General Discussion

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)

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

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 09:59 PM

Jun 2012

Last edited Fri Jun 1, 2012, 10:45 PM - Edit history (3)

for their black ancestors?

OK has been majority white since before 1890. Whites were 80% of the population of Oklahoma in 1907. Blacks were 12%. Indians were 9%. So I think it's relatively easy to be from OK and not have Indian ancestry.

p. 8

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1907pop_OK-IndianTerritory.pdf

There are only 13 states today where the NA population is over 1%. Of those, there is only one (AK) where it's over 10%, and only 6 where it's over 5%, all except AK because of the presence of large reservations that were big enough and isolated enough and seemingly "worthless" enough to survive the land grabbers (OK, AZ, NM, AK, SD, MT).

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