Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Indian Tag, or No Indian Tag?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="nofearfactor" data-source="post: 2704025" data-attributes="member: 1535"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule</a></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="nofearfactor, post: 2704025, member: 1535"] 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. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Indian Tag, or No Indian Tag?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom