The Pawnees reduced their requirement a few years ago, from 1/4 to 1/8. At some point a sane person will realize that a glass of 7/8 water and 1/8 milk ain't really a glass of milk any more.
I dont know why there is a such a stigma attached to people classified racially mixed wanting to be proud of a certain part of their heritage. Light skin blacks and white looking Latinos are every where. Why does it matter then if an indian looks white? Theyre still indian. And white.
A person with 1/8 degree indian blood and no other indian descendants, their great grandparent was a full blood indian. Thats only 3 steps between. Under the old 'one drop rule' theyre still considered indian and should be proud of it IMO. Ive heard of some 'indians', usually Cherokee as they have no minimum blood quantum, being 1/256ths. They have the correct documentation to connect to a direct related ancestor who managed to get on the Dawes Roll so theyre still considered indian and technically they are indian. Thats a helluva long ways from being 1/8 though. Should they adopt some type of a minimum blood quantum? Or how low can it go before youre not considered substantial enough to claim that blood?
Some of the Freedman members of the Cherokees have no indian blood at all but they had a relative that was likely a Cherokee owned slave and or later a freed slave that stayed living with the Cherokees after the Civil War and came along with them on the trail of tears, when the rolls were brought to them they got themselves on the roll, and now their descendants with a Cherokee membership card can claim indian and enjoy the benefits of being a member. The Cherokees have been fighting a long time to end the Freedmans with zero blood quantum's membership and allow only those with a direct actual lineage to Cherokee indian blood to remain a member. Are the Cherokees right in wanting to rid their rolls of these non indian blood members?
Today a person with a black great grandmother who is 1/8 black and 7/8 white or other will almost always associate themselves with being black rather than white even though theyre 7/8s white. They may not have done that pre or post Civil War when being considered black was likely very dangerous. There is a renewed pride in their heritage today as well as almost complete embarrassment with being associated with anything to do with being considered white the last half century. Their descendants were forced to be considered black during a time in history when it was very dangerous to be black in America- hangings, etc. With all of the recent racial problems with law officers you would think you would see a lot of mixed kids denying that theyre black to be safe but instead with all of the protesting and outrage over the white police officers killing young black men there is renewed black pride. I saw alot of white lookin people on TV protesting after Ferguson.
I can see why a person may want to be indian today just because of the financial benefits of being indian and not so much from just merely being proud of their heritage. Those people have no interest in finding out where they came from or learn to speak the language or practice the customs of their people, they just want free health care or cheap tags or whatever. They are still indian and they are still deserving of benefits. If a person with a small percentage of indian blood recieved no benefits but still wanted to be classified indian to be proud of their heritage is there a problem with it? They dont deserve to be proud of their heritage?
There was a time like with black heritage when being indian was dangerous and for sure not that cool or spiritual or whatever people think its like being indian. A certain President of the US even likened indians to less than the stature of dogs. During the Indian Removal Act you didnt want to even be associated with a group of people that were so vilified by whites and the government.
Now today it seems like its cool to be indian. And black. And brown. Yellow. Purple. Etc, etc. Just not white. Weird thing is, if you were only 1/8th white and you claimed yourself to be 'white' and you went out and proclaimed your love for your white heritage that you so eagerly investigated and documented and then walked around with your white tribal membership card enjoying all of your white only benefits and privaledges- you probably would be labeled insensitive or racist or something worse. The times they are a changing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
Last edited:
I linked the compact earlier - here is their quick info flyer: http://s3.amazonaws.com/choctaw-msldigital/assets/2393/License_Tags_Flyer_FINAL_original.PDF
So it's still a glass of milk, I suppose.
I'm 1/16 Cherokee, and can show you a picture of my ancestor that came to Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears. So, I'm 15/16 dirty white boy, 1/16 Indian. I'm plenty proud of my heritage, but it would be ridiculous to say "I'm an Indian".
As for Freedmen, being owned by an Indian doesn't me you one, any more than being owned by a white boy makes you white.
And for being villified, there were some fairly ugly instances of Indians raping, killing, kidnapping and torturing white folks right here and in Texas and Kansas. (yes, both sides did lots of bad)
So the mentality of white vs Indian is more akin to U.S.-Japanese relations during WWII, not simple racism, as is often alleged.
I guess a guy ought to be proud of who he is, regardless, just seems to me that identifying with what genetically makes up a small portion of your being is silly.
I'm 1/16 Cherokee, and can show you a picture of my ancestor that came to Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears. So, I'm 15/16 dirty white boy, 1/16 Indian. I'm plenty proud of my heritage, but it would be ridiculous to say "I'm an Indian".
As for Freedmen, being owned by an Indian doesn't me you one, any more than being owned by a white boy makes you white.
And for being villified, there were some fairly ugly instances of Indians raping, killing, kidnapping and torturing white folks right here and in Texas and Kansas. (yes, both sides did lots of bad)
So the mentality of white vs Indian is more akin to U.S.-Japanese relations during WWII, not simple racism, as is often alleged.
I guess a guy ought to be proud of who he is, regardless, just seems to me that identifying with what genetically makes up a small portion of your being is silly.
You should be proud of all of your heritage- Cherokee, white, whatever you are. 1/16 is enough to be considered indian.
(Mariah Carey and Rashida Jones are both half black half white and they are associated at times with both races even tho they both look white, Pitbull is Cuban but to me he looks white, Obama is half white but is called black, down in Mexico I see a lot of fair skin blondes running around.)
I went to an indian youth incampment in South Dakota when I was a kid and a lot of the kids there including my own siblings and some cousins all looked dark, unlike me blond headed. An older dark skinned lady gave me a form to fill out. After she had read what I wrote she asked me to show her what part of me was indian. I didnt understand at first. She said I listed myself as part indian. That was just what I had always written. I told her I was Osage-Kaw but was also French, Scottish and Irish so I considered myself only part indian. She told me that as long as you have one drop of indian in you that you are indian and to be proud of it.
(I apologize to the OP for making this a race thing).
So, go out and display those tribal tags with pride.
Last edited:
In NEOK, I think it's okay to have Cherokee Nation tag, I got a letter from Cherokee Nation last month, problem is the nearest Cherokee tag office is in Tulsa, I don't think it's worth the trip for a 2002 Chevy PU that I only pay about forty bucks anyway, besides the Cherokee tag sticks out quite a bit in SWOKC, I rarely see a car with Cherokee tags.
Dang 4 pages of NDN tag Or not.... ;|
If it hasn't been said ...Do Not buy an NDN car unless the owner gets the tags fixed....you will pay excise tax on it at some point....Good Luck
If it hasn't been said ...Do Not buy an NDN car unless the owner gets the tags fixed....you will pay excise tax on it at some point....Good Luck
Dang 4 pages of NDN tag Or not.... ;|
If it hasn't been said ...Do Not buy an NDN car unless the owner gets the tags fixed....you will pay excise tax on it at some point....Good Luck
That depends on the compact that the tribe has with the state.
Actually it depends on if the tax was paid on the vehicle , Most times , its not, and the new buyer will have to pay it.
That's why you see so many Indian cars parked on the farm, its just not worth the taxes...
Which depends on the compact that the tribe has with the state.
Similar threads
