Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I bet I know why Warren claimed Native American heritage. [View all]HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)45. beside the point, but you know that already. i repeat, white people's ancestors are more likely
to have killed indians than had sex with them.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
56 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
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
I could care less about individual cases. I'm just saying that a lot of the people claiming NA
HiPointDem
Jun 2012
#31
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
"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
The history of the US demonstrates that it was. For example, ~700-1000 were killed/sold to the
HiPointDem
Jun 2012
#56
Why is it minimizing it to compare it to the genocide that's gone down through the centuries?
pnwmom
Jun 2012
#47
And in each generation, NA are a decreasing fraction of the total population = decreasing
HiPointDem
Jun 2012
#55
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
because there are indian censuses, regular censuses, appendixes to censuses that document
HiPointDem
Jun 2012
#25
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
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
Exactly. Her family had always told her she had some Native American ancestry, and she felt proud.
Mister Ed
Jun 2012
#9
not unless everyone were living a traditional life. but you could say the same thing about any
HiPointDem
Jun 2012
#29
There were more black people in Oklahoma in 1907 than NA. Why does no one go searching
HiPointDem
Jun 2012
#41