late edit: DISCLAIMER: The pictured map is not actually a representation of the territories before colonisation. It's a hypothetical map of what countries there might have been had the continent not been colonised, thus all the names and borders are fictional and have never existed.
For good actual maps, check out native-land.ca.
Are there any other white North Americans here that grew up in mild reverence of your alleged mixed Native American heritage, and then find out later (through DNA tests or what have you) that there isn't even the slightest trace of native in your bloodline, and all of your relatives (who have Cherokee art in their house and shit) have all been terribly misled by some weird family rumor for decades?
Like, I suppose the silver lining here is that it's probably a good thing to have more white people out there who respect and are sympathetic toward the plight of native genocide, but holy fuck, boys.. It doesn't seem as though anyone in the family has an explanation for it. Every last person just grew up accepting that our Grandmother/Great Grandmother/Family Matriarch was half Cherokee.
It's my understanding that this is a common thing in Appalachia, and while my family is from the Great Lakes, my Great Grandparents fled Kentucky during or shortly after the Harlan County strikes, so I imagine the rumor began all the way back then. Though this rumor only gets weirder for those familiar with the miner strikers when you note my (confirmed) descendency from one of the primary villains of that period, who was most certainly not of Cherokee blood. But who am I to say whether or not he engaged in coitus and/or matrimony with someone believed to have been.
It's conceivable that someone could have been accepted into a tribe and grew up believing themselves to be Native American, but the whole confirmed-descent-from-primary-villain thing really blows that hypothesis out of the water.
My family (Appalachia) swears this one or that one was full Cherokee. My dna shows mostly what you’d expect. English, Irish, and Scottish. I also have 1% Nigerian dna. I figure that’s probably it. Someone was making an excuse for being a bit dark. That doesn’t explain how everyone I know is white as snow and claiming native ancestry though.
My wife shows 3% native ancestry, so her people didn’t make it up.
A lot of dna was lost to genocide though, so some can’t be tested for.
My wife's family is Appalachian (WV) and what I've distilled is that anyone who could tan at all (ie not completely ghostly Scotch-Irish) was told "well that must be indian blood in you!"
And then later they tell their grandkids "Your uncle roy was part-cherokee!"
Then those kids grow up and tell their kids, "Your great uncle Roy's grandma was Tenskwatawa's sister!"
It's all just a bad game of telephone with foggy memories and no real fact-checking.
I'm Sitting Bull!
Similar story here. Both parents born in Eastern KY in early 1900s, primarily Irish ancestory. On my dad's side it's said one of the 5 brothers that came over from Ireland in the early 1800s together married an native American but we're not sure which one. My dad and I have very dark hair and skin - nobody guesses I'm irish - and little facial hair, so we'd just assumed we must be part of that Native American line. 23andMe says otherwise... no Native American, 75% Irish/English, some French and German... nothing else.
Why the heck am I so dark skinned that people asked if I was Mexican as a kid?
Prehistoric Irish perhaps?
Your French side could also explain dark eyes, as some proportion of Normans are known have black hair and eyes
Thanks for sharing that... I'd never heard of the prehistoric Irish. I have very tan skin but green eyes so not too far off.
Elizabeth Warren
Not to say she gets to claim tribal membership, but her DNA test corroborated her family story. I never understood why she got so much shit for that.
Wait, it actually did? I thought the whole issue was that she "lied" about it to get special treatment in admissions for schooling.
So these asshats going on about "Pocahontas warren" aren't even correct? They're just mocking how DNA transfer happens over generations? That would absolutely be on brand, mock someone for your own ignorance...
Yes, though it didn’t “prove” ancestry to the high standards required for tribal membership, which requires linking one’s ancestry back through specific names using official genealogical records. She is estimated to be 1/32 Cherokee ancestry, exactly in line with her family stories, and the same as the current chief of one of the Cherokee nations. But, to be clear, we should also be respectful of the Cherokee nation’s political sovereignty in determining membership.
It's up to the tribe if she can claim membership or not. Many tribes require that you can prove direct descendancy from someone on the final rolls of the Dawes act. No amount of native DNA will gain you access if you can't prove direct descendancy. Tribes with casinos and casino money are especially guarded about letting people in, sometimes excluding groups who meet the criteria and have proof. There was a group of about 50 people who sued a tribe to be admitted when I was younger. They wanted in, because getting in meant you were financially set for life. They had all the proof needed to get in, but still lost the case. It's hard to win in court against groups that have billions of dollars, especially if those groups make the rules.
Right, Warren claimed Cherokee ancestry, not tribal membership. A story was passed down in her family and the DNA test results are in line with that story. She learned about the culture, visited the lands, and even published a cringey cookbook. By all accounts, her beliefs about her heritage were sincere and plausible, if embarrassing.
So there's a lot to unpack here but I'll give it a try:
Hah, that's wild. My dad has an incredible amount of genealogy research (he's the kind that will go to city halls in bumfuck middle of nowhere) and the instance of Cherokee in our family traces back to late 1800s. I believe it would be my great, great, great grandmother. Her family were survivors of the 1830-1850 genocide (aka the trail of tears), and she was born a while after in Oaklahoma. Her information was recorded because she married a Christian man, under pressure from her parents according to letters found. My grandmother is a member of the tribe in Oaklahoma, for all the good that it does as she never actually did anything with them.
Yes, everyone in my small town in north Georgia made this claim.
That is exactly what happened to me. I didn't find out until I took a 23 and me test. I didn't believe the results, took the Ancestry.com test, got the exact same results. Had some interesting conversations with family after that, but basically, no one is willing to accept it's been a lie the whole time.
It's becoming quite the scandal in Canada, where academics are claiming indigenous heritage to get sweet teaching gigs. Buffy St.Marie is the latest greatest liar.
Well, it was a sign of the times but, if you were kinda tan you had to have a story that explained how you definitely weren't black.
Yes, sort of. Let me tell you my tale.
First, my parents nor grandparents had a significant amount of Cherokee or other American Indian items on display. It's possible my grandparents did but they had tons of knickknacks and if they did have some they weren't a significant portion. So that's a no to one of your questions.
However, I was always told I was 1/16th Cherokee. I don't remember who told me this originally. It was never a big deal, more just like a fun fact that was shared with me. I never really thought anything of it. At some point in college I remember hearing how all white people believe they're 1/16th Cherokee. For context, my mother's family that the ancestry allegedly comes from is from Dahlonega, GA which is sort of the southern most tip of the Appalachian mountains. Well, maybe not the most southern but pretty far down. So the Appalachian part tracks. Also, of course, the Cherokee were from Appalachia so that tracks as well.
So, when my grand parents died we were going through their stuff and we found some paper explaining how we were Cherokee. I don't want to oversell this paper. It wasn't a certificate. It was sharpie written on printer paper. But it was a little family tree showing how my mother and her siblings were 1/8th Cherokee. I want to be totally clear. I don't put faith in this. I don't necessarily even believe it's correct or anything. However, it was fascinating to see that my grandparents actually believed it. Moreso that I didn't make up that I was told this growing up. Does that make sense? Sort of like a reassurance that I wasn't crazy for believing I was told this. I didn't necessarily believe the accuracy of the claim, just that the claim was made.
My best guess is that this ancestor who would be my grand parent's grand parent, may have been partially Cherokee but that was exaggerated. I don't really know.
I viewed being 1/16th Cherokee growing up like I view the results of my DNA test now. Just some interesting information about my heritage but not exactly important. The way I sort of see Irish stuff now, which 23andme said I was. I don't feel some great call to return to my roots, but it's slightly more interesting than it would've been otherwise.
Somewhat similar: I've met at least a dozen people who all claim to somehow be related to al capone most likely because of some rumor started in their family 50 years ago.
People/families like feeling special and unique, a inherited culture is one of the easiest ways to achieve that feeling I guess even if faux.
Growing up I recall meeting a lot of people who spoke about their native American heritage, I'd say the majority who made that claim were POC. I wonder if the percentage of people who found out they didn't have any native genetics in them via testing was similar in POC vs white ethnicity's.
That was me. Grew up thinking that one of my great grandparents was full blooded Cherokee. Took a DNA test only to find out that my DNA only had like 1 or 2 percent Native American DNA.
To be fair, those kinds of numbers are consistent with a Native ancestor maybe 5 or 6 generations in the past. Blood would be diluted by half each generation.
If you assume 20 years/generation, then that's like 100+ years before you were born. Maybe some time in the 1800s.
Of course that's an idealized scenario, real life is more messy and uncertain. For example if 2 people that were both half native had children, then the children would also genetically appear to be half native.
Also you never get perfect 50% splitting of genes over many generations because of how genetic recombination works when egg & sperm cells reproduce. The result is that there's a chance you contain 0% DNA from a distant ancestor. It's like a 5% chance you have no DNA from a 5x great grandparent. Keep in mind, for an idealized family tree you'll have more than 100 ancestors at the 5x great grandparent level.
That was true of my wife. Her mother refuses to believe the DNA results.