It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Cherokee Nation Issues Statement Regarding Sen. Warren

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:40 AM
a reply to: LSU2018

Go far enough back and we're all black and many of us are even Neanderthal. Race is stupid pointless divisive and worthless as a concept.

posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:42 AM
a reply to: LSU2018

As long as its Human DNA i imagine she's nothing to worry about after all are we not all Jock Tamson's bairns?

posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:01 AM

originally posted by: Tanga36

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: Tanga36

When the first threads about this started to appear, I spent some time googling and reading about Native American DNA. What I found is that there really is no such thing. A few trends, however did emerge.

The Indians are believed to mostly all come here from Asia to Alaska then gone south and spread out from there. Precolumbian Indians are believed to have Asiatic DNA markers. There are a few tribes of Mayan Indians with distinct DNA markers, perhaps some in Peru also. These tribes seem to have mixed into some American tribes so some of them have that. The DNA varies by region. Some eastern tribes have pretty distinct lineage but when you get to the southwest, Indian DNA is so mixed, it's not useful at all for determining tribal membership. Since the 1600's Native Americans have had so much intermarriage, there are very few individuals with pure blood of any tribe left. Indians counted not only people born from tribe parents as members but also spouses and adopted children.

When it comes to Cherokee DNA, you find different test results from nearly all other tribes. Their markers are not predominately Asian but Middle Eastern, North African, Berber, and Iberian. Apparently, they originated from the Mediterranean area not Asia.

This is all intriguing and wonderful information that is news to me, especially the part about the Cherokee having distinct markers that differentiate them from other tribes. This brings more questions to my mind. I was aware of some of that information but some of the other info really has my mind doing some somersaults, like why are the Cherokee so different? How did they get here? When did they get here? How did they remain separate from the other tribes?

I guess you have given me something new to delve into and attempt to figure out my new curiosities!

I didn't want to go into this. I don't want to get lynched.

I found this page which says, "Mysterious Core Group of the Cherokees

Despite all the official Cherokee histories, official State of North Carolina proclamations, “Cherokees-were-the-original-Native-Americans” documentary films and unofficial Cherokee History web sites to the contrary, there is absolutely no archaeological or linguistic evidence that the Cherokee Indians were in North Carolina until the very late 1600s, if not later. Multiple eyewitness accounts by Spanish, French and English explorers placed the Shawnees, Muskogeans, more recently arrived Arawaks/South Americans, Spanish/Portuguese speaking colonists and African colonists throughout the “Cherokee Homeland” as much as 125 years before the word “Cherokee” appeared in an official document."

Another page gives a less controversial account: Cherokee Unlike Other Indians. If you search, you can easily find many more pages.

posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:41 AM
Did any of you see this yet?

This is a typical church or garden club cookbook, except that it has an Oklahoma Indian tie-in. Some of the recipes are interesting, but a lot of cream of mushroom soup is employed. And, it seems that Indians really liked caviar. Well, anyway. I mostly purchased it because of its contributor, Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren. I would like her to sign my copy, but she would most likely figure out that I was goofing on her.

(the above was taken from the comments)

posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 03:06 PM
a reply to: one4all

IMHO we need to re-evaluate our current views on the word and meaning of indigenous....we now have substantial volumes of evidence showing that there were peoples other than Native Americans IN AMERICA before the current tribes of Natives the Red People are not indigenous to NA they TRAVELLED to NA...…

Interesting. Hope you have some verifiable facts, otherwise your statement flies in the face of recorded history. I am rather interested to know just who you think was here before native Americans?

so the Red People are not indigenous to NA they TRAVELLED to NA...…

Everyone traveled at some point, to get where they are. Each tribe/ethnicity/nationality, hence the national boundaries. The point is once they reached NA, they claimed the land (either through vacancy or force) and established a civilization that still persists to this day. This was hundreds if not thousands of years before we Euro's made our way here, who also claimed the land (either through vacancy, diplomacy or most commonly force)

The corporate control is fabricated....the agreements signed are meaningless....the Treaties are meaningless...for the Indians were never indigenous....the wrongs committed against them cannot be quantified and excused using the word indigenous.....the Treaties were knowingly and fraudulently enacted....

I'm afraid I don't understand. The treaties are just as meaningful as any other treaty we sign, and hinges on all signatories holding up their end of the agreement. But I fail to see how allowing a series of sovereign tribal nations to exist within our borders is a bad deal - no other group of people/sovereign nation would be permitted to do that. Imagine if Russia, China or any other country tried staking a claim in the CONUS or any US territory/protectorate. We'd be at war faster than you could say "We're at war."

The word indigenous was CREATED to cripple undermine humanitys unity....and to MANIPULATE peoples.

There was a race war...atrocities were committed....millions and millions of people were killed and displaced....then illegal meaningless Treaties were signed.

It was not a race war. Not every thing is about race. Not every issue can be reduced to the color of someone's skin - to most of us, that descriptor is quite irrelevant (except those who choose to focus solely on it)

posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 06:25 PM
a reply to: FamCore

The MSM is only about trashing Trump, so don't bet on the media playing nice. The SJW's on the Dem side are tone deaf to any facts coming out that support Trump, so don't expect them to listen to the facts.

But, Dems like Warren are helping to energize the fence sitters and the Republicans to vote a straight party line, so we don't end up like Chicago as a nation. Democrats run Chicago and that is why it's in the crapper. I have Hispanic and black friends and they are quickly falling away from the Democrats.
edit on 17-10-2018 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 09:24 PM
I'm wondering how many of you that claim to have native in you are going to stop saying that?

posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 10:54 PM

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Tanga36

...This statement is a good reminder, not just to any specific individual, but to all of us Americans that our family's oral history is ultimately just a story...

Isn't this whole crazy world a mish-mash of stories?

She calls herself a Cherokee: and so many folks get upset, and reject her claim outright. "You're not! Your DNA proves it".
But if she decides to call herself a man: folks will go "Yes sir". Even though her DNA says she's a gendered female.

What up wit dat?

Well, actually, those who say she's not a Native American are the same ones that would still call her ma'am if she tried to say she were a boy. And those that say "well if she's 1/1024th then that settles it, she's a Native American!" are the same ones that would call her sir if she said she was a boy.

That's 'actually' not actual: but opinion. As is this, 'actually'.

posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 05:43 AM
a reply to: Tanga36

Speaking of family oral histories, I was always told as a child about how my middle name was named after an older family member who had my middle name as his first name. And they told me he worked on trains. I had this whole image of my great grandpa with trains mayne maybe even as a conductor i don't remember what they said he did just that it was trains.

About 5 years ago my grandmother gave me a laminated plastic ring binded 200+ pg book with our family history that she had gotten when she went to see her sisters out of state at a family reunion. I don't know how many copies exist but my grandma gave me hers.

I found the great great grandfather I was named after. It said he worked on the family farm and later at a lumber mill. Not a single word about trains. Lol.

I mean, my room is covered in posters and pictures of trains ive taken myself, I have a little choo choo train that goes around up on tracks i have laid out about a foot from the ceiling, train pajamas, train... No im just kidding about having all that train stuff but could you imagine though? 😄 Its true that they told me that when i was younger though... just odd, right? Like where the hell do some of these stories come from...??? I think it really just shows how parents will tell lies to their children without thinking twice about it. Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, indian ancestors, the "boogie man"...

posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 05:53 AM
well..that was mean.

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in