Minichan

@OP
> Turns out she's 5% native, 80% Euro and 22% African

Check your math. Thanks.

isn't that shit just statistical anyway? like not really solid fact but estimates based on allele frequencies?

lol, grandmother was full blood Cherokee. mmhmm

that's what happens when you're not in a real tribe and just have claimed ancestry. you end up with guess work and rumors. and she's probably not even cherokee, she's probably got some kind of sioux in her ancestry. but who knows, the cherokee sold all their land and lost all right to sovereignty and their diaspora was pretty bad. they just kinda went everywhere and lost contact with what remained of the core tribe. i think the cherokee are trying for BIA recognition or just got it or something like that, but anyone claiming to be cherokee is claiming a tribe that you can't prove. it's like people that call themselves blackfoot. again, just some random sioux mix probably if anything but you'd be hard pressed to prove it and even if you did it wouldn't mean anything since there are no tribal entitlements.

i know exactly what my mix is and it's certainly not a fucking quarter. and i don't need a DNA test to tell me that, the USAmerican government tells me that based on genealogy gathered during blood right allotments a hundred years ago.

it's serious business, but yeah, lots of people claim all sorts of things and it's usually just family rumors. her grandmother was i guess african/indian and probably told she was indian and not black or something like that way back in her great grand parents days. at times (and in places) it would have been better to be indian and not black, especially right after the cherokee became "wealthy" after selling their land to (guess who) that's right, my people. as new money'd indians they'd have an easier time than claiming black ancestry. that'd be my guess, but who knows. not her family, evidently.

(Edited 55 seconds later.)

@previous (squeegee)
The correct term is "cherokian".

@638,930 (squeegee)
So if there's no official Cherokee tribe, who does Jeep pay royalties to?

@previous (E)
Who do the Redskins pay royalties to? Or the Cleveland Indians?

my dad recently found out what cultural appropriation is and he keeps making jokes about how everything is appropriative. you're about 2 years late on that one, pops

@previous (hamfist !0Ynig1RSDc)
Cultural appropriation is just a word for calling diverse people racists.

@638,960 (hamfist !0Ynig1RSDc)
I fucking hate that shit too. I saw a nigger ass black man dressed as a leprochaun one day and I wanted to boycott his negro ass. Keep the cultures separate.

@638,958 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Those are general/derogatory terms. Cherokee refers specifically to an actual peop!e, or at least I taught it did until squeege's post. Anyways, please get back to TC, and see if you can do something. The whole front page is a Bert related topic.

@previous (E)
well, the cherokee are a people, but not a federally recognized tribe and all of that. but there's a big push from people with indian ancestry to reclaim their heritage and gain sovereignty. i don't follow it all too much, but the blackfoot have been trying for years but they want casino rights and the blackfoot geneology is only like 100 actual people or something so it's all a big mess that has more to do with taxes and idk what else. edit: so there's 3 groups of cherokees now all descended from the original cherokee that were disbanded over a hundred years ago. i don't actually know their history, just that they are looked upon by osage kinda like the blackfoot. indians in claim only. but, osage are actually super racist so i can't say i'm not biased against other indians. i guess they're indians.

people with cherokee blood do exist and i'm sure plenty of people can legit claim it but that's all they can do is claim to be indian. being cherokee doesn't entitle them to anything because they gave that up as a tribe. they kind of like "disbanded" and just went their separate ways and i think some of them bought land out west or something? idk, the osage basically bought like half of kansas from them. the big difference is that osage were granted sovereignty and never gave it up making them a legit nation today with all the rights and everything an "interior" sovereignty can have. and there are other indian tribes that have sovereignty as well and they all have their own histories and traditions and entitlements. but, if you're not a federally recognized indian then whatever family claims you have are going to be at the very least suspect without pretty substantiated genealogy.

we have a geneology library in pawhuska that contains records going back to the pre allotment days. osage were well documented by anthropologists that lived with them all through the 19th century. i would imagine the Cherokee had something similar happen with them, but it all gets really murky the closer you get to the 20th century and the more on the move the indians were. plus name changes were very, very common so it's hard to go back further than you furthers Anglo-named indian relative unless you had anthropologists noting the anglo-names and indian names of bands they lived with.

(Edited 9 minutes later.)

dubs

@638,973 (squeegee)
So, I went to a Meskwaki reservation to watch a fat Austrian kid give Bush's 9/11 speech in a competition and the whole thing just felt really wrong to me. Are the Meskwaki at least recognized by the US gov't and get some sort of kickbacks for playing host to thousands of white people in their reservation school?

@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
i don't know anything about them. they're recognized in some way, through the BIA i guess. they're real, real small though. no idea what kind of deal they have with the government but i had to look them up