Very well said, Dan. And this applies to other kinds of research, too. My husband was born in El Paso, Texas--an American his whole life! He called himself a Mexican, and his family spoke Mexican and English in their home when he was growing up. His actual blood was Apache. There are some Apache records attached to Fort Hancock, but in doing family research it was necessary to go through U.S. Census records. And another thing, a mistake I made when I was first looking for my ancestors was to immediately eliminate the Shaws who were Germans or Irish, because I thought I knew my family was Scottish. Then I found that the Scots didn't all come directly from Scotland to the US, but moved about and lived a few years in one country or another, making their "country of origin" on record something other than Scotland. "Daniel H. Weiskotten" wrote: > Its not a matter of the "supposed" NA connection being untrue, just that > they are hard to prove sometimes using the standard sources. The same goes > for research on African Americans. In a recent project on African > Americans in Cazenovia I found that two were actually Indian and two others > who were black, and in many records, were never mentioned as such except in > a reminiscense nearly 80 years after they left town! > > While I may agree with that statement in come cases (for my grandfather was > supposed to be part Mohawk but we could only find red-headed Irish) Native > Americans usually ended up in the historical record no differently than any > one else - unless mention of ethnicity or race was a particular point of > the record. > > Often mention of race was a disadvantage (imagine that!) and not it was not > mentioned except in closed circles such as personal reminiscences or > perhaps offical records such as court and surrogates records. Census > records and some official records specifically noted ethnicity so that > would be a great place to start - and often, if someone was only a small > part Indian or black they were noted as Indian or Black. In the state of > Virginia there was no designation of Indian and all Indians were officially > to be called Black, even up to a few years ago. > > If the ancestor lived on a federal reservation then there are federal > census records specifically for those places, and many of these can be > found on-line as tracing ancestry is important to Indian nations bolstering > their strength and finding individuals who could trace their ancestry to > them. The Federal and State governments left wonderful paper trails > documenting the destruction and dispersal of Indian nations, so there is > plenty of material to work with. > > Dan W. > > >In my opinion, you should take the "supposed" Native American connection > >with a grain of salt and proceed with your research in standard genealogical > >sources until you find actual evidence, otherwise you risk wasting a lot of > >time on a wild goose chase since the majority of these traditions turn out > >to be untrue. > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >> Hi, > >> I'm new to Native American research. I'm looking for the parents of > >> Charles Lamb whose mother supposedly was a Mohawk. Son Charles Lamb was > >> born about 1872. Charles was living in the town of Mohawk about 1891 > >> where he had a son Ralph with Cora Walrath of Little Falls. How would I > >> locate someone of N-A ancestry? Would the mother be listed in the census > >> as Indian heritage? Would she have been on a reservation? Are > >> reservations in the census? Any leads appreciated. Thank you and happy > >> hunting. > >> Elsie > >> > >> > > ==== NYHERKIM Mailing List ==== > Cyndi's List of Genealogy Sites: http://www.cyndislist.com/