General Discussion

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)

18. Menu of Wabanaki / Abenaki Genealogy

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 04:34 PM

Jun 2012

http://www.nedoba.org/b_menu_genealogy.html

•Few documents exist prior to 1750 which are of any assistance in genealogy research - the use of names is the problem here, not the records themselves.
•Scattered documents exist between 1750 and 1825 which are helpful - this is where we need to concentrate our efforts.
•From 1825 to present, enough documents exist to piece together many Abenaki families.
•Canadian documents are more likely to list "indian", a tribal affiliation, or "sauvage" after a persons name than New England documents.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

56 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I bet I know why Warren claimed Native American heritage. [View all] pnwmom Jun 2012 OP

Speaking of that..... AverageJoe90 Jun 2012 #1

I've often puzzled over my own heritage Scootaloo Jun 2012 #2

It wasn't always a source of pride for mixed-race folks in the past bigtree Jun 2012 #3

That's true. But my red-headed father-in-law often said that as a boy pnwmom Jun 2012 #4

ha! bigtree Jun 2012 #8

? "unable to document" HiPointDem Jun 2012 #5

I dunno, maybe bigtree Jun 2012 #14

Most people don't have it documented, but there was a lot of interracial coupling in the west pnwmom Jun 2012 #17

no, there wasn't, unless you're going back to the age of exploration. In 1800 only 3% of the HiPointDem Jun 2012 #24

The percent was higher in low population states like Nevada, North Dakota, etc. pnwmom Jun 2012 #27

I could care less about individual cases. I'm just saying that a lot of the people claiming NA HiPointDem Jun 2012 #31

In Tennessee where my mother's family lived, the family "matriarch" BlueToTheBone Jun 2012 #34

Why is this so important to you? Is it a bad thing that white people are no longer ashamed to think pnwmom Jun 2012 #35

anyone who had ancestors in the us before 1900 is more likely to have had ancestors that HiPointDem Jun 2012 #40

Where in then history of the world have there been cultures who didn't clash, kill, and intermarry? pnwmom Jun 2012 #43

beside the point, but you know that already. i repeat, white people's ancestors are more likely HiPointDem Jun 2012 #45

That is true -- but it doesn't change the fact that many white people pnwmom Jun 2012 #48

"many" = how many and how many generations back, and how many documented? because HiPointDem Jun 2012 #50

You have more confidence in the public records of the 1800's than I do. And in the willingness pnwmom Jun 2012 #51

You think murder was more popular than sex? bhikkhu Jun 2012 #52

The history of the US demonstrates that it was. For example, ~700-1000 were killed/sold to the HiPointDem Jun 2012 #56

Minimizing the genocide that happened on this continent is repugnant. EFerrari Jun 2012 #46

Why is it minimizing it to compare it to the genocide that's gone down through the centuries? pnwmom Jun 2012 #47

they could hfojvt Jun 2012 #53

And in each generation, NA are a decreasing fraction of the total population = decreasing HiPointDem Jun 2012 #55

It can be very hard to prove with documentation rox63 Jun 2012 #6

documented in censuses. HiPointDem Jun 2012 #7

Not necessarily rox63 Jun 2012 #10

canada also had censuses & other forms of documentation. i'm not saying it's always possible HiPointDem Jun 2012 #13

I went to a geneological society in NH that specializes in French-Canadian family history rox63 Jun 2012 #15

Menu of Wabanaki / Abenaki Genealogy HiPointDem Jun 2012 #18

A link from that page that documents some of the difficulties rox63 Jun 2012 #38

If you'd done much genealogy, you'd know this was much harder than you think pnwmom Jun 2012 #19

I've done a fair amount of genealogy, i'm aware of the difficulties. HiPointDem Jun 2012 #20

Then why did you say, "documented in censuses" as if that was something simple? pnwmom Jun 2012 #23

because there are indian censuses, regular censuses, appendixes to censuses that document HiPointDem Jun 2012 #25

Tracing family lineage is a lot trickier than you are making out, with many pnwmom Jun 2012 #26

the inconsistencies in the records don't explain why every second white person has an NA HiPointDem Jun 2012 #28

Where do you get your statistic that "every second white person has an NA ancestor" pnwmom Jun 2012 #30

My husband has the same problem RockaFowler Jun 2012 #11

not having proof TBMASE Jun 2012 #16

I think my husband checked off a box at least once, decades ago, pnwmom Jun 2012 #21

Many courthouses and government records were destroyed during the Civil War. Major Hogwash Jun 2012 #33

Another issue is that the initial Cherokee registry arbitrarily included some Cherokees pnwmom Jun 2012 #37

Is that because of the legal issues inherent when claiming to be a Cherokee. Major Hogwash Jun 2012 #42

That would be "Dawes Rolls". n/t cherokeeprogressive Jun 2012 #49

Exactly. Her family had always told her she had some Native American ancestry, and she felt proud. Mister Ed Jun 2012 #9

And I can't explain why I'm jealous. pnwmom Jun 2012 #22

I would be proud, too. Quantess Jun 2012 #12

not unless everyone were living a traditional life. but you could say the same thing about any HiPointDem Jun 2012 #29

You make a good point. Quantess Jun 2012 #32

It is hard to be from Oklahoma and *not* have Native American ancestry flyingfysh Jun 2012 #36

There were more black people in Oklahoma in 1907 than NA. Why does no one go searching HiPointDem Jun 2012 #41

Here's an article about Henry Louis Gates, Jr: BrendaBrick Jun 2012 #39

I say I'm 2 parts native American,even tho I have no proof. athenasatanjesus Jun 2012 #44

I wouldn't care if she did make it up. It's trivial. limpyhobbler Jun 2012 #54