TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2006-06 > 1149185394


From: "DeAnna Burghart" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Relationship (slightly O/T)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 11:09:54 -0700
In-Reply-To: <16eb01c6859b$589a4c50$bd3c1d46@ron>


I attended a very enlightening seminar at the SCGS Jamboree earlier this
month on "A Creek Perspective on Tribal Records." The instructor, Eli
Grayson, was a Creek national with no discernible chip on his shoulder -- a
thoroughly delightful individual and very generous with his time. It was an
illuminating session. I have no idea whether the perspectives he shared are
applicable to Canadian tribes, or even whether they're universal among U.S.
tribes -- I would expect that they're not. But I share them here, for what
they're worth.

Many Indians -- at least among the 5 Civilized Tribes -- have a problem with
the phrasing "1/8th Indian" and the like, he said. He implied that this is
particularly prevelant among Cherokee of his acquaintance. The reason for
their discomfiture is that most tend to regard Indian status as a
nationality, not an ethnic group. In other words, being an Indian and
belonging to another ethnic group are not mutually exclusive. One might be,
for instance, a Creek national, and might ethnically be native American, or
might instead be largely or entirely white, black, latino, or some
combination of the above. In this way of thinking, one is either Indian --
meaning a tribal citizen -- or one is not. "You don't say," he remarked, for
illustration, "that you're 1/8th American." (I do, personally, often remark
that my husband is 1/2 German and 1/2 Italian, and this is true from a
national perspective. But apparently the equivalent among Indians is "1/2
Creek and 1/2 Seminole" or the like -- because my husband is, after all,
"white" rather than Italian, and American rather than not.)

Paradoxically, blood quantum, as it's referred to, is used as a
qualification for citizenship among many tribes. He told a story about some
people mocking a listing on the tribal role for indicating 1/254 blood
quantum, and countering with "Yes, but look who the ancestor is. It's ---!"
(I'm ashamed to say I have forgotten the name, but he was a very prominent
Seminole leader. Think George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.) So it seems
that the treatment of blood quantum is both independent of and oddly linked
to "Indian" status.

Finally, one has to be very careful in claiming blood quantum. As inticated
above, an ancestor may have been a full (I'll pick a tribe) Iriquois
citizen, but have only possessed 1/4 blood quantum. In the case of the 5
Civilized Tribes in particular, the U.S. government played absolutely
appalling games with the tribal roles. Congress declared, for instance, that
anyone with more than 1/2 blood quantum was incompetent to manage their
financial affairs and subject to the supposedly benevolent authority of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. In order to determine who was to receive land
allotments (which allotments were, of course, to be promptly turned over to
the BIA "in trust"), they used the current tribal census as a starting
point. But rather than using the blood quantum indicated on the tribal
census, they just designated everyone who was a citizen as 100% Indian blood
quantum -- thus promoting people who might have been 1/4 or 1/8 or less
Indian blood quantum past the arbitrary Congressional 50% incompetancy limit
... and thus quite ably seizing the land they were supposedly gifting to
them. So if one can get hold of original tribal records (not always easy to
do, apparently) one may suddenly discover that a supposed "full-blood"
Indian was actually only 1/2 or even 1/4, and was "promoted" by the U.S.
government in order to defraud them. Which would naturally result in
decendants having quite a bit less "Indian blood" (there's that often
objectionable phrase again) than they think.

It's all rather outrageous, and definitely gave me a different perspective
on the records than I had before -- it became much less about ancestry and
much more about cultural identification. Sure, my great-great-grandmother
might have been "1/2 Blackfoot" (and even that much is in doubt, because
Grandpa has been known to embellish shamelessly), but was she actually a
Blackfoot national? Or was she just a descendant of one who had actually
lived as a U.S. national for all her life? And was she really 1/2 blood
quantum, or actually just plain white? Makes a difference, both from a
family history and a genealogical viewpoint.

I'm having a lot of fun digging into that line now, trying to figure out
what the truth really is. :)

DeAnna

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DeAnna Burghart
TMG Shortcuts, Variables and Report Cheat Sheets (Word and PDF)
http://members.cox.net/danieleb765/genealogy/


-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Chenier [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 9:49 AM
To:
Subject: [TMG] Relationship (slightly O/T)


I've just discovered, through recent research and with TMG relationship
turned on that one of my grandparents is an Amerindian born in Québec circa
1647.
As TMG says she is my 8th greatgrandmother I was wondering if this would
indicate that I am 1/8th Indian or my bloodline is 1/8th part Indian.

Does anyone know how this works?

Ron Chénier



==== TMG Mailing List ====
To un-subscribe from TMG-L (in MAIL mode), send a message to
<> [to <> in Digest mode
or to in Index mode] with just the word
"unsubscribe" (no quotes)in the text and turn off your signature.

This thread: