What percent DNA before you are considered Native American? Question to liberals.

originally posted by: loam
After nearly 5 pages, has anyone answered yet?

It's been answered.

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians requires at least 1/16 degree of Eastern Cherokee blood for tribal membership, whereas the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Higher Education Grant for college expenses requires a 1/4 degree minimum.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: InTheLight

You should be a politician! Omg your mastery of running circles around a question, and dodging a direct answer is textbook!
Well done senator inthelight

Funny that, because I once took a psychological test to determine which job I should enter into and it was either lawyer or politician. lol (made ma laugh)

To say you are part Native American you should have about ten percent. If you call yourself Native American when you are six generations downstream, that is not right. My grandkids are a quarter native American, but from Guatamala ancestry, they do not consider themselves native Americans even though Guatamala is in North America. Remember, native American includes people from Mexico too. So most of the illegal aliens coming across our southern boarder can say they are part Native American when in fact they are Hispanic. It does not give them the right to claim native American status here in the USA but genetically they can say they are Native American if you twist the info.

originally posted by: InTheLight
I personally know aboriginals and believe me they don't give a rat's ass what the government is doling out.

Pretty obvious no discussion will be had at this point where you are concerned. You seem to be only interested in shutting down anyone that posts. The blog post I linked even mentions that the tribes themselves have a cutoff limit that's fairly narrow before you'll even be considered native. The only way to determine that cutoff is to know the ancestry of each parent, grandparent, etc., which mirrors the government requirements pretty closely, so I'm not sure why you're so on the attack?

Regardless if you know aboriginals or not and their feelings on the matter, the original post is hinging on the discussion of percentage of blood, related to status, and the initial EW discussion of whether or not that percentage of blood allows you to take advantage of perks such as college applications, scholarships, jobs etc., as a Native. Or am I wrong?

originally posted by: Subrosabelow

originally posted by: InTheLight
I personally know aboriginals and believe me they don't give a rat's ass what the government is doling out.

Pretty obvious no discussion will be had at this point where you are concerned. You seem to be only interested in shutting down anyone that posts. The blog post I linked even mentions that the tribes themselves have a cutoff limit that's fairly narrow before you'll even be considered native. The only way to determine that cutoff is to know the ancestry of each parent, grandparent, etc., which mirrors the government requirements pretty closely, so I'm not sure why you're so on the attack?

Regardless if you know aboriginals or not and their feelings on the matter, the original post is hinging on the discussion of percentage of blood, related to status, and the initial EW discussion of whether or not that percentage of blood allows you to take advantage of perks such as college applications, scholarships, jobs etc., as a Native. Or am I wrong?

The point is that aboriginals should be posting about this, not anyone else.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

OMG really? Percentage matters?

To the Native American tribes and the US Federal Government it does
Especially making false claims and registering as a Native American .
Denying Ignorance
Thats what I do..

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: InTheLight

What does she have to do with your opinion of how much DNA is required before someone can claim they are Native American? Waiting for your opinion.

It is up to the tribe to determine that, not you or I.

And who sets those standards with the Government ?
Gotchya

Slightly more then the % shared by pretty much every person on the planet.
In a perfect world? 50% or more. Doesn’t work that way however.

First you apply here www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca...
It even matters what side of your family get your DNA from. A man with status can apparently marry none status and status will be granted to her not the other way around though. If your dads Native your status but not the other way around
www.google.ca...

It’s sexist and biased I agree. Old laws written by old men.
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So many factors over and above 1/1024
She wouldn’t qualify as Native in Canada under our laws.

She could be Métis

www.google.ca...

“In 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada set out similar components to define Metis as someone who self-identifies as Metis, has an ancestral connection to the historic Metis community, and is accepted by the modern community with continuity to the historic Metis community.”

I don’t know much at all about how it works in America, this is just how it gets done here.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: loam
After nearly 5 pages, has anyone answered yet?

It's been answered.

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians requires at least 1/16 degree of Eastern Cherokee blood for tribal membership, whereas the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Higher Education Grant for college expenses requires a 1/4 degree minimum.

en.wikipedia.org...

Actually, there are three separate Cherokee Tribes that are Federally recognized.

Warren claims to be related to the Oklahoma Tribe.

As such, she doesn't need to prove a blood percentage. There are Oklahoma Cherokee with no percentage of NA in them at all.

Simply because a part of the Cherokee Tribe in Oklahoma is the Freedmen, freed slaves that we took into the Tribe a long time ago.

Since her percentage of African = 0, I'm assuming she is not from the Freedmen.

She has to have an ancestor listed on the Dawes rolls, however.

So all she would have to prove is that she has a registered ancestor on the Dawes rolls.

As she has not, then I'm going to say that she isn't, because it would be really easy to prove.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Curious what you all think. How much DNA does a white person need before they can say they are not white they are in fact Native American?

I say DNA doesn't matter. Technically, if you were born in the US, you are a Native American.

But if you want to define Native Americans as being related to the people that were here before Europeans arrived, I'd say look at what really defined the two groups. Those Native Americans were very diverse in many ways, but one thing they all had in common was a respect for nature and the ability to live in harmony with their environment.

In that respect, I consider Quakers to be more Native American than many "blood" Native Americans.

People are defined by their deeds, not their blood.

------------

That being said, if I had one ancestor out of 512 that had blue eyes, I wouldn't put blue eyes on my driver's license when my eyes are brown.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Heard it was a minimum of 16%

Elizabeth Warren - 0.09%

Cherokee will accept one who id's 1/8th and with the proper documentation. I'm 1/8th, but it's tough to prove on paper due to family name changes dating back to the ol' Trail of Tears. I'm not completely certain the full story, but I think my ancestor bailed somehow and took on a peculiarly spelled white name. But that's irrelevant. Point is, I'm pretty sure it is 1/8th. At least to qualify for government benefits.

My mom was always more interested in it than I with her 1/4th Cherokee.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Depends who you're asking. My 'brother' who is one eighth white says the worst racism he has suffered is from 100% natives.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Shouldnt it be more than Neanderthal?

Warren is 0.09765625% Native American.

Modern humans have 1.8-2.6% Neanderthal DNA.

Seems like Warren is more Neanderthal than Native American, no?

Pssst. IIB, buddy, that's not how aaaaany of this works. On average, any two humans' DNA is 99.9% identical. Which btw, does not make you 99.9% female or 99.9% of sub-Shara African descent — does it? No. Of the 0.1% that's different, 94% of that variation is among members of the same population. That means the differences between populations is about 0.006%.

Using the fevered logic of that meme, Elizabeth Warren would be about 99.994005859375% - 99.99409375% "Indian."

a reply to: theantediluvian



1) That's not nearly as funny.

2) It accurately portrays how ridiculous the 'controversy', the obsessionism about these tiny fractions of a minuscule decimal point of or DNA, yada yada, is.

3) And it delivers a nice neat 'accurate' 'factoid' about what "1/1024th" in percentage actually is.

In any event, this is all a whole nother level of racism.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

i have, and always will, consider 3 generations removed to be part of said group.

i really dislike people that say they are "insert ethnic group here" when they have never been to "country", nor their parents, nor their grandparents. youre american at this point.

3 generations is all you get, in my opinion.

a reply to: curme

Thanks for the reminder.

One Drop Rule was the precedent until around the sixties.

Interesting point made.

It is amazing that Warren would want to adopt an old, racist rule of discrimination to describe herself-a white priveledged woman.

It's rather a sign of her mental status. Further amazing that the left supports her even though the Native Americans don't.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Subrosabelow

originally posted by: InTheLight
I personally know aboriginals and believe me they don't give a rat's ass what the government is doling out.

Pretty obvious no discussion will be had at this point where you are concerned. You seem to be only interested in shutting down anyone that posts. The blog post I linked even mentions that the tribes themselves have a cutoff limit that's fairly narrow before you'll even be considered native. The only way to determine that cutoff is to know the ancestry of each parent, grandparent, etc., which mirrors the government requirements pretty closely, so I'm not sure why you're so on the attack?

Regardless if you know aboriginals or not and their feelings on the matter, the original post is hinging on the discussion of percentage of blood, related to status, and the initial EW discussion of whether or not that percentage of blood allows you to take advantage of perks such as college applications, scholarships, jobs etc., as a Native. Or am I wrong?

The point is that aboriginals should be posting about this, not anyone else.

Ah the No True Scotsman idea.

Thing is that most anyone can look up requirements for this sort of thing whether or not you have Native American blood. Tribes will keep it available and fairly accessible because they don't conduct themselves like the Skull and Bones.

Shouldn't we apply the standards to racial issues that we now seem to be applying to gender. For example.

"I am a man, but identify as a woman. Therefore I am a woman. If you disagree you are a fascist".
"I am a white woman, but identify as an Inuit. Therefore I am an Inuit. If you disagree you are a racist".

In this way we can make a mockery of race, as we are making a mockery of gender.

What matters is if your tribe recognizes you. Mostly you need great grandparents/grandparents or parents on the rolls. For example, my family is listed on the Durant Rolls. I could apply to be recognized by the tribe which they were from. I can spend the time I've spent learning the language, but until then all I can claim is Anishinaabe Heritage. I can't tell you I'm recognized as a Native by the tribe who listed my grandparents/greatgrandparents. This is what I've come to understand over the years. Maybe I am incorrect but....

Just my two cents.

-Alee

a reply to: NerdGoddess

Husband did some cursory checking at one time because there is a lot of advantage attached to it, but his understanding is that you have to really get involved to be claimed. He decided in the end it wouldn't be worth it because he was doing it for the wrong reasons and they'd take it out of him because they'd know it. They really resent people who do it just to claim advantage and rightly so.