|
Post by buddy on Oct 8, 2005 0:46:19 GMT -5
Is it me or do an awful lot of white Texans seem to have some Native American admixture? I can't tell you how many white Texans I've heard of who are alleged to have or at least look to have some Native American admixture. I even have a friend who's father is from Texas and he's 1/16 Sioux from his father's ancestry. Was there significant intermarriage between the early pioneers and Native American women?
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Oct 8, 2005 1:05:39 GMT -5
It seems that way, at least from my personal experience. My Texan husband has some Amerindian ancestry, so does my sister-in-law from the border of Texas and Louisiana.
|
|
|
Post by buddy on Oct 9, 2005 2:54:43 GMT -5
I can also think of a few notable celebrities from Texas who claim to be part Native American as well. Chuck Norris, Tommy Lee Jones, Johnny Cash, and James Garner (who I believe is a Texan) are but a few.
Additionally, I always thought that some of George W. Bush's facial features showed some Native American influence, but from what I understand his ancestry is completely or nearly completely Anglo-German.
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Oct 9, 2005 3:23:54 GMT -5
Also, I've met a lot of people here in Oregon who have some Amerindian ancestry. I have a friend I've known for many years who appears English/German. He has blue eyes and light brown hair. His wife told me today that he has some Choctaw ancestry and that it shows in his cheekbones and eyes. Sure enough, I could see what she described. My other friend had a framed photo of her brother and I said, "He looks German, Irish and Amerindian," and she said, "Correct." The wife of the first friend said that she knows nothing other than English ancestry for herself, and that ancestors came on the Mayflower. She knows of no Amerindian ancestry and her phenotype suggests that she is correct. I've noticed that Americans I've met who claim some Amerindian ancestry do not seem to make it up, claiming it from true 'known' ancestors. They say things such as, "My great-grandfather was a full-blooded Cherokee." Typically, these people look like fully European Caucasians unless you look closely with a seasoned eye.
|
|
|
Post by buddy on Oct 9, 2005 3:40:18 GMT -5
Also, I've met a lot of people here in Oregon who have some Amerindian ancestry. I have a friend I've known for many years who appears English/German. He has blue eyes and light brown hair. His wife told me today that he has some Choctaw ancestry and that it shows in his cheekbones and eyes. Sure enough, I could see what she described. My other friend had a framed photo of her brother and I said, "He looks German, Irish and Amerindian," and she said, "Correct." The wife of the first friend said that she knows nothing other than English ancestry for herself, and that ancestors came on the Mayflower. She knows of no Amerindian ancestry and her phenotype suggests that she is correct. I've noticed that Americans I've met who claim some Amerindian ancestry do not seem to make it up, claiming it from true 'known' ancestors. They say things such as, "My great-grandfather was a full-blooded Cherokee." Typically, these people look like fully European Caucasians unless you look closely with a seasoned eye. Yes Murphee, I agree that most people who claim some Amerindian ancestry are usually being truthful. My friend who is 1/16 Sioux really doesn't show it at all though, but of course that's because 1/16 is so diluted. If you take a look at Tommy Lee Jones, I think it definitely shows. Like your friend, it seems to be his eye shape and cheekbones that suggest the Amerindian ancestry. Otherwise he looks pretty much British.
|
|
|
Post by Hairless on Oct 9, 2005 4:04:23 GMT -5
There are many specific places and time frames that genealogists consider "windows of opportunity" for NA/white intermarriage. If you have a _lot_ of colonial ancestors it's likely at least one of them was NA (as opposed to if most of your ancestors immigrated to the U.S. in the 19th and 20th centuries). And most of the time they have very white sounding names, so even if you have a well-documented pedigree illustrating German, English, etc. ancestry, it in no way excludes the possibilty (as in the Bush example). I also noticed that a lot of NA appear on censuses as white (that is people we are certain were at least 1/2 or 3/4 from other information). As for Texas, a lot of people moved there from out of the VA/KY/TN area around 1800, so even if they did not intermarry with local NA populations they could have NA ancestry from those regions.
My husband was born in Missouri and has NA blood from both sides, something we did not know until he recently took a genetic test and told his parents the result. Previously we had thought that it was only on his mother's side and way, way back. But now we know of more relatives closer in time from his father's side as well.
|
|
|
Post by Yankel on Oct 9, 2005 4:37:38 GMT -5
Johnny Cash *claimed* to be Native American, and even recorded some kind of Amerindian-themed album. He later retracted this claim and admitted that he had no Amerindian ancestry. It was all about selling cds.
Sorry, just had to correct you. Someone in my family is a huge Johnny Cash fan. Don't ask.
I think he sucked.. That's just me....
|
|
|
Post by buddy on Oct 9, 2005 4:55:25 GMT -5
JOhnny Cash *claimed* to be Native American, and even recorded some kind of Amerindian-themed album. He later retracted this claim and admitted that he had no Amerindian ancestry. It was all about selling cds. Sorry, just had to correct you. Someone in my family is a huge Johnny Cash fan. Don't ask. I think he sucked.. That's just me.... Didn't know that about Johnny Cash. Btw I actually checked myself and Garner is actually from neighboring Oklahoma, which I'm sure you know was set aside as reservation lands for Native Americans who were forced west on the Trail of Tears. His biography states that he is part Cherokee. Btw, Gary Busey (who is hilarious btw) is another celeb from Texas with alleged NA ancestry. People always confuse him with Nick Nolte, another crazy mofo ;D.
|
|
|
Post by Hairless on Oct 9, 2005 6:18:25 GMT -5
Johnny Cash *claimed* to be Native American, and even recorded some kind of Amerindian-themed album. He later retracted this claim and admitted that he had no Amerindian ancestry. It was all about selling cds. Sorry, just had to correct you. Someone in my family is a huge Johnny Cash fan. Don't ask. I think he sucked.. That's just me.... The "Bush example" is unique, though. Aren't they descendants of Pochahontas or something? They're awfully honkeyoid, anyway. My German family has been in this country for around two centuries and none of them claim to be part-anything. They're proud German-Americans. Nothing wrong with that. Where did they live? By Colonial I meant prior to 1800s, but there is certainly the possibility even with that that someone married someone that was part something other than what we see ourselves. My family does not make any claims either but the more I look at our actual history (along many branches) I see many, many opportunities and a few odd things I can't really exaplain. The point being that many people don't think they have any native (or black or group x) ancestry but they actually might, even if there is a well-documented pedigree that suggests otherwise
|
|
|
Post by buddy on Oct 9, 2005 16:44:35 GMT -5
Johnny Cash *claimed* to be Native American, and even recorded some kind of Amerindian-themed album. He later retracted this claim and admitted that he had no Amerindian ancestry. It was all about selling cds. Sorry, just had to correct you. Someone in my family is a huge Johnny Cash fan. Don't ask. I think he sucked.. That's just me.... The "Bush example" is unique, though. Aren't they descendants of Pochahontas or something? They're awfully honkeyoid, anyway. My German family has been in this country for around two centuries and none of them claim to be part-anything. They're proud German-Americans. Nothing wrong with that. Where did they live? By Colonial I meant prior to 1800s, but there is certainly the possibility even with that that someone married someone that was part something other than what we see ourselves. My family does not make any claims either but the more I look at our actual history (along many branches) I see many, many opportunities and a few odd things I can't really exaplain. The point being that many people don't think they have any native (or black or group x) ancestry but they actually might, even if there is a well-documented pedigree that suggests otherwise Yeah that's another thing, Texans and other Southerners are primarily of "Old" American stock.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Oct 9, 2005 18:20:33 GMT -5
Buddy, George W. Bush isn't a good example for a Texan--since he was born in Connecticut. His father moved to Texas because of the oil wells, not because of any family connection to the place. The Bush's are East Coast "old money," not rootin' tootin' cowboys--as the current president's publicists like to imply. But that doesn't undermine your thesis of him having Amerindic ancestry. In fact, genealogists make no secret of the fact that the Bush's are related distantly to Pocahontas herself. That's how long they've been in America!
P.S.--James Garner is from Oklahoma, not Texas. But that's a dubious distinction. Oklahoma is on the Texas border, so--for demographic reasons--is just about the same.
|
|
|
Post by buddy on Oct 9, 2005 20:16:56 GMT -5
Buddy, George W. Bush isn't a good example for a Texan--since he was born in Connecticut. His father moved to Texas because of the oil wells, not because of any family connection to the place. The Bush's are East Coast "old money," not rootin' tootin' cowboys--as the current president's publicists like to imply. But that doesn't undermine your thesis of him having Amerindic ancestry. In fact, genealogists make no secret of the fact that the Bush's are related distantly to Pocahontas herself. That's how long they've been in America! P.S.--James Garner is from Oklahoma, not Texas. But that's a dubious distinction. Oklahoma is on the Texas border, so--for demographic reasons--is just about the same. Droop, Thanks for the correction. I forgot the Bushes are actually from old Yankee New England stock. They seem to have blended in quite well in their adopted state though! As for James Garner, yes I already corrected myself there. You're right, he is an Oklahoman, though both states share some common history due to their being neighbors. Then there's also the possibility that some white Texans have Mexican forebears that they don't know much about, and because of the fact that almost all Mexicans are at least part Amerindian, that could be another source of an Amerindian ancestry. Additionally, many U.S. "Hispanics" tend to consider themselves white even when they're probably mestizo. Since the Mexican-American population in Texas is often very old and established (as opposed to California where more tend to be immigrants), there has also been a good deal of intermarriage between "Anglos" and Mexican-Americans. I realize that what I just said is a bit of a stretch in some ways, but I think that this could be another explanation for what appears to me to be a greater incidence of NA ancestry in Texas and the surrounding areas.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Oct 9, 2005 20:35:03 GMT -5
Buddy, The Texas-Mexico border is an imaginary line. The "Indians" on the United States side of the line are the same as the people we call "Mexicans" on the other side of the line. The US Indians speak English and the Mexican Indians speak Spanish, but that doesn't change their dna--or the fact that they're the same people. It's always amused me: Indians in the US have Anglo James [like Graham Green, or Jim Thorpe], but no one imagines that they're Englishmen. And Indians in Mexico had "Christian" names forced on them by Spanish priests, but, once they cross that border, Americans are encouraged to think that they're magically "Iberian". Haven't Americans noticed how Southwest Indians look exactly like Mexicans??? They're the same people: Wake up. The Texas-Mexico border is an imaginary line.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Oct 9, 2005 21:57:49 GMT -5
Aren't Mexicans from Northern Mexico supposed to have a relatively larger amount of Iberian ancestry? It's Southern Mexico that supposedly has the 'Hispanics-In-Name-Only'.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Oct 9, 2005 22:14:17 GMT -5
Melnorme, You're absolutely correct. Northern Mexico traditionally has actual Spaniards, with moderate amounts of Indian blood. A poster of this board named Toasty is an example of a Mexican who could fit in unnoticed in Spain, Italy or any other European country. Or look at American director Robert Rodriguez. He's of Mexican extraction, too: But recently a trend has developed, where masses of Southern Mexicans and Guantemalans, Hondurans, etc. are going over to Northern Mexico and into the United States. So the flood of New "Latin-Americans" into the United States is a flood of Indians. And these people are related to the Indians in the Southwestern United States, anyway. As I said: The border between the two countries is an imaginary line. On the Texan border you have Anglo-Saxons with moderate Indian admixture and on the Mexican side you have whites with moderate Indian admixture. But when you take these two groups away, you're left with the aboriginal peoples of the North American continent. Aboriginal people who are all, more or less, related. It's just that, in the US, when we see an Indian speaking English, we say "He's an Indian," but if we see an Indian speaking Spanish, we're like, "Er . . . uh . . . he's . . . uh . . . Hispanic, I guess". It's just silly. A different language doesn't change your dna. Here's a Hopi man from Colorado. If he had a baseball cap on and spoke Spanish, most Americans would be programed to refer to him as "Hispanic". He bears a remarkable resemblance to Mexican labor leader Cesar Chavez--and that's no coincidence: They're both Indians. Here's Chavez: My only point here is that the line between Mexico and the U.S. is an imaginary line. Indians on one side were conquered by white Englishmen and Indians on the other side were conquered by white Spaniards. But the Indians themselves are the same race. Talking Spanish doesn't make Cesar Chavez anymore "Hispanic" than talking English makes the Hopi man "Anglo-Saxon". Yet, in the U.S. we routinely see stupidities like "Hispanic Heritage Month," where they'll include people like Cesar Chavez. I wonder if an Anglo-Saxon History month will include Tonto from the 'Lone Ranger'. I mean, he spoke English. Speaking English makes you 'Anglo-Saxon,' right??? --Bwa-ha-ha-ha
|
|