Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

“Great grandma was a Cherokee”

“Great grandma was a Cherokee”

Genealogist Megan Smolenyak is quoted in The Wall Street Journal article about common misperceptions about family lore, “Grandma Did What?” Digging Up the Roots of Family Lore.

One of those common misperceptions, according to Smolenyak, is as follows:

“Great grandma was a Cherokee.” Many people with high cheekbones and ancestors who lived in Indian territory assume, often wrongly, that they have Native American blood.

I think “misperception” may apply to some, but that word presumes innocent intent.  I wonder what term should apply to those who use false genealogical claims strategically as a career enhancer?

In completely unrelated news, Twila Barnes was quoted the other day by Bret Baier:

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren’s Wikipedia entry continues to be a whitewash, with a pro-Warren editor having loaded it up with a defense of her and buried it in the 2012 Election section.  It now is even worse than when we first called attention to the ethnic cleansing of her entry.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Defending the indefensible fake indian is a full time cottage industry. Ohhhh… the Liberals.

Just goes to show how unreliable Wikipedia can be.

    Ragspierre in reply to two.bit.score. | January 18, 2013 at 11:11 am

    “O’Sullivan’s Law states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. The law is named after British journalist John O’Sullivan.”

    You can see it at work everywhere, in organizations as innocuous as the Girl Scouts.

    The Collective will pervert anything to its use.

    casualobserver in reply to two.bit.score. | January 18, 2013 at 11:18 am

    Wikipedia remains unreliable not because it is crowdsourced (using modern terms) or simply a ‘collective’ effort. This episode is just further proof that the motivations of those in the collective is NOT factual accuracy as much as it is some political narrative. And the political narrative fluctuates in time to a degree. But the search for factual accuracy does not. So whether Britannica is more accurate than Wiki, for example, at one moment in time is less relevant. What is key is that sources like Britannica constantly strive for factual accuracy. The odds are significantly better that such sources are more reliable. And they are therefore much more credible.

    (I mention Britannica because a comparison was made in recent history – past 2, 3, or 4 years?).

Question? Is it any longer possible to be a believing dem. & not be a liar? I don’t see how. (

    Ragspierre in reply to secondwind. | January 18, 2013 at 11:14 am

    Not, certainly, since Bill Clinton, Monica’s abusive boyfriend.

    I’ve lived long enough to remember when it was different…at the margins, anyhow.

Just the note that Baier mentioned that the senate, “..would be happy to,” list her as the first Native American to occupy a seat goes to show how dishonest this nation has become…

Unless you plan on making it at least a part time job, possibly full time, I wouldn’t worry about wikipedia. The moonbats on the payrolls at places like moveon and media matters are being paid to spend all day rewriting history at wikipedia.

Mister Natural | January 18, 2013 at 11:22 am

my 2 sets of grandparents came to the usa around 1907 from ukraine and bukovina.
the told me we are 1/16 cherokee.
well, they said the tribe really got around and had a european outreach program

Somebody ought to add this to Lieawatha Fauxcahontas’s Wiki entry: If great-grandma was a Cherokee, grandma got run over by a reindeer.

I think LI supporters ought to pool our money and offer to pay for DNA tests that will definitively establish Warren’s genetic roots. Count me in for $50.

Neither I nor anyone else in my family ever thought we had Native American ancestors. We do know a great deal about our genealogy going back in many cases to the 1600s and earlier. After DNA testing, we learn that we have approximately 3% Native American DNA. We do have some genealogical dead ends where is is possible that there could be a Native American Ancestor. Now that I know I am Native American, where do I sign up for all the benefits?

Oh, the DNA testing also showed we are approximately 3% each Neanderthal and Denisovan. Are these minorities listed on the Census forms?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend