Re: Ancestry

March 23, 2006

Jill wrote: " My great grandmother was Cherokee but I'd be laughed at

if I tried to go hang around the Cherokee people. "

Unless you've actually approached any Cherokee, I wouldn't assume they

would laugh at you.

Of course, the Métis became known as Métis because neither the full

bloods or the white man would accept them. Now we travel well between

both sides.

Raven

March 23, 2006

" My great grandmother was Cherokee but I'd be laughed at

> if I tried to go hang around the Cherokee people. "

>

> Unless you've actually approached any Cherokee, I wouldn't assume they

> would laugh at you.

>

The Cherokee people, and any people, should only have any rights to

their ethnic and cultural restitution of wrongs applied conditionally

to those of them who never laugh at anyone. Who believe that all

laughing at is evil.

I'ms ish, and I would say that all our sense of revival and any

rights against suppression of ish culture should only be applied

conditionally to those of us whose behaviour does not include

disapproving of outsiders wearing tartan.

March 23, 2006

There's oppression and conquest and injustice in all our ancestral

stories. I used to get worked up about the injustices done to my

Blackfeet and Nez Perce ancestors, and still I would be pleased if our

presentday U.S. government would give leadership over to the First

Nations, but as I've also become interested in my Celtic and African

ancestry, I see that such injustices have occurred at different times

to all people so it doesn't serve to identify with one particular

group to the exclusion of the others.

sara

--

mother anarchy http://motheranarchy.blogspot.com

March 24, 2006

On 23 Mar 2006 Sara McGrath wrote:

> There's oppression and conquest and injustice in all our

> ancestral stories. I used to get worked up about the injustices

> done to my Blackfeet and Nez Perce ancestors

Having lived in Idaho, I've gotten to learn a bit of the

history.

Incidentally, the plural of Blackfoot is Blackfoot, IIRC.

" Blackfoot " is either the name of the tribe or an adjective, so

the plural would be Blackfoot people or something to that

effect.

- s

March 24, 2006

> Having lived in Idaho, I've gotten to learn a bit of the

> history.

>

> Incidentally, the plural of Blackfoot is Blackfoot, IIRC.

> " Blackfoot " is either the name of the tribe or an adjective, so

> the plural would be Blackfoot people or something to that

> effect.

I won't pretend to be an authority on this, but:

My uncle and grandpa live in Idaho. They both say Blackfeet, singular

and plural, as does my Blackfeet grandma who was born in Idaho, and

her father who was born in Montana. When I was learning about language

as a child, I tried to make singular Blackfeet to Blackfoot and was

corrected that it's always Blackfeet. That's what my family says.

-sara

March 24, 2006

On 23 Mar 2006 Sara McGrath wrote:

> I won't pretend to be an authority on this, but:

>

> My uncle and grandpa live in Idaho. They both say Blackfeet,

> singular and plural, as does my Blackfeet grandma who was born in

> Idaho, and her father who was born in Montana. When I was

> learning about language as a child, I tried to make singular

> Blackfeet to Blackfoot and was corrected that it's always

> Blackfeet. That's what my family says.

I stand corrected. It also appears both ways on the web.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfeet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfoot

Probably a matter of someone determining that there was

originally a correct usage and holding that out as the Standard.

- s

March 24, 2006

" Laughed at " was poorly chosen. I should have picked a better way

to describe, but my point was that there are so many people here

in the South with some Cherokee heritage that it would be thought

strange if

I tried to make much out my interest. Or they might view it with

suspicion, because

there are many who try to take advantage of government programs who

have no right to them (this is why I asked about percentage

requirements). I did not mean to imply that the Cherokee people

themselves would not treat me with fairness, please do not think

that. In fact, my family has a huge annual pig roast (about 300

people show up on a really good year) and last year my grandmother

brought a group of Cherokee she met at Stone Mountain---they were

nice enough to point out that my nephew shows his ancestry in his

facial features (I'm pleased to say that he resembles me, too :-).

Jill

" My great grandmother was Cherokee but I'd be laughed at

> if I tried to go hang around the Cherokee people. "

>

> Unless you've actually approached any Cherokee, I wouldn't assume

they

> would laugh at you.

>

> Of course, the Métis became known as Métis because neither the full

> bloods or the white man would accept them. Now we travel well

between

> both sides.

>

> Raven

>

March 24, 2006

Hi -

I've just written a reply about this to Raven, but I want to repeat

that I absolutely did not mean to say that the Cherokee would laugh

at me! It would be other non-Cherokee people laughing at me for

wanting to think I was Cherokee! Sorry for the mix-up.

BTW, are you the one who likes Terry Pratchett? I just got finished

re-reading Reaper Man...always a good time in Ankh-Morpork, hmmm? ;-)

Jill

> >

> > Raven -

> >

> > You are very fortunate to know so much about your heritage and to

> > have a people with whom to share it. My great grandmother was

> > Cherokee but I'd be laughed at if I tried to go hang around the

> > Cherokee people. Thank you for the information and also for the

well

> > wishes.

> >

> > Jill

>

March 24, 2006

Hello, Maurice -

Wow, did I mention my new epilepsy meds and the number they've been

doing to my cognitive function? I am so sorry about this. Let me

repeat: the Cherokee people have done no laughing at me. Thanks to

the horrors of the Trail of Tears, the Cherokee ancestry in my family

cannot be documented because the two women I know of were essentially

in hiding from the U.S. government (they could not be legally

recorded as Cherokee). Here I am in the year 2006, delighted to have

this heritage but unable to prove it. My father never wanted to speak

of his family background because he was ashamed, being the son of

sharecroppers in Tennessee (the shame mostly due, I think, to my

mother wanting more social status). I don't know how to explain what

it is like to grow up wanting to know about your past but not being

able to get any answers. Ack. I'm so sorry for unburdening on you

guys, you barely know me! Maurice, that was wonderful, even more so

because, guess what? I'm lucky enough to know that half of my

ancestry is of ish origin! Do you know any MacMillans? :-)

" My great grandmother was Cherokee but I'd be

laughed at

> > if I tried to go hang around the Cherokee people. "

> >

> > Unless you've actually approached any Cherokee, I wouldn't assume

they

> > would laugh at you.

> >

>

> The Cherokee people, and any people, should only have any rights to

> their ethnic and cultural restitution of wrongs applied

conditionally

> to those of them who never laugh at anyone. Who believe that all

> laughing at is evil.

>

> I'ms ish, and I would say that all our sense of revival and any

> rights against suppression of ish culture should only be

applied

> conditionally to those of us whose behaviour does not include

> disapproving of outsiders wearing tartan.

>

March 24, 2006

Hi, Sara -

I really like this post. Thank you for taking the time to write it.

Jill

>

> There's oppression and conquest and injustice in all our ancestral

> stories. I used to get worked up about the injustices done to my

> Blackfeet and Nez Perce ancestors, and still I would be pleased if our

> presentday U.S. government would give leadership over to the First

> Nations, but as I've also become interested in my Celtic and African

> ancestry, I see that such injustices have occurred at different times

> to all people so it doesn't serve to identify with one particular

> group to the exclusion of the others.

>

> sara

> --

> mother anarchy http://motheranarchy.blogspot.com

>

March 24, 2006

Hi, Sara -

I really like this post. Thank you for taking the time to write it.

Jill

>

> There's oppression and conquest and injustice in all our ancestral

> stories. I used to get worked up about the injustices done to my

> Blackfeet and Nez Perce ancestors, and still I would be pleased if our

> presentday U.S. government would give leadership over to the First

> Nations, but as I've also become interested in my Celtic and African

> ancestry, I see that such injustices have occurred at different times

> to all people so it doesn't serve to identify with one particular

> group to the exclusion of the others.

>

> sara

> --

> mother anarchy http://motheranarchy.blogspot.com

>

March 24, 2006

" ... they were nice enough to point out that my nephew

shows his ancestry in his facial features (I'm pleased to say that he

resembles me, too :-). "

:-D

Raven

March 24, 2006

Reading a recent " Ancestry " thread message, just now, gave me a

giggle: not because of anything in the message itself, but because of

the click-here ad that Google Ads displayed next to the message.

That ad read as follows:

Native American ancestry

Learn when and from where

your ancestors immigrated to the U.S.

Ancestry.com

I can think of three possible answers to this particular " when and

from where " question - none of which, probably, Ancestry.com yet has

the resources to document.

Possible Answer /1/ - According to what Raven has shared about what

Native Americans believe about their own ancestry, Native Americans

believe that they didn't ever " immigrate to the U.S. " from anywhere.

If I remember correctly from an earlier post, Native Americans believe

that Native Americans originated in the Americas, created there by the

Creator. (Raven, please correct me if I got this wrong.)

Possible Answer /2/ - According to what anthropologists believe on the

basis of DNA evidence and such, the ancestors of Native Americans

" immigrated " about ten thousand years ago from northeastern Asia -

LONG before anyone called anything " the U.S. " !

Possible Answer /3/ - According to what tells us his church

believes, the ancestors of today's Native Americans " immigrated " a

couple of thousands of years ago from Jerusalem - again, a long time

before " the U.S. " existed.

It strikes me that Ancestry.com's records probably don't go far back

enough, in enough detail, to provide reliable info on *any* of these

possible answers, even the two that involve " immigration. " (Possibly

they should re-write their ad.)

Has anyone here actually done genealogical searching with

Ancestry.com? Did it prove helpful? Just how far back *do* the

Ancestry.com records go, anyway?

;-)

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

March 24, 2006

:-)

Are there very many Métis, Raven? I hope you don't mind my asking so

many questions.

Jill

>

> Métis are non-status in Canada, so we don't have access to government

> programs the way other First Nations people do.

>

> Jill wrote: " ... they were nice enough to point out that my nephew

> shows his ancestry in his facial features (I'm pleased to say that he

> resembles me, too :-). "

>

> :-D

>

> Raven

>

March 24, 2006

LOL!

>

> Reading a recent " Ancestry " thread message, just now, gave me a

> giggle: not because of anything in the message itself, but because of

> the click-here ad that Google Ads displayed next to the message.

> That ad read as follows:

>

> Native American ancestry

> Learn when and from where

> your ancestors immigrated to the U.S.

> Ancestry.com

>

March 24, 2006

On the other hand, our ancestors could have ASKED native peoples if

they could share country and land with them. If the native peoples

refused, our ancestors could have left the continent.

Seems much more sensible than bulldozing the natives around the

country.

One must keep in mind that the Trail of Tears wasn't like some

picturesque Oregon Trail pilgramage. It was more like the Bataan

Death March, only much more brutal.

Can people who subjugate another people like that legitimately claim

that they are WORTHY of the land they have conquered?

Tom

Administrator

If not for , it might have been possible to set up

territories or the like for the western tribes on their own home

ranges.

March 24, 2006

Yes big Terry Pratchett fan :-) think I've read them all to date and

re-read :-) Death is funny in Pratchets books - and he likes cats :-)

Have you read Mort?

As for Ankh-Morpork 'cut me own throat Dibbler' need I say more? :-)

Ooooooooo I shall, the mended drum, the university, the librarian -

I'd better calm down now - mere mention of Pratchets books makes me

happy :-)

> > >

> > > Raven -

> > >

> > > You are very fortunate to know so much about your heritage and

to

> > > have a people with whom to share it. My great grandmother was

> > > Cherokee but I'd be laughed at if I tried to go hang around the

> > > Cherokee people. Thank you for the information and also for the

> well

> > > wishes.

> > >

> > > Jill

> >

>

March 24, 2006

I love Death. :-)

Not sure if I've read Mort (is that the one about his replacement?)

because I started reading Terry Pratchett during a brief stay (7 mos)

in Germany (he saved me from a nervous breakdown, making me laugh

during an extremely isolated time) and I gave all my books away when

I left (no room to pack). That was so

painful...anyway, I'm building a collection again, do you have any

recommendations to start?

TIA

Jill

>

> Yes big Terry Pratchett fan :-) think I've read them all to date

and

> re-read :-) Death is funny in Pratchets books - and he likes cats :-

)

>

> Have you read Mort?

>

> As for Ankh-Morpork 'cut me own throat Dibbler' need I say more? :-

)

> Ooooooooo I shall, the mended drum, the university, the librarian -

> I'd better calm down now - mere mention of Pratchets books makes me

> happy :-)

>

March 25, 2006

Yes, indeed -

> If not for , it might have been possible to set up territories or

> the like for the western tribes on their own home ranges. One thing that

> never made much sense to me was that there were all those buffalo out there,

> but instead of using them as a ready made resource, they killed them off and

> brought in cattle instead. It always seems more sensible to me to hire the

> Indian tribes to herd the buffalo like the cowboys later did cattle.

Yes, and (if I recall my schoolday history-lessons) somebody actually

proposed that in Congress. But - if I remember correctly - he got

outvoted, precisely *because* many people wanted to destroy the

buffalo, precisely *because* of what the buffalo meant/mean

(economically and also spiritually) to Native Americans.

> That

> would have given them a real stake in the white man's world and could have

> resulted in one or two big plains states set aside for the herding of

> buffalo and the tribes that handled the herds.

Yes - and I wish I could have gotten myself born into *that* United

States rather than into the United States that really happened.

Although none of my ancestors lived in the USA during 's

presidency (or during slaveholding times, for that matter), I wish

that my country did not have to live *now* with the moral, social,

economic, and other consequences of really bad decisions made *then*.

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

March 25, 2006

It all depends on where you live in Canada. In Saskatchewan, where

the Riel Rebellion happened at Batoche and Duck Lake, there are far

more Métis than in the Maritimes. But in order to qualify for

recognition in a Métis Nation local you have to prove your claim.

This can be exceptionally difficult as records were rarely well kept

in the 1600s through to the early 1900s where Aboriginals were

concerned. If you were lucky, an early ancestor was recruited by the

Fathers and baptised into the Catholic Church in which case, it's much

easier to prove a claim. :-)

I had a relatively easy claim to prove (each generation has to make

their claim ... it isn't passed down as a birthright ... my

grandchildren, if I should ever have any, may not be Métis depending

on who both their parents are).

Raven

>

> :-)

>

> Are there very many Métis, Raven? I hope you don't mind my asking so

> many questions.

>

> Jill

March 25, 2006

>

> On the other hand, our ancestors could have ASKED native peoples if

> they could share country and land with them. If the native peoples

> refused, our ancestors could have left the continent.

>

No, because that wouldn't mean free movement and free immigration.

Although it's wrong for an incoming society to simply take a country

over, it's also an assumption commonly made by racist parties that a

large influx of an outside group necessarily want to take a country

over. A lot of the racist nastiness there has been towards

Indian/Pakistani immigration to Britain has accused them of " taking

over the country " - yet the same host population has no trouble

welcoming them if they will just fill the low-grade jobs.

Remember many of the early European migrants to America were refugees,

from the religious wars and pogroms. The host population had a duty to

welcome refugees, and assimilate them. The time to start having a

problem with them, was if they refused to assimilate and put on

superior airs instead.

March 25, 2006

Maurice:

> A lot of the racist nastiness there has been towards Indian/Pakistani

> immigration to Britain has accused them of " taking over the country " - yet

> the same host population has no trouble welcoming them if they will just

> fill the low-grade jobs.

Or taking over THEIR country when it suited the British to have it as a

colony.

(Same with the Algerians in France.)

Inger

March 25, 2006

" Remember many of the early European migrants to

America were refugees, from the religious wars and pogroms. The host

population had a duty to welcome refugees, and assimilate them. The

time to start having a problem with them, was if they refused to

assimilate and put on superior airs instead. "

Let's see ... the French and English who populated Canada were far

from refugees from religious wars, or any other negative event or

situation. In fact, the French were most eager to come to 'New

France' as they called it. They were welcomed by those who were

already here and they refused to be assimilated and they put on

superior airs instead, telling Aboriginals that they were backwards

and primitive and savages. They even referred to my ancestors as

savages. So you can understand how these immigrants were a problem

from the word go but we still tried to work with them. Obviously, it

didn't work as well as we had hoped but we let them stay anyway.

Raven

March 25, 2006

And if anyone wants to know how the European " immigrants " subsequently

treated the Aboriginal population in Canada, here is an article about The

Canadian Holocaust (NOT for sensitive people):

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/canada.html