White Indians

what makes a person any nationality? the willingness to live by the rules of that group and defend those rules. it should work both ways, if someone lives by the indian way, then they should be considered indian.

this sholud also work the other way too. for example, although techically i am british, my disrespect for its laws and ways, as well as my hatred for it government mean that i am not truly british, and therefore sholud not be eligable for any british benefits. just as an indian who lives as a westerner should not be eligable for any indian scholarships or benefits.
ayla_z said:
Do you think "indians" should have DNA tests to prove a
direct line? Or prove they have at least one grandparent
who was 100%? What makes a person "Indian"?

Just like any other "government program", one has to qualify for it by passing certain rules of qualification. Why do you think that they just give money to anyone who says they're Native American? And if you can show/prove that a person recieving such funds is fraudulent, you should call the authorities.

And by the way, I think the cutoff is 1/8th ....anything less than that does not qualify for government handouts.

Baron Max
vslayer said:
what makes a person any nationality? the willingness to live by the rules of that group and defend those rules.

No. Nationality is not the same thing as culture! Nationality is determined by blood-relatives.

Baron Max
ayla_z said:
BILLIONS are being given to the tribes from all taxpayers in America.

The BIA is passing out HUGE amounts of money to "Indian Tribes"
who have a majority of members who are 1/8 indian blood or less,
often much less.

There are Tribal Chairmen who are Blond and blue-eyed,
students the same.. given "Native American" scholarships.

Do you think "indians" should have DNA tests to prove a
direct line? Or prove they have at least one grandparent
who was 100%? What makes a person "Indian"?


I believe the amount you are claiming - billions - is pretty innacurate. Can you show evidence of this?
Ayla, I think you should spend some time touring some of the Indian reservations in the US before you become so avidly against the handouts. The Native Americans are some of the poorest, most unemployed, and least educated citizens in this entire nation ....and yet they seldom, if ever, riot or demonstrate or protest or burn things or...... I'm part Cherokee, but I have little or no contact with the tribe NOR do I take any of the money. But please do some checking on the reservations and the Indian plight, you might change your mind about the government handouts.

Also, you mentioned adoption of Caucasians ...don't you think an adopted child should "become" one of the family? How can you disregard that legal adoption?

Baron Max
Baron Max:

1. The Cherokees use 1/16.

2. Nationality in the modern bureaucratic world is a function of citizenship. It's ethnicity that is determined by your relatives. And even then it is not strictly speaking your blood relatives. Many ethnic groups will accept adopted children, and people (especially women) who marry into them so long as they do so in good faith and adopt the culture.

Oh wait, you said that in a later post. Or maybe you didn't.


As long as you maintain your British citizenship and the right to vote in British elections, you are British by the rules of most of the places you will go.
if someone lives by the indian way, then they should be considered indian.

You mean huffing gas and smoking meth? Maybe killing animals, out of season, because you can, then leaving their carcasses to rot? Leasing your land to loggers? Raping relatives?
ayla_z said:
Do you think "indians" should have DNA tests to prove a
direct line? Or prove they have at least one grandparent
who was 100%? What makes a person "Indian"?

many Okies are "white Indians",they have a lot of Indian blood, they live 'white',
as an aside:
when I was in school, I met so many 'whites' that said they were part Cherokee, you'd think it was like claiming descent from the "Mayflower"
WildBlueYonder said:
when I was in school, I met so many 'whites' that said they were part Cherokee, you'd think it was like claiming descent from the "Mayflower"

Well, it's quite true as far as I can tell. I'm part Cherokee, too. It seems to me that the Cherokee women loved to fuck white men and have their children!! Either that, or the Cherokee women couldn't run as fast as the white settlers! :)

Baron Max
ayla_z said:
Do you think "indians" should have DNA tests to prove a
direct line? Or prove they have at least one grandparent
who was 100%? What makes a person "Indian"?


From this website: http://www.doi.gov/enrollment.html

What are tribal membership requirements?

Tribal enrollment criteria are set forth in tribal constitutions, articles of incorporation or ordinances. The criterion varies from tribe to tribe, so uniform membership requirements do not exist.

Two common requirements for membership are lineal decendency from someone named on the tribe's base roll or relationship to a tribal member who descended from someone named on the base roll. (A "base roll" is the original list of members as designated in a tribal constitution or other document specifying enrollment criteria.) Other conditions such as tribal blood quantum, tribal residency, or continued contact with the tribe are common.

Heres a page listing more detail on what a person needs to register as Native American: http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/howtoregister.htm

Some of the conditions above, such as "continued contact with the tribe" have disallowed persons from obtaining membership with their tribe (thus disallowing them from gov. benefit).
Good question--back 50 years ago (for the 1956 census) my father was involved in finding out how many full blooded Maoris there were in Northland, NZ. They found 3 people whose claims to be full-blooded could not be disproved. Throughout the whole of NZ I think they found less than thirty people who were in the same category, i.e. nobody could disprove their claims to be full-blooded. Yet when the 1956 census figures came out, something like 50,000 Maoris claimed to be full-blooded. So, ethnicity is more a matter of attitude than reality for most people, even back then--let alone now, 50 years later, when intermixing is far more the norm than it was then.
ayla_z said:
YEs, I realize that, at that is the very source of my inquiry.
American taxpayers are paying BILLIONS for "Indian Programs"
Yet many of these "Indians" have less Native "blood" than the
taxpayers who are supporting them. Some tribes require ZERO
"indian blood quantum" to be tribal members.

According to this website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Bureau_of_Indian_Affairs

The entire budget for the BIA was 2.4 billion in 2004. That includes the paychecks and benefits of the 9,600+ employees. Figure out on whatever scale you want to, but there is little doubt that 25% of this budget goes to that alone, and probably more. 10 k people making 20K a year? Then figure the health and other benefits.

In addition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs provides education services to approximately 48,000 Indian students. Now if I calculate this at 5k per person, the resulting money spent is 240,000,000. That of course is a guess on my part, but I think I figured it low. It is based on the lowest per student money ratio spent in my state in public schools.

ayla_z said:
Most aid to INDIVIDUAL INDIANS from the federal government
require 1/4 ..BUT... aid to TRIBES is where most of the money goes,
and so it goes to many who have so little
native "blood" it is almost non-existent.

I have no idea whether or not most of the money goes to many who have almost non-existent indian blood. Do you have some statistics on this?

I do know one of my local tribes offers free health and dental to those with 1/4 indian blood. These persons also get education money. Now their children who are 1/8 (and there is no doubt on the blood line) get reduced dental and medical (approx 1/2). The fees the parents pay is on a sliding scale based on their income. I dont remember if they receive an education grant at 1/8.

The remaining aid is in multiple forms including land management 55.7 million acres (87,000 sq. miles) There is also some kind of case being resolved in the courts right now, with Indians alleging mismanagment on the bureaucracy side, but I dont remember the details.
ayla_z said:
So, my original question is... DO you think the taxpayers of
America would be better served if the money we give for Native
Americans went exclusively to people who could prove a substantial
degree of "Indianess" rather than just to "Tribal Members".

Many tribal members in America have never set foot on a Rez,
and many on the Rez have very little cultural Knowledge,
so the idea of being a member of a Culture is not appropriate here.
If it was, then would we need to make laws requiring recognition
of anyone who lives according to Native Traditional Ways to be
declared Indian?

No. The American Indians hold a unique position in this country. They are considered soverign nations within the borders of the United States of America and have certain rights granted to them because of this status. Those of us who do not have Native American roots have no right to dictate to these independent nations who they place on their tribal rolls anymore than we have a right to tell Canada who becomes citizens of that nation.

My neighbor growing up was born in Alaska. There was (and may still be) a law that any person born in the state of Alaska was intitled to tuition free college. She was considered a sourdough simply because she was born there(in reference to the "never set foot on the rez/cultural knowledge"). That was the state of Alaska's right.

A neighbors uncle holds dual citizenship in both Canada and the US. He can cross the border and get free health care any time he wants. He just happened to be born in Canada and his mother was a US citizen. This does not preclude him from obtaining health care in the USA under any type of program he may qualify for.

American Indians hold dual citizenships and that is just the way it is. Have their been abuses of this money by SOME tribes on occasion, sure. That is a feature you will encouter when dealing with people anywheres.

I am curious, why are you so interested in the affairs of the Indian Nations?
ayla_z said:
You have some strong ideas, but you are not
answering the main question here. Do you think
$$ for Indians should go to people who clearly are Not? BILLIONS.

You have presented no evidence of people who are "clearly not" of Indian heritage receiving anything. I do not have any reason to believe this is a problem of any significance based on the information you have provided with your links, or in the links I have posted. Are billions being spent on the native american population? Sure. Are billions being spent on the state of Michigans population? Of course.

The Federal government allocates money to each and every state to spend on programs. And the tribal allocations are no different than your state getting money to spend on projects including health and human services, forestry, education and any number of programs, which is allocated to these projects by your elected officials. Just like the tribal governments allocate the money they receive.

Your original question was about DNA and a grandparent being 100% Indian. No I dont think anyone who isnt accused of a crime where DNA can be used to determine guilt or innocence should be required by the US government to prove anything. Addtionally, I think you will find that IF DNA testing can determine an Indian heritage, the people who would qualify for inclusion as "Native American" would greatly increase the numbers of people on the tribal rolls. Or would you exclude this from the possiblity?

As far as someone from the outside of the Native American nations themselves, dictating to these soverign nations what is or isnt a member, that is unreasonable in the least, which was why I posted the information on dual citizenships and scholarships as an analogy.

The U.S Department of Census defines, “American Indian” as people who have origins in America and who maintain tribal affiliation or Indian community attachment.

Another classification of “American Indian” unrelated to the U.S. Census is “tribally enrolled,” meaning that an individual is a member of a tribe and is officially on the rolls of a federally recognized tribe. This classification is rooted in the sovereign status retained by Indian tribes and is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 72 (1978).
ayla_z said:
Just thought I'd mention that the rights are not GRANTED, they are RESERVED.

Yes, I stand corrected.

I would add here that tribes included people from other tribes into their own, and marriages between whites and Indians occured even before any treaty was signed. Our common understanding of marriage and adoptions means those persons become a member of that family regardless of their % of bloodline. So is this a reserved right for the tribes also?
ayla_z said:
Do you think "indians" should have DNA tests to prove a
direct line? Or prove they have at least one grandparent
who was 100%? What makes a person "Indian"?

Indians are just glorified Mexicans.
No, retard. Indians originated from hunter-gatherer tribes in northeastern Russia and China, and crossed over the Bering land bridge, and became stuck on this continent after the land bridge was swallowed up by the sea. The modern mexicans are decendants of ethnic Aztec and Olmec peoples and spaniard conquistadores.
J.B said:
Indians are just glorified Mexicans.
are you trying to slam 2 peoples with one insult? funny guy

as a Mexican, I'm not adverse to being called an 'Indian', people have even asked me if I'm 'Cherokee' before (Persian too), so I guess, the looks dept is unclear in my regard? I don't think there is any shame in being either, you have to like who you are

Glorified? no, just plain human, but working on that as a christian