squeegee joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 7 hours later[^][v]#837,782
depends who you ask, the tribe recognizes ancestry differently than the BIA. my grandmother was considered full blood by the tribe and she was entitled to a full headright because of it. but the BIA requires genealogy to determine whether or not they extend tribal rights to an individual (incidentally any fractional amount will do as long as it's traceable to particular bloodlines from the 1900s census and headright allotments. my grandmother, being one of the only children of my families bloodline to survive into the 20th century is only recognized as 1/4 osage by the BIA despite having both osage parents and grandparents, but the only traceable lineage was along her mother's side i do believe so that's all they recognize. many, many, many of the men had already been slaughtered. in fact most of the genealogy used to determine headrights and allotments was written up by an anthropologist who lived with the osage in the late 19th century. without that there would have been far, far fewer osage recognized. but, if you ask the tribe her blood is actually worth a full headright because they do recognize the other indian blood in her family.
tl;dr hard to say cause of the genocide, but recognized by the federal government to be "at least" 1/16 on their little paperworks they drew up for us.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#837,803
@previous (squeegee)
Do you have an ornate feathered headdress, a tomahawk, and a teepee or wigwam? Because then it would seem way more believable