and in general reversed some of the injustices done to tribes. Starting from then, public perceptions of Indian tribes began to slowly change. It took some little time for the tribal governments to get the tribes “back on their feet” and functioning as viable entities.
So yes, there were definitely at least 2 major fluctuations in governmental treatment of Indians here. This is a large overview - I’m sure the currents swirled back and forth in many ways to the people (white, Indian, governmental) who lived through the times.
I don’t know any Christian traditions that say that, last I looked they still required baptism. In Spain current customs are aiming towards “children are raised in the mother’s religion and knowledgeable of both”, which appears to have been the general tendency in the Middle Ages as well (royalty were the exception in that the child would normally be raised in the father’s religion, but not always: cf. “Paris is well worth a Mass”).
I wonder how true this is because my grandparents, born in the 1880s-1890s always spoke proudly of my grandfather’s (probably spurious) Indian ancestor, Princess Nicketti, presumed daughter of a Powhatan chief of the mid-1600s. More telling, a much earlier collateral relation, who while a sitting US Congressman from Virginia (3rd & then 5th Districts, 1817-29), named one of his daughters “Nicketti”. This did not keep the proud father from continuing on to selection as Governor of Virginia (1830-34). He actually got one of South Carolina’s electoral votes in the 1832 general election.
See link for Nicketti Floyd’s grave site and family information:
Nicketti Buchanan Floyd Johnston
Princess Nicketti may be an exceptional case, though, perhaps because she was royalty; she apparently pops up all over the place in US genealogical records:
On the other hand IIRC reading somewhere that Winston Churchill’s mother proudly claimed American Indian ancestry, and Churchill himself was only too happy to embrace the idea, so maybe Indian blood was AOK with a lot of people well before the 1950s.
From observing people of my parents’ generation (WWII), and my grandparents’ generation (WWI), Americans have always been a bit mixed on the subject. If you were wealthy, or upper-middle-class, you could boast about it. (Especially if the ancestor was a chief, or a “princess”). If you were poor, or if you drank too much, it would play into the “lazy Indian” or “drunken Indian” stereotypes.
From what little I have read on the subject, it seems to me that people started boasting about Native ancestry only after said Natives had been thoroughly conquered. Easterners only bragged about it after the Trail of Tears. Westerners only bragged about it after the Comanches and Apaches had been subdued.
This.
John Ross, the chief during the relocation, was 1/8 Cherokee by blood quantum, but no one would say that he wasn’t a “real” Cherokee. I’m the great-great-grandson of William P. Ross (also a chief and the nephew of John Ross) which makes me 1/128th Cherokee. My father was on the rolls and I could be if I wanted to. I’m not, not because my blood is too thin, but because I’ve never been actively involved in tribal life.
I dunno. This sounds a bit like pop sociology or somesuch to me. My father was 1/4 Creek, and looked it, and he didn’t have any crap about admitting it. He fit in fairly well with the general run of society, during the 30s to 50s. Same for my uncle. Never seemed to be an issue. The theme seemed to be HH’sD/U: “I’m an Indian.” White Salesman: “Great. You wanna buy this car or you gonna look at it all day?” Nobody seemed to give a crap. All their women-folk were European, and they had them hanging all over them.
Also, IIRC, Will Rogers was usually cackling about his 1/4 (?) Indian blood, wasn’t he?
My father and mother both identify as white, so do I, but no one buys it. Just the other day a woman my wife used to work with said isn’t he Venezuelan?:rolleyes:
Everything from native American to Mexican to middle eastern, hell people will tell me point blank you’re not white. I guess they are too shy to tell red headed native americans the same lol.