Me again my grandmother looked 100 % indian and was still listed white on the census. Jo Ann Dan Metivier wrote: > > Good morning all, > > It may have been a combination of reasons. One reason that I have not > heard on the list, but was mentioned by one of my aunts was that they > may have thought they would get better allotment land by being a lesser > degree of Indian. I didn't think much about it until I came across a book > that had determined that Cherokee of an 1/8 degree of blood did end up > with better allotments. The exception to this was the hold out full bloods > who were enrolled towards the end of the enrollment time. I'm sorry I > don't remember the name of the book. > > Along the same line, my same aunt and I were talking about the census, and > how in 1910 our Cherokee side of the family were listed as Indian, and > by 1920, some were being listed as White. One reason suggested by my > aunt was that looking white, the census taker may have assumed they were > white, or may have been shy about asking a white looking person if they > were Indian. Just my two cents. Not being there, all this is just speculation. > > Dan > > > > >I have a question. Why would a woman who married a full blood Chickasaw (on > >Dawes Roll) still say she was white if indeed she WAS Indian? I have cousins > >who are determined that our great grandmother was full blood Cherokee(like > >80% of the US population), but wasn't on the rolls due to pride or whatever. > >However, her daughter married a Chickasaw and still listed herself as white. > >Their children are on the Dawes roll as 1/2 blood. Thanks, Leona > > > >