In a message dated 4/5/2003 9:15:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > 1803: Another countryman, John McIntosh, appointed him administrator > of the his estate in 1803. "Thomas later married second a full-blood > Chickasaw woman named Emahota In-cun-no-mar. Following the Chickasaw > tradition of the husband becoming a member of the wife's family, he > became a member of the house of In-cun-no-mar. "Thomas fathered eight > sons and five daughters. Seven of his sons became Chickasaw leaders, > particularly during and after the removal to Indian Territory. Greetings, I have a question regarding this custom of determining the line of descendcy from the mother regarding "native american" culture. In strict genealogical terms, at what point is the reference valid? If we assume the initial marriage and descendant's (any and all) from that union are genealogical descendants from that union, how do later generations support their lineage from that union? When I see references like this, I wonder about those who may not have a "maternal" link to that union but a paternal link. Yet they may clearly show how their lineage is connected to the original female member of the tribe. Would they not still be considered to possess the "same" bloodlines, though "technically" not having an immediate mother who would be considered of "native american" blood? Another question would be is this not an example that is somewhat contradictory and duplicitous when it comes to the children of the male in particular the "native american" culture in particular but the dominant culture in general? Also with the advances in DNA research would this also call into question the whole concept of determining ones "race" by that of the mother? We have so many contradictory examples of this in present day (for lack of a better phrase) "racial politics" that it seems to invalidate many people who could/would claim "native american" ancestry. Just a thought Terry

If I understand your question right, you're wondering about how far down the generational line one can be considered a native American. I am no expert, but I believe the US government considers a person to be native American if they are 1/8. But other organizations may have other definitions. I believe that the more expensive DNA tests can be done through the female. Of course, the children by this Love's first marriage would not be native American. Later generations, of course, must prove their lineage one generation at a time beginning with the present and working back through birth and death certificates, census records, church records primarily. Katheryn [email protected] wrote:In a message dated 4/5/2003 9:15:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > 1803: Another countryman, John McIntosh, appointed him administrator > of the his estate in 1803. "Thomas later married second a full-blood > Chickasaw woman named Emahota In-cun-no-mar. Following the Chickasaw > tradition of the husband becoming a member of the wife's family, he > became a member of the house of In-cun-no-mar. "Thomas fathered eight > sons and five daughters. Seven of his sons became Chickasaw leaders, > particularly during and after the removal to Indian Territory. Greetings, I have a question regarding this custom of determining the line of descendcy from the mother regarding "native american" culture. In strict genealogical terms, at what point is the reference valid? If we assume the initial marriage and descendant's (any and all) from that union are genealogical descendants from that union, how do later generations support their lineage from that union? When I see references like this, I wonder about those who may not have a "maternal" link to that union but a paternal link. Yet they may clearly show how their lineage is connected to the original female member of the tribe. Would they not still be considered to possess the "same" bloodlines, though "technically" not having an immediate mother who would be considered of "native american" blood? Another question would be is this not an example that is somewhat contradictory and duplicitous when it comes to the children of the male in particular the "native american" culture in particular but the dominant culture in general? Also with the advances in DNA research would this also call into question the whole concept of determining ones "race" by that of the mother? We have so many contradictory examples of this in present day (for lack of a better phrase) "racial politics" that it seems to invalidate many people who could/would claim "native american" ancestry. Just a thought Terry ==== LOVE Mailing List ==== To research Love surname: http://resources.rootsweb.com/surnames/l/o/LOVE/ ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.