Oleta Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying about blood quanta. The whole idea of categorizing our Indian ancestors on the basis of blood was not an Indian thing, it was imposed by the non-Indians (whites). This was done at a time when inheritance based on genes and chromosomes was not part of public knowledge. It was believed that blood was the carrier and determinant of a persons character, social status, and abilities. You no doubt have heard the terms - "bad blood "applied to two or more individuals when they are not getting along, or "blue blood" when applied to an individual who has been ascribed higher social status and blue bloods are suppose to marry blue bloods to maintain this status. During the 1800s, there was the idea that civilization as defined by the non-Indians was carried by the blood. Thus it was important to the government to know how much white blood compared to Indian blood an Individual possessed. A person with more white blood than Indian blood was presumed to be more civilized and thus could handle their own affairs. However, the individual who had more Indian blood compared to white blood was more uncivilized. I know this sounds crazy in today's times but there were many debates in the Congress of the United States when they were struggling to define Indians. (Even today, there is no government-wide definition for Indian. Each department can have its own definition and many do.) The discussion in this genealogy room focuses on the definition of Indian in use by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The definition used by the Department of Education is different as are those definitions in use by other sections of the government. White society, for a full blood Indian, had no problem classifying the person as an Indian. It was all those "in between people" that created the problem. The whites did agree that Half bloods could be considered "civilized." If civilized, individuals were capable of handling their own affairs. This was important because some merchants would not sell on credit to Indians who were not at least half bloods because they had no ability to get their money when the Indian was a "ward" of the government. When the Dawes Rolls were published, there was a notice in the Wagoner, Oklahoma newspaper about its publication and it pointed out that the merchants could use the information when they were asked for credit by an Indian. If the Indians did not feel it was important to know the amount of Indian blood they possessed, how did this practice of recording their blood quanta come about. Looking at the information collected on early rolls is a good way to see the evolution of the application of blood quantum. The 1835 "Henderson Roll" of the Cherokees is a good example. In that roll, the original, not the ones that are partial and only list names of the heads of households, the blood quanta are listed not by individual but by family, I.e. if the adults are listed as 1/2 blood, what are presumably their four children who are not named are considered 1/4. It is interesting that this roll lists 1/4, 1/2 and full bloods but not 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, etc. I know my ancestors on that roll were not correctly identified and they had less Indian blood than they were given credit for. Today those smaller amounts are important and some tribes use such smaller amounts as criteria for tribal membership. For the 1835 census takers to have ask the people their blood degree would have been met with quizzical stares. Such categories would have no significance to the tribal members. See National Genealogical Society Quarterly, Vol 90, no. 3, Sept 2002 -- An Analysis of the 1835 Cherokee Census for some errors in that census. Once literacy was more widespread, then individual Indians learned their blood quantum and when asked they could tell the person. Today, blood quanta is important for those tribes which have a blood quanta requirement for membership so members of those tribes do know their ascribed blood quanta. (Membership in some tribes is based on descent from ancestors whose names appear on a base roll and blood quantum is not used). I have tried to summarize the use of blood as a classification that began in the early 1800s. It is a complicated. Because of its history and various usages I can not cover all the details. Did you know the Fed. Government, in the past, established "half blood" communities out west. These reservations are (were) made up of people from various tribes who are "half blood". They are recognized as "tribes". Lathel ----- Original Message ----- From: J W Kite Jr<mailto:obengekite@juno.com> To: indian-territory-roots@rootsweb.com<mailto:indian-territory-roots@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 12:45 AM Subject: Re: [INDIAN-TERRITORY-ROOTS] Natural Archives closure Carla B., Did you ever get an answer on this? If not, write me as I can answer your questions. Oleta E. Kite On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:10:54 -0500 "Carla B" <soarsister@cableone.net<mailto:soarsister@cableone.net>> writes: > Question on Dawes. What are the case # about and is there documents > to be > had regarding them? > Also, if a family was MCR, yet without a doubt Indian, is there any > other > way to trace it, and how? If not for legalities in Tribal > membership, then > just for genealogy sake? > Last Question, if a mother was Choctaw and the father was Cherokee, > or visa > versa, is there a way to deterime degree of Indian blood using the > two > combined or is each tribe individually considered? > Carla > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > INDIAN-TERRITORY-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:INDIAN-TERRITORY-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com> with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to INDIAN-TERRITORY-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:INDIAN-TERRITORY-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message