My brother married our first cousin and their children are normal. My aunt married her first cousin and one of the four children is mentally handicapped. Facts of the matter is that IF brother and sister were having children the chances of these children being mentally and physically normal is highly unlikely. Do the research. Cousins' marrying cousin's is not at all unusual. It's happened in a large number of families. Just look at the southeastern Kentucky Brocks. There are so many of them there that they can marry a cousin several times removed and still have the Brock surname. Joyce Reece -----Original Message----- >From: Glee Krapf <gleek@ptd.net> >Sent: Feb 15, 2006 2:22 PM >To: CherokeeGene-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [CherokeeGeneCommunity] first cousins marrying > >Is the above incest? >If so then I descend out of a lot of incestrest relationships. >To me marring your first cousin is not incest. >If you can trace your ancestry back to the 16th and 17th century then you >will find that one or more of your direct ancestors married first cousins. >At the beginning of this country your family worked, traveled etc together >and many times they were the only people that they knew. So they married >their cousins. I find that people are shocked and ashamed when they discover >that they descend out of first cousins. I have so many ancestors that did >this that I am my own cousin and so are my father and my children. The song >"I am my own grand pa" has a lot of truth in it. I understand that today >there are some states that will not let 1st cousins marry. Any body know >which states are these? My fathers side is more inbred than my mothers side. >I am not nuts yet or maybe I am and just do not know it. I am not about to >rewritght history on my family if someone does not like it that they descend >out of cousins then they will just have to lump it. You never know what you >will find when you hunt dead ancestors. >Glee > > >==== CherokeeGene Mailing List ==== >This list is for Genealogy related conversations >Your supporting website http://www.wvi.com/~wb/Cherokee1.html >Please Good manors and no flaming others >For Culture, ridges; bumps; skin tones; or Language lessons Please visit >CHEROKEE-L-request@rootsweb.com > You can also find what you need search the archives >or to get off this list via web site below >http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Ethnic-Native/CherokeeGene.html >Listowner = CherokeeGene-admin@rootsweb.com >

I had a couple friends with 4 kids. They had been doing research on their family backgrounds. After a few years searching and compiling they ended up at vital records. Turned out - they were brother and sister - they had been split up and adopted. What about the Bible Stories? Adam n Eve or Noah ! Dan M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glee Krapf" <gleek@ptd.net> To: <CherokeeGene-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:22 AM Subject: [CherokeeGeneCommunity] first cousins marrying > Is the above incest?

Hi Dan, Very well said. I agree completely. Tonya ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan M" <wb@wvi.com> To: <CherokeeGene-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [CherokeeGeneCommunity] RE: Need some help > Leave the writings as they are. > Make the disclaimer to the original authors views. > Many people who write books, see things in their own views, not always the > truth or accurately. > > I read in a book called Bartrams travels where his views if a Cherokee > ceremony they were practicing Black arts. The book and number is listed on > my website - > > Books are books, we cant change them now have the permission to rewrite > some ones works. > I would say if they are offensive, dont post em, or post em and disclaim > that they are not your views but those of the author. > > Much History is offensive. So its History. > > What about those DNA people who say all people came from blacks and Ethiopia > >? I am not sure I was accepting that. But what if it is true ? Do we be > offensive or accept true facts ? > > I guess its up to the reader > to either read with the open mind > and take in > or put out what ever they wish -> > > Thats my opinions about how I read and decide what to believe or not to. > Always interested in other peoples views thats why I read books. > Dan M > www.wvi.com/~wb > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Genealogy_Chat > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Judy" <judy@genealogysurnames.com> > To: <CherokeeGene-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:03 AM > Subject: [CherokeeGeneCommunity] RE: Need some help > > > > Maybe some of you have an answer to a problem we are having with Native > > American and African American books we put on line. > > > > Most of our book pages now have the following disclaimer: This site > > includes some historical materials that may imply negative stereotypes > > reflecting the culture or language of a particular period or place. These > > items are presented as part of the historical record and should not be > > interpreted to mean that the WebMasters in any way endorse the stereotypes > > implied. This site includes some historical materials that may imply > > negative stereotypes reflecting the culture or language of a particular > > period or place. These items are presented as part of the historical > record > > and should not be interpreted to mean that the WebMasters in any way > endorse > > the stereotypes implied. Followed by the name of the book and date. > > > > The following is one of many we receive: > > I am White with some "relatively" unknown Indian blood. I have studied > Indian > > culture and language at college and partook of the native communities in > > Nebraska. I did read the Cherokee History Area and yes, I find much > > offensive.. I'm only beginning the rest of the History Area. Reading the > > warning that it may be offensive, Why can't you have someone clean the > > offensive parts up or rewrite excluding the offensive parts and just quote > > the current sources when using unoffensive summations???? Isn't it time > in > > history to do this? > > > > Does anyone have a suggestion as to how we could make it clearer we have > no > > intention of rewriting history, and this is what the book said. > > > > Thanks > > Judy > > > > > > ==== CherokeeGene Mailing List ==== > > This list is for Genealogy related conversations > > Your supporting website http://www.wvi.com/~wb/Cherokee1.html > > Please Good manors and no flaming others > > For Culture, ridges; bumps; skin tones; or Language lessons Please visit > > CHEROKEE-L-request@rootsweb.com > > You can also find what you need search the archives > > or to get off this list via web site below > > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Ethnic-Native/CherokeeGene.html > > Listowner = CherokeeGene-admin@rootsweb.com > > > ==== CherokeeGene Mailing List ==== > This list is for Genealogy related conversations > Your supporting website http://www.wvi.com/~wb/Cherokee1.html > Please Good manors and no flaming others > For Culture, ridges; bumps; skin tones; or Language lessons Please visit > CHEROKEE-L-request@rootsweb.com > You can also find what you need search the archives > or to get off this list via web site below > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Ethnic-Native/CherokeeGene.html > Listowner = CherokeeGene-admin@rootsweb.com > >

going through my genealogy Glee, I surprize I'm not an idiot with 3 legs SMILE

Is the above incest? If so then I descend out of a lot of incestrest relationships. To me marring your first cousin is not incest. If you can trace your ancestry back to the 16th and 17th century then you will find that one or more of your direct ancestors married first cousins. At the beginning of this country your family worked, traveled etc together and many times they were the only people that they knew. So they married their cousins. I find that people are shocked and ashamed when they discover that they descend out of first cousins. I have so many ancestors that did this that I am my own cousin and so are my father and my children. The song "I am my own grand pa" has a lot of truth in it. I understand that today there are some states that will not let 1st cousins marry. Any body know which states are these? My fathers side is more inbred than my mothers side. I am not nuts yet or maybe I am and just do not know it. I am not about to rewritght history on my family if someone does not like it that they descend out of cousins then they will just have to lump it. You never know what you will find when you hunt dead ancestors. Glee

...or we might add " There is no doubt history is oft written by the conquering entity. In this case (American Indian history), we will likely attempt to elaborate on issues and situations glossed over by antiquated texts when discovered they are inaccurate or prejudicial, whether intentional and not, such erroneous information to reflect the truthful portrayal of our native ancestors. In these cases, additional footnotes will reveal the source(s). Therefore we will not be re-writting history, but merely adding onto it perchance to offer clarity. We make no apology for such efforts." ~Jerri --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

Hello, Judy! I know this seems a little off-topic, but it serves as a good reminder that, as family historians, we are not at liberty to just change the historical record. It only takes one person "cleaning up" a census entry and presenting the "clean" version as a transcription of the original to completely change a family's true lineage. It's just one step from prince to pauper presented as a bona fide document - and a huge (oh, alright, a little one!) lie. How many people will accept it as fact and pass on the bogus lineage? We have probably all, at one time or another, found just such a case. Maybe we've even been sucked in and bought into it only to find years later, much to our dismay, embarrassment and shame, that it was all a fabrication. It's sad that people don't understand you CANNOT re-write those books. You will not be able to address that in a way that will satisfy people intent on sanitizing the past. You won't be able to approach it in few words. You shouldn't have to approach it at all - shame on society for even thinking we can just ignore it and it will all go away! I think I might approach it by saying something to the effect: These volumes are as they are and are a reflection of that time in history - nothing more, nothing less. Attempting a re-write is akin to re-writing the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad gita (or any holy book, for that matter) and removing bits and pieces because they do not suit the writer or reader and what they want to do today as opposed to what their faith says is right or wrong. A child born out of wedlock is still a child born out of wedlock. Does that make that child of less value, a lesser being? Of course not. That child is just as human as the next. However, throughout history the "natural" children have always been looked down upon - yet many rose far above their "legitimate" siblings. It is all perspective and we are each in control of our own perspective. While what happened or was felt or perceived in the past may well be horrible, unfair, even criminal (and much of what was done to America's First People was all of those things), it is nevertheless what happened and history cannot be changed to suit the current reader. We can no more change what happened then than we can travel back in time now. Once is has been changed, it becomes a work of fiction and useless. Some "historical" volumes *are* biased and slanted, their content offensive, perhaps even fictitious. We cannot do anything about that from *this* side of history. What we can do is write new chapters and make a better world with the understanding we gain from the events and attitudes of the past. We can complete our own research in the historical documents, not the history books, and write new histories that are unbiased, unslanted and based on fact. Or can we? All history is recorded through the eyes of those who lived it, observed it, or research it later. We all have our own biases, prejudices, emotions, and mores. They do not and will not always match those of current or future observers and readers. They cannot be removed from who we are and what we do any more than we can cease breathing and still live. For these reasons, we will not rewrite or remove offensive items. They are simply a part of history. Nothing more. We *do* encourage our users to research and write new volumes, not leaving out or glossing over what we perceive as "bad", but drawing the lessons from it. Perhaps the best way to present that research is, in Joe Friday's words, to present "Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts." As family historians, though, that will not suffice. We always are on the hunt for the information that will make our ancestors real people, put flesh on their bones. Accounts written in earlier times do just that. They let us see what our ancestors were like as people - warts and all. Some of it is wonderful. Some of it is horrifying. Some of it we glory in. And some of it makes us cringe in shame. Yet we are not responsible nor accountable for what our *ancestors* did - only for our own actions. Let us hope, as we see offensive attitudes and practices in the past, that we learn the lessons of history. One day, we will each be a part of history and someone might well write "Can't you re-write it or take out the offensive parts?" so it doesn't hurt them to look back on what *we* did. Judy, you are welcome to any or all of my words - or none of them - as you wish. But I hope they are a comfort. Your stand is spot on right. Don't change it! Blessings, Susan Reynolds

may I add to Glee's comments. More first cousins getting married in lines with money than not. Reason being, they wanted to keep the money in the lines and the lines pure. Mass. pilgrims among them. Among my lines, my Mass. lines most commonly remarried into family. Debbie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glee Krapf" <gleek@ptd.net> To: <CherokeeGene-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:22 AM Subject: [CherokeeGeneCommunity] first cousins marrying > Is the above incest? > If so then I descend out of a lot of incestrest relationships. > To me marring your first cousin is not incest. > If you can trace your ancestry back to the 16th and 17th century then you > will find that one or more of your direct ancestors married first cousins. > At the beginning of this country your family worked, traveled etc together > and many times they were the only people that they knew. So they married > their cousins. I find that people are shocked and ashamed when they > discover that they descend out of first cousins. I have so many ancestors > that did this that I am my own cousin and so are my father and my > children. The song "I am my own grand pa" has a lot of truth in it. I > understand that today there are some states that will not let 1st cousins > marry. Any body know which states are these? My fathers side is more > inbred than my mothers side. I am not nuts yet or maybe I am and just do > not know it. I am not about to rewritght history on my family if someone > does not like it that they descend out of cousins then they will just have > to lump it. You never know what you will find when you hunt dead > ancestors. > Glee > > ==== CherokeeGene Mailing List ==== > This list is for Genealogy related conversations > Your supporting website http://www.wvi.com/~wb/Cherokee1.html > Please Good manors and no flaming others > For Culture, ridges; bumps; skin tones; or Language lessons Please visit > CHEROKEE-L-request@rootsweb.com > You can also find what you need search the archives > or to get off this list via web site below > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Ethnic-Native/CherokeeGene.html > Listowner = CherokeeGene-admin@rootsweb.com > >

perhaps add a couple sentences, "in our attempt to keep history as accuarate as possible, and since the mistreatment of indians was part of that history, no attempt has been made to change the wording, or edit, thus some of the writing has used personal choices we find offensive, but it is how some felt during this time period, and still do today. We too find some of it offensive, but it is history." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Judy" <judy@genealogysurnames.com> To: <CherokeeGene-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:03 AM Subject: [CherokeeGeneCommunity] RE: Need some help > Maybe some of you have an answer to a problem we are having with Native > American and African American books we put on line. > > Most of our book pages now have the following disclaimer: This site > includes some historical materials that may imply negative stereotypes > reflecting the culture or language of a particular period or place. These > items are presented as part of the historical record and should not be > interpreted to mean that the WebMasters in any way endorse the stereotypes > implied. This site includes some historical materials that may imply > negative stereotypes reflecting the culture or language of a particular > period or place. These items are presented as part of the historical > record > and should not be interpreted to mean that the WebMasters in any way > endorse > the stereotypes implied. Followed by the name of the book and date. > > The following is one of many we receive: > I am White with some "relatively" unknown Indian blood. I have studied > Indian > culture and language at college and partook of the native communities in > Nebraska. I did read the Cherokee History Area and yes, I find much > offensive.. I'm only beginning the rest of the History Area. Reading the > warning that it may be offensive, Why can't you have someone clean the > offensive parts up or rewrite excluding the offensive parts and just quote > the current sources when using unoffensive summations???? Isn't it time > in > history to do this? > > Does anyone have a suggestion as to how we could make it clearer we have > no > intention of rewriting history, and this is what the book said. > > Thanks > Judy > > > ==== CherokeeGene Mailing List ==== > This list is for Genealogy related conversations > Your supporting website http://www.wvi.com/~wb/Cherokee1.html > Please Good manors and no flaming others > For Culture, ridges; bumps; skin tones; or Language lessons Please visit > CHEROKEE-L-request@rootsweb.com > You can also find what you need search the archives > or to get off this list via web site below > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Ethnic-Native/CherokeeGene.html > Listowner = CherokeeGene-admin@rootsweb.com > >

At 11:03 AM -0600 2/15/06, Judy wrote: >Does anyone have a suggestion as to how we could make it clearer we have no >intention of rewriting history, and this is what the book said. > >Thanks >Judy I think adding a line, saying just that, in a paragraph by itself may help. For example: "We cannot rewrite history; we can only learn from it." Carolyne

Maybe some of you have an answer to a problem we are having with Native American and African American books we put on line. Most of our book pages now have the following disclaimer: This site includes some historical materials that may imply negative stereotypes reflecting the culture or language of a particular period or place. These items are presented as part of the historical record and should not be interpreted to mean that the WebMasters in any way endorse the stereotypes implied. This site includes some historical materials that may imply negative stereotypes reflecting the culture or language of a particular period or place. These items are presented as part of the historical record and should not be interpreted to mean that the WebMasters in any way endorse the stereotypes implied. Followed by the name of the book and date. The following is one of many we receive: I am White with some "relatively" unknown Indian blood. I have studied Indian culture and language at college and partook of the native communities in Nebraska. I did read the Cherokee History Area and yes, I find much offensive.. I'm only beginning the rest of the History Area. Reading the warning that it may be offensive, Why can't you have someone clean the offensive parts up or rewrite excluding the offensive parts and just quote the current sources when using unoffensive summations???? Isn't it time in history to do this? Does anyone have a suggestion as to how we could make it clearer we have no intention of rewriting history, and this is what the book said. Thanks Judy

Two words come to mind here. Soap box. Naw, just kidding. Cultural relativism. How ancestors really lived, their legacy and their history they created should not be re-written to be politically correct to meet our modern views. Here's another word: theory. Theories are simply that. Someone's educated opinion. A theory has not been proven. Just because someone says its so doesn't mean it's necessarily truth. For instance, there is are theories Cherokees are Atlantis survivors or that we are the Lost Tribe of Israel. Is this anymore true than all humans trace back to origins in Ethopia? Our world needs our attention today more than ever before due to our ever-changing political climate. I hope someone's energy could be re-focused on today's problems rather than wasting time fretting about the purported wrongs from another era. Our goal should be to not let ugly history repeat itself by accepting our past and preventing human rights violations. Just my dos pesos worth. ~Jerri --------------------------------- Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.

Leave the writings as they are. Make the disclaimer to the original authors views. Many people who write books, see things in their own views, not always the truth or accurately. I read in a book called Bartrams travels where his views if a Cherokee ceremony they were practicing Black arts. The book and number is listed on my website - Books are books, we cant change them now have the permission to rewrite some ones works. I would say if they are offensive, dont post em, or post em and disclaim that they are not your views but those of the author. Much History is offensive. So its History. What about those DNA people who say all people came from blacks and Ethiopia >? I am not sure I was accepting that. But what if it is true ? Do we be offensive or accept true facts ? I guess its up to the reader to either read with the open mind and take in or put out what ever they wish -> Thats my opinions about how I read and decide what to believe or not to. Always interested in other peoples views thats why I read books. Dan M www.wvi.com/~wb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Genealogy_Chat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Judy" <judy@genealogysurnames.com> To: <CherokeeGene-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:03 AM Subject: [CherokeeGeneCommunity] RE: Need some help > Maybe some of you have an answer to a problem we are having with Native > American and African American books we put on line. > > Most of our book pages now have the following disclaimer: This site > includes some historical materials that may imply negative stereotypes > reflecting the culture or language of a particular period or place. These > items are presented as part of the historical record and should not be > interpreted to mean that the WebMasters in any way endorse the stereotypes > implied. This site includes some historical materials that may imply > negative stereotypes reflecting the culture or language of a particular > period or place. These items are presented as part of the historical record > and should not be interpreted to mean that the WebMasters in any way endorse > the stereotypes implied. Followed by the name of the book and date. > > The following is one of many we receive: > I am White with some "relatively" unknown Indian blood. I have studied Indian > culture and language at college and partook of the native communities in > Nebraska. I did read the Cherokee History Area and yes, I find much > offensive.. I'm only beginning the rest of the History Area. Reading the > warning that it may be offensive, Why can't you have someone clean the > offensive parts up or rewrite excluding the offensive parts and just quote > the current sources when using unoffensive summations???? Isn't it time in > history to do this? > > Does anyone have a suggestion as to how we could make it clearer we have no > intention of rewriting history, and this is what the book said. > > Thanks > Judy > > > ==== CherokeeGene Mailing List ==== > This list is for Genealogy related conversations > Your supporting website http://www.wvi.com/~wb/Cherokee1.html > Please Good manors and no flaming others > For Culture, ridges; bumps; skin tones; or Language lessons Please visit > CHEROKEE-L-request@rootsweb.com > You can also find what you need search the archives > or to get off this list via web site below > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Ethnic-Native/CherokeeGene.html > Listowner = CherokeeGene-admin@rootsweb.com

We have been working very hard since the first of the year to bring new books and data online. Complete list of the Bureau of Ethnology publications and bulletins http://www.nanations.com/bureau_ethnology.htm We all ready have several of the publications online and over the months we will be adding to the list. Land Cessions in the United States http://www.nanations.com/land_cessions_us.htm there is more to come with this publication as I get the list and locations of the reservations transcribed We have added 10 new books to our African American Section http://www.accessgenealogy.com/african/ Yesterday we added Oklahoma Slave Narratives http://www.accessgenealogy.com/african/oklahoma/oklahoma_slave_narratives.htm There are 12 books on Canadian Genealogy http://www.canadiangenealogy.net/ Several of which are on Indian Tribes of Canada and the US Come visit when you have a chance and you are welcome to pass this on!! Thanks Judy

Does anyone have any information about Susan Green. All I know is that she was born probably in Al. , that her father's name was Bluebird. a Cherokee supposedly killed by Federal Troops for refusing Removal. Any information would be helpful. Thanks Gina

Were any of your Lea/Lee family members in Caswell or Person County, North Carolina in the late 1700's to early 1800's? Any known ties thereafter to Weakley County, TN? Fawn Kennedy Dessy

Greetings, all! May I ask a little help, please? Can someone with "Cherokee By Blood" or another Miller reference please look up the following applications and tell me what the summary says? Application 12198 is for Rachel Holland. Jim Hicks has her maiden name as Horsefly raised by Lucy Bear and Mink Mixwater. Her Dawes card shows the Mixwaters as her parents and she lives with an entirely different family as an adopted daughter in 1900. Application 28840 is for William H. Holland. I have Guion Miller Plus but, as most of you know, it is only an index. Many thanks in advance, Susan

I am searching for the parents of my grandfather, Walter Lea/Lee, b. 9-3-1830 Bledsoe Co.,TN; and his siblings James A. Lea b. 1832/33, and Catherine Lea b. 1831. We believe his father was James Anderson Lea, b. 1809; and his mother was a Cherokee woman, whom he married in 1829. Any help in obtaining proof, and the name of the mother, would be deeply appreciated. Doris Lee Parks

Searching for any information: Going to post info on the line I am researching in hopes someone out there might have a link......... Stella Jane Williams Born Mar 01, 1890 Oklahoma Death Apr 05, 1972 Tyler, Smith County,Texas Parents: Father: Richard Lewis Williams Born 1866 UKN Death UKN Mother: Mary Etta Hall Birth 1869 Tennesse Death UKN Stella married: Samuel P Henderson B/Jul 1891 Texas D/ UKN Wofford, Texas Children: Boy Henderson Twins Henderson Bessie M Henderson Abt. 1912 Oklahoma Annie Mae Henderson Oct 17, 1916 Texas Silia P Henderson Abt. 1919 Texas Sammie Jane Henderson Jan 15, 1922 Marshall,Texas Rachel Henderson Abt. 1927 Texas Robert Henderson 1929 Texas I know that the Henderson line can be traced back to Creek. But Grandmother said that the Williams line was Cherokee. Not much to go on :( Thank you for your time! Sandy

Hi Jerri, I really have no infomation on that Susan Sanders listed with David Reed in 1851 Drennen roll. I would love to know more, but am unsure of how to search. I have lost David Reed and family after 1851. I do own a copy of the book Cherokee Mix bloods........On the second page of the preface , my name is listed as a contributor to the book. Sharon "J. Lynn" <ten8csi@yahoo.com> wrote: "The Sanders family includes descendents of a full-blood Cherokee woman named Susannah and her white husband, Mitchell Sanders. Susannah did not die until 1851 and is enumerated on the Drennan Roll of that year in Going Snake District... Dr. [Emmett] Starr's errors in this family mainly consist of missing persons, several of whom have been added herein. However, the typographical errors in his book are greatest in the presentation of the SANDERS family; this has caused misidentification on a number of instances of persons who use his 'History [of the Cherokee]' but do not refer to his original notes..." ---David Keith Hampton, 'Cherokee Mixed Bloods', page 400, paragraph 1 and 3. --------------------------------- Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail. ==== CherokeeGene Mailing List ==== This list is for Genealogy related conversations Your supporting website http://www.wvi.com/~wb/Cherokee1.html Please Good manors and no flaming others For Culture, ridges; bumps; skin tones; or Language lessons Please visit CHEROKEE-L-request@rootsweb.com You can also find what you need search the archives or to get off this list via web site below http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Ethnic-Native/CherokeeGene.html Listowner = CherokeeGene-admin@rootsweb.com