How is martin 1/8 Indian?
How is Martin 1/8 Indian?
shareTribes requiring 1/8 degree blood quantum for membership (equivalent to one great-grandparent):
Dude, I think you forgot to input the rest of your post.
share
MovieChat Forums > The Searchers (1956) Discussion > How is martin 1/8 Indian?
Martin is 1/8 Cherokee. I know lots of people who are 1/4 Cherokee.........I was, for a time, married to a fellow who was 1/4 Cherokee. So, his father was 1/2 Cherokee and his grandmother was a full Cherokee. Hope this helps.
shareMy ex-wife is 1/2 Cherokee. One night when we were drinking I said something I shouldn't have and the next thing I knew I was running for my life because she was chasing me with a hatchet.
shareHAH! Same thing with Cubans & Colombians! Speaking of, you should watch 'Astronauts Wives Club'; The gal who played Trudy Cooper, the wife of Gordo Cooper is Cuban/Colombian; at one point Gordo said something 'impolitic' & Trudy gave him a 'look'--it was a look I recognized...the 'angry Cuban Wife' look: the lips press together, the eyes squint & the nostrils flair....
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
It's interesting that almost every white person who claims Native American genes says they are Cherokee. It's almost always Cherokee, as if there aren't hundreds of other tribes in the U.S. Whenever anybody says they are part Cherokee, or their grandmother was Cherokee, etc., the first thing I think is "BS".
shareSo in other word: One Parent is 1/4 Cherokee; A Grandparent who's 1/2 Cherokee & a GreatGrandParent who is full blooded Cherokee.
shareI'm 1/8th Native American, my great grandmother was a full blood Souix.
Darling, I am trouble of the most spectacular kind!
[deleted]
You'd expect him to be tanned living in Texas.
Elvis had Cherokee blood, 1/16 or something like that. He'd get quite tanned sometimes:
http://www.elvisinfonet.com/image-files/Elvis_stay_away_joe4x.jpg
This is a bunch of bull**** pushed on us by white people. It's like being pregnant, you are or you aren't.
I'm not a ****** radiator mix. I'm a Native American.
[deleted]
What is that, the one drop rule? That's how Fauxcahontas Liz Warren got her job at Harvard.
shareThen explain why some tribes use percentage of verified ancestry as a criterion for membership.
shareIn short, of his eight great-grandparents, one of them was a full blooded Cherokee. Or perhaps two of them were half-blooded Cherokee. Get it? Did you really need to ask?
"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae
I didn't ask.
You apparently didn't understand. When you order a Bloody Mary do you worry about the exact ratio of vodka? No.
You either are Native American or you're not. Worrying about what percentage you are is irrelevant and a fabrication pushed upon us by the US government as a form of control.
Your absolutism is kinda confusing. If it's an either/or situation as you claim, which is he then "Native American" or non-Native American? Or does the 1/8 somehow trump the 7/8? . . .
Btw, I consider anyone born of any lineage who is born in America is a "native American". "Indian" or "non-Indian" makes more sense.
Btw#2, the government we have today wants to "control" everybody.
Indian or none-Indian makes no sense, unless referring to actual Indians, from India.
And no, 1/8th doesn't trump 7/8th, or vice versa, that's my point. Because one person has fewer Native American grandparents doesn't make them less Native American.
As to which he cares to identify with, which ever he cares too. He's both.
And while the government may want to control everybody, they've historically taken an active roll in that with various groups. Using bloodlines broken into degree allowed them to decide who went and who stayed. Name another group that's segregated this way? Are you white? How white? Are you black? How black? The government doesn't categorize any other race this way.
Yet it does for Native Americans. Why? Because we were very diverse to begin with. It makes it hard to instantly identify us. So, they want to categorize and label us. I refuse to adhere to or perpetuate this.
The term "Indians" when referring to "American Indians" has been an acceptable designation (The term was never intended as a pejorative.) for decades, even by those you term "Native Americans". So, anyone with half a brain knows who is being discussed. The term "Native American" is a recent designation coined by certain ornery, politically correct types and for the usual prissy reasons one encounters in conversations with these angst-ridden cribbers. A native American was, is now, and for the less fashionably pliable will continue to be a description of one (anyone) born in America. I am of German extraction and was born in Chicago. I am a "native American".
"He's both."
Isn't that what I implied?
I agree with you completely about the government's mania for categories as a means to control a population. Perhaps the forms vary between groups, but the effect is the same for all. (Remember though, these categories re Indian nations have produced some remarkable benefits in federal largess not available to members of other groups.) You have a lot of political clout, for example, in States such as Wisconsin. I've seen it working.
Some of we non-Indians also "refuse to adhere" to such categories -- to the extent we can (sadly limited).
Not meant as a pejorative? Tell that to South and Central Native Americans pejoratively called Indians.
You never heard of the term dirty Indian?
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
"Not meant as a pejorative?"
Nope. Never was.
Of course, it's possible to add a nasty adjective to the term making it a pejorative. You provided an excellent example of that by adding the adjective "dirty" to the term. One can do the same with other terms such as -- "dirty" Irishman, "dirty" Frenchman, "dirty" Russian, and, ah, "dirty" native American.
The possibility that some south and central Indians consider the term a pejorative simply indicates that they have been listening to people like you (and other politically correct thought police types) who insist upon the notion that they should consider the term a pejorative.
Some? Almost all if not all are called Indian as an insult.
But what do you care, that's their problem right?
My people were also mistakenly called Indians when we weren't and yes it is an insult. We consider it an insult and all our books consider it an insult. Every single one of us consider it an insult.
And I've never called a Native American Indian be they North, Central or from the South.
Because you know what? They're not Indians, that's just what you WANT to call them. What do you call people that insist on calling other people names that aren't theirs?
You're just a flaming racist.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
Wow, Vicky -- I must have hit a nerve! I guess you're one of those very liberal people I alluded to in my post -- you know, among those "thought police" obsessed with race regardless its relevancy to the subject at hand. Sad indeed.
"Almost all if not all are called Indian as an insult."
Polls indicate quite the reverse. Most Indians aren't at all disturbed by the designation. Almost all non-Indian limousine-liberals desperate to continue the myth of congenital white racism are, however. You must live in a very sheltered or a very indoctrinated environment to think as you do.
Btw, who are the "my people" to which you refer? And, to which "books" are you referring? . . . Just curious.
Of course, you're free to consider any term applied to you as an insult, whether or not it was intended as such. Me too. Eg., I consider it an insult to be referred to as a "flaming racist" in the midst of a discussion about semantics and language.
"What do you call people that insist on calling other people names that aren't theirs?"
Well, I would call most "mistaken", or "ignorant". In your case, I attribute your insistence on calling Indians "Native Americans" exclusively as belonging to the latter... and I've explained why.
Somehow, I knew your part in this discussion would end with your calling me a racist. That's usually how the uber-liberal thought-police end discussions when frustrated in their searches for logical responses. Nothing new in that, certainly. . . Anyway, have a nice day! . . . and Best!
Hang on guys before you go to war with one another, I think you are referring to Indians from 'Ibero-America'-The Spanish & Portuguese speaking nations. I ain't sure if calling a person an indian is an insult but almost certainly being indian is considered to be underclass. I have heard of an expression that refers to 'The Republic of Indians' which basically means living in a crushing totally impoverished & uneducated condition with no hope of advancement.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Thanks for the input but no, that's not what we've been talking about.
"I ain't sure if calling a person an indian is an insult but almost certainly being an indian is considered to be underclass."
Don't agree at all. You didn't capitalize "indian" in that sentence. If that was intentional, perhaps you're referring to another use of the word entirely -- one with which I'm unfamiliar and to which I have not been referring. Further, some people may consider Indians an "underclass" but in my acquaintance that has not been the case at all. The term "Indians" has been, for generations, used to designate the peoples, including tribes and nations, of many locations who had inhabited North and South America for a period of time preceding the advent of European occupation. It was coined by explorers mistakenly thinking they had arrived at a place they hadn't. That is the sense of the term (capitalized) about which we've been at odds.
I've never seen the word used in small-case, and I continue to maintain its use as explained above was not intended as an insult, or to condemn a unique culture to an "underclass" status. To believe otherwise, I submit, is to acquiesce in the left's attempt to create yet another race-based grievance, despite the facts, to be exploited by its political leadership.
It only applies in Latin America that I have heard it.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
So the Natives in North and South America are Indians like those from India? What about Filipinos? The Spaniards called them Indians like you call Native Americans Indians, are they Indians?
And do you mean that Brad Pitt is as Native American as Wes Studi? Or do you consider Brad Pitt Native American and Wes Studi as Indian and not Native?
If you were born in China, does that mean you're Native Chinese?
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
You're getting caught in your own petard.
"If you were born in China, does that mean you're Native Chinese?"
Quite simply -- yes. Moreover, if you were born in the Philippines, you are a native Philippino. If you happen to be Brad Pitt OR Wes Studi and were born in America, you are a native American.
You seem to be engaged in a kind of rhetorical gymnastics in order to make everything associated with national identity into a racial issue (a sign of our times and what has sadly become a national obsession). Race has nothing to do with being "native" born.
Btw, for years no one I've ever known had any trouble with distinguishing between American Indians and Indians born in India when put as simply as I have just put it.
No, they would be described as "Chinese-born."
share