I would say that while we stick to presenting facts and family stories (undocumented) as long as we differentiate one from the other--the topic is valid (and interesting) on our list provided the discussion is otherwise on-topic for our list. This thread has been on topic for the list as it originated with a Burlington MM marriage record and deals with a family having strong roots in this location. Sacajewea and Pocahontas are well documented in history and their lives can be substantiated with facts. Family lore falls into three categories, that which: 1) can be backed up with documentation 2) can't be proven one way or the other 3) can be disproved on the face of them by the facts. As long as we stick to presenting the facts and stories specific to a family on-topic for this list I have no objection to the discussion. I've done quite a bit of private research for people who wanted to learn more about their family oral history of Indian blood and, while I always start out each new case with an open mind, there have only been two cases where I've been satisfied based upon the facts that there actually was Native American heritage--in all other cases the stories have turned out to be just that--stories--possibly with some kernel of truth behind them--possible Indian ancestry in a generation earlier than the one claimed by the family. Especially with the female ancestors you often reach a point where you can't prove beyond a certain point one way or the other. So those I consider "questionable" but not proved or disproved. Most fall into that category. As genealogists we do need to deal with the facts and keep an open mind. Joan, admin In a message dated 8/1/2008 2:09:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ndburrows@verizon.net writes: Fellow Burlingtonites: I think we should pull back on these discussions of Indian heritage, pro and con. I am not fortunate enough to claim such background but my daughter does and I have done considerable research on the subject. 1) American men arriving in the colonies in the 17th century faced a shortage of "white" women. It is common sense to assume they often took Indian wives whether their names "prove" this or not. It was only successive generations (when white women were in a majority) that such alliances may have been discredited or disowned.. (It happened in my own husband's family). 2) Daughters of Indian chiefs were accorded more privileges and respect than other Indian women and (regardless of what they were called in their own tribes) were justifiably known as "princesses" by the white settlers with whom they came in contact. 3) Little white girls were taught how to spin at a young age. There is no reason to doubt that Indian women (skilled craftswomen in many ways) would have been unable to learn how to use a spinning wheel. 4) Quakers, a liberal sect, may have been more welcoming to Indian wives than other religions. 5) Remember the history of Pocahontas who became a respected lady in English high society. Also the history of the accomplished Indian woman who was the common law wife of the English governor of New York. Also Sacajawea and many other Indian women who served as guides and liaisons in early America.Their services were invaluable to our country. This subject might better be left to professional historians who are experts on early Indian and white culture and intermarriage. Natalie ndburrows@verizon.net **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )