Hi, again, There is probably an analogy I should also make concerning the issue of who is a Native American. (By the way, the term "American Indian" is now back in vogue among "Native Americans.") I have Native American ancestry, but I am not legally a Native American, in the same sense that I have Irish ancestry, but I am not legally a citizen of Ireland. The inability to secure legal membership in a particular tribe does not negate that tribal ancestry. Thanks, Sharlotte -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Donnelly Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 10:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PATE] Native American Ancestor designation on US Censuses Hi, Carter and everyone, That is so cool that you are an anthropologist. So am I, but a cultural anthropologist. (I am a Professor of Anthropology at Northern Kentucky University. My personal NKU web site is http://www.nku.edu/~neelys.) My speciality is Native Americans. I thought everyone on the Pate email list might like to see something I wrote, below, about "Who is an Indian?" Blood Quantum and Who Is an Indian By Sharlotte Neely (Donnelly), NKU Anthropology Who is defined as an Indian and how much Indian blood quantum (blood degree) is required vary over time, from nation to nation (the USA and Canada), from government bureau to bureau (Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of the Census), from state to state, and from tribe to tribe. Most, but not all, federally recognized Indian tribes hold lands with federal reservation status. There are three federally-recognized groups of Cherokee Indians in the USA. Only the North Carolina group has federal reservation status to their lands. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina used to set the minimum blood degree at 1/32 (the equivalent of having one fullblood great-great-great grandparent) but eventually raised it to 1/16 (the equivalent of having one fullblood great-great grandparent). When this happened, some Cherokees found they were no longer legally Cherokees. The Keetowah Cherokees in Oklahoma set their minimum even higher, at ¼ (the equivalent of having one fullblood grandparent), while the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma has done away with blood degree altogether. The majority of federally-recognized tribes in the USA set the minimum blood degree at ¼, but some set it even higher. The Florida Miccosukee, Mississippi Choctaw, and St. Croix Chippewa, for example, set the blood degree at ½ (the equivalent of having one fullblood parent), while the Utah Utes have the highest blood degree at 5/8 (the equivalent of having one fullblood parent in addition to one parent who is at least ¼ blood degree). Canada used to define Indianness as having a father who was recognized as an Indian (mothers did not count), but in the 1980s Canada switched to a system of blood quantum. The USA's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) recognizes the various blood degrees required for tribal membership but requires a minimum of ¼ for things like higher education grants. Beginning in 1960 the USA's Bureau of the Census has required only self-identification as Indian to be counted as Indian on the census. Before 1960 individual census takers decided who was and was not Indian, usually based either on whether someone physically looked Indian or had what seemed to be an Indian surname. Many census takers counted Indians as "mulattos" (mixed race people), even if they were fullblood Indians. Some states have no definition of Indianness while many have less precise definitions than the federal government. Some states, like South Carolina, with state Indian reservations, are more precise. The state of North Carolina has a government agency to deal with those they recognize as Indian. The federal government recognizes only one North Carolina tribe, the Cherokees, as being Indians while the state recognizes many others, including the Lumbee, Waccamaw Siouans, and Haliwas. So, the answer to who is an Indian is that it depends on the time period, the country, the federal bureau, the state, and/or the particular tribe. But what is the motivation for even attempting to define Indianness. The answer involves Indian treaty obligations. In the USA American Indians are unique among all ethnic groups in often having treaty obligations that flow to them from the federal government. While these obligations are often insignificant and inexpensive, the federal government still feels obligated to define who can and who cannot be a recipient of these obligations. Contemporary Indians are the descendants of people once recognized by the federal government as independent, sovereign nations with whom treaties could be concluded. At the end of the 19th century, the U.S. Congress ended the practice of treaty making with Indians but affirmed that all existing Indian treaties were still legal, binding documents. So, to continue to fulfill the obligations of these treaties, the federal government must come up with a definition of who is an Indian. Thanks, Sharlotte [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of B. Carter Pate Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PATE] Native American Ancestor designation on US Censuses May I add a few comments on this topic? I taught some college classes in anthropology, but am not an expert. The following are rather general, but you might want to discuss them with an active expert who will know more about DNA studies: • A number of genetic traits are found in European populations which, when they come together in individuals, may give an impression of resembling a Native American. (Which native American? There are varieties among them, too.) • Among these are straight, black hair; dark eyes; rounded skull shape; prominent features (nose, brow, chin, etc.);, dark skin; high cheekbones; etc. These seldom are transmitted as a single unit, but are inherited in very diverse combinations. Witness how siblings may or may not resemble each other. I know a Latin American family, Cuban father, Mexican mother, with two sons very different in appearance. One the typical "romantic Latin": light, curly hair, medium height, general European appearance; the other son tall, dark, straight hair--easily mistaken for a tall Pakistani, rather than Latin. • In tracing DNA connections Y-DNA depends on only one chromosome, out of 46 chromosomes. If we have some of these traits, they might have come from Indian ancestry in the other 45 chromosomes, and even be of Europopean origin. • mDNA (mitochondrial DNA) is a second source, which might be roughly equivalent to a chromosomal source of DNA (more or less). So our DNÅ studies suggest only part of our genetic inheritance (two of 47 sources, not necessarily percentages.)and show links to only part of our ancestry. • (I have yet to explore what the "Family" link studies mean.) •• So appearances may be quite deceptive and don't necessarily prove ancestry. Even a complete DNA analysis might state only probabilities, not absolute proof. Native American ancestry could be something one might be proud of, or might feign for personal or political reasons. *** Legislators and law enforcement personnel in Arizona would do well to consider the implications of this, as would responsible genealogists. Cheers! B. Carter Pate On Jul 14, 2010, at 5:32 PM, [email protected] wrote: > It has to be a direct daughter to daughter line.? We went to a lot of > trouble finding that line.? My Great Grand father had just one > daughter.? But we found two.? One would have nothing to do with > it.? The other one was a nurse and said sure.? My sister paid for > it and it turned out no Indian blood, from the one who looked like > an Indian.? My Dad looked Indian too.??? It really makes no > difference to me either.? After all the Indians were here first and > we took the land away from them.? So when we moved from Houston I > gave my part back to the Indians (in my mind anyway). > > Nita remind me next week and I will look at those census records for > you. Clovis > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gerald Pait <[email protected]> > To: Joel Pate <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Jul 14, 2010 3:33 pm > Subject: Re: [PATE] Native American Ancestor designation on US > Censuses > > > > > Joel: I am probably incorrect, wouldn't be the first time, but I > think I > remember that if there is any native American ancestry in the > family, it > would show up in female DNA? I'm not sure where I heard that but maybe > between you and AJ, you would know for sure. > Jerry > > > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: [email protected] > Date: 7/14/2010 1:22:29 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATE] Native American Ancestor designation on US > Censuses > > I am going to throw out a few thoughts on Native American Ancestors. > > For generations we have thought our ggg grandmother was a Cherokee > Indian. > We recently tested the mtDNA of 2 eligible persons in our line and the > report came back T2, European. The gg grandmother certainly looked > Indian > in her pictures and was a "healer" in the traditional Indian > culture manner > so - that has left us up a tree so to speak. Also, her rather tall, > headstone is shaped like a tall house with a steep roof, has chiseled > tepees on the bottom of the roof part on both sides, then moves on > to what > appears to be a log cabin on each side and the top appears to be a > church > including a cross at the pinnacle. The center section has a > narrative. > This is not a new headstone. Unfortunately, we left our camera in > another > vehicle and no one had cameras to record what the headstone > actually said > but as I remember it gave a glowing report of her life and how much > she was > going to be missed. I do not recall any reference to her being > Indian on > the headstone. > > We have entertained the thought that perhaps the gggg grandfather was > actually the Indian, passing along the features and the lore of > Indian blood > We haven't found a direct descendant on the grandfather's side to > test. > > Next item to consider was the recent TV documentary on who was > actually in > North America first - eons before Columbus. One of the interviews > was with > a group of Cherokees. They speculated they were actually of very > early > European extraction but the documentary did not give us DNA proof > of this > belief by this group of Cherokees. > > If that was actually correct, then at least some of the Cherokee > tribes > could have been very, very early European, giving us the European > mtDNA > results. > > So - will the real Cherokee tribe stand up?? > > Last item: Does anyone have free access to late 1860- early 1900 > census > records for TX? Perhaps I could recheck my gg grandmother's census > record > for the "I", etc. There is a possibility that she would not have > noted > herself as Indian since they moved to an area (Edwards Co, TX) > where they > had a horrendous Comanche raid. Being Indian might not have been the > popular thing to claim at that time. I believe they were in Gonzales > earlier. > > Nita Fry > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, Jul 13, 2010 7:27 pm > Subject: Re: [PATE] Native American Ancestor designation on US > Censuses > > > Donna that is a good point to make for those who may not realize those > columns > > are important.? I was told all of my life that we had American > Indian Blood > on > > my fathers side of the family.? But DNA tells us no.? My great > grandfather's > > brother is listed in Oklahoma as Indian, but that is because he > married the > > niece of the governor and some how was listed on the Indian rolls.? > A bit of > > crooked politics I assume.? They got lots of land and he even had a > town > named > > after him but he was no Indian. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: DMariee <[email protected]> > > To: pate <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tue, Jul 13, 2010 6:03 pm > > Subject: [PATE] Native American Ancestor designation on US Censuses > > > > > > > > > > I found this very interesting thought I would share, perhaps many > of you > already > > > > > > knew this anyway.? This is according to Ancestry Com, "Pay special > attention > to > > > > the columns designating color and place of birth. You may find a > Native > American > > > > > > ancestor listed as I, In, Ind, B (black) or M for mulatto. It might > change > from > > > > census to census." > > > > Donna Hassan > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to PATE- > [email protected] > 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 PATE- > [email protected] > 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 PATE- > [email protected] > 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 PATE- > [email protected] > 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 PATE- > [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message