Talk:Blood quantum laws

Sortable Table
There should be a comprehensive sortable table of the Implementation section. I'd do it myself but my table-fu is poor. kencf0618 (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Blood quantum concept in other colonized territories
The concept of blood quantum has been used in New Zealand and Australia, if not under that name, to determine who was "Māori enough" or "Aboriginal enough" to qualify for certain legal status. It's no longer used in New Zealand law (I don't know about Australia) but the concept is still live in debates about indigenous rights. Including these issues, however, would involve either changing this article drastically, or writing new articles and then taking the redirect off "Blood quantum" and making it a disambiguation page instead. Either of these would involve quite a lot of research and writing; which would be more worth the time required? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Blood
How do I go about getting blood reference to my travel percentage Suzzieq66 (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent additions and reversions
As it involves the same text and sources, by the same user, on several articles, see several ongoing discussions at User talk:Mcelite. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 22:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Reinstating Irreconcilables and other relevant information
There's no reason for Irreconcilables to not be included when it was properly cited, and has historical importance. This also includes issues related to censuses and rolls that are used to determine citizenship. I have no issue collaborating but I'm confused as to why historical facts are being removed especially when they are cited even if issue is taken up with the New Times because of opinion on their credibility. Other citations and quotes are coming from the publications of historians and an official genealogist from the Cherokee National Historical Society focused on Native American history one historian is for sure a Cherokee citizen which why I purposely picked her for those whose standards are extremely high regarding native issues. The publications are not written in opinion but actual historical facts. I also have several other sources from publications written by historians that state the exact same thing in regards to issues related to enumeration. Again I have no issue with collaboration I apologize if that was what was perceived. So why does there seem to be issue with actual historians focused on Native history and real genealogists citing issues that really exist.Mcelite (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The information that is accurate and well-sourced is still there, but the big chunks of text you were putting into multiple articles aren't. The parts that were accurate are either already in the articles, or have been left in with slightly different phrasing and better sourcing. Some of the content you put in was not in the sources you used. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 18:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay here we go with a breakdown Native Americans, known as “irreconcilables” or “blanket Indians,” were so suspicious of the government that they declined to enroll at all, resulting in all their descendants unenrollable as well. All three sources specifically state this about Irreconcilables and it's worded to be c/e even if some editors are picky about the New York Times the others are proper WP:RS and one of the historians is even an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation plus here's even another source I was going to use from a published journal article there is no reason for this not to be mentioned when it isn't covered in the article. Furthermore none of it is opinionated it's historical fact.
 * This was one of several reasons censuses and rolls have inaccuracies and are incomplete. Two sources explicitly state this while one source gives examples on how some applications were deemed incomplete creating inaccuracies I do have other sources explicitly coming from the Cherokee nation mentioning how people were wrongly documented. This was c/e if it needs to be worded a little better then fine we can take out one of several reasons, but it should be made clear that yes it's no secret that censuses and rolls like Dawes have issues. It's complete denial to say otherwise I do have other WP:RS written by historians that also says the same thing.
 * Genealogist Gene Norris at the Cherokee National Historical Society states: That means people with legitimate claims to tribal enrollment and the benefits are now excluded. I don't know what to say here he's a professional genealogist under the Cherokee Nation not someone working in his mom's basement trying to decipher poorly preserved microfilm. So what's the problem here. Also it should be reinstated that it was white men making the censuses and rolls not natives. A source that can be easily provided from sources already included in the article.
 * Also I have to ask why was Being unable to meet the legal deﬁnition of one’s tribe can result in serious outcomes for individual people, and can break up families by forcing certain members off the reservation while allowing individuals of the same family to stay removed when that is properly sourced and factual. I'm not sure if you didn't read it and just removed everything I did or you disagree with it Corbie.Mcelite (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't sourced to the New York Times. It was sourced to a New York Times Magazine piece. The piece had some excellent writing and quotes, and then some blatant inaccuracies. The pieces about resisting enumeration were not followed up with the correct data that that same group was enumerated prior to that resistance, then again later. The Magazine piece, while engaging, wasn't sourced. The content you're taking issue with being "removed" is still in the article, just in different places and phrased slightly differently. You had redundant content and you were putting in stuff that was not in the sources you were citing. Inaccuracies and resistance to enumeration are still covered. But you were trying to push the myth that enrollment was optional. It wasn't. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 19:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay if you have a problem with New York Times Magazine piece then fine it doesn't need to be used in regards to irreconcilables the other source the journal article is a greater substitute. I'm not arguing that people were not forced into enumeration and I apologize if it seemed that way and yet I feel like at the same time it's being put forth that everyone was accounted for when there were people not accounted for, some ppl were ignored, and some ppl incorrectly documented. So there should be no problem stating yes people were resisting, but even people that resisted got registered then fine if that makes you comfortable. One of the sources talking about irreconcilables I could've sworn even mentioned that they forced who they could to be documented. It should be mentioned in the opening paragraph that yes some of censuses had inaccuracies and some tended to be incomplete. Instead of giving an absolute and saying all of the censuses and rolls are screwed up. Do you have an issue with including the genealogist' statement Corbie? We don't have any that explicitly states yes there are people that can't be citizens but they should be citizens.Mcelite (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * MC, read the article. There is text about enrollment controversies, it's just not all in the lede. Also, as has come up before, your view that Wikipedians get to override tribal law and decide who "should be" citizens is very problematic. I've told you before, that POV push is not going to work here. OK, I remember the other reason for not putting in some of the other stuff, there are copyvio issues, as well as quotes being taken out of context. There are better sources already in the article. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 21:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * With regard to the Dawes Roll, anyone on the 1896 or 1880 Census including the Keetoowah, who were called Old Settlers at the time, did not have to apply. They were automatically enrolled. They also had the tribes own membership rolls, they enrolled  OVER FIVE THOUSAND of Redbird Smith's followers against their will. For the most part Dawes was checks and balances. Did some people fall through the cracks? Yes - but the number is not as huge as some folks would like people to believe and those that were not enumerated on Dawes were no longer living in community. They left. For what ever reason the chose to leave and assimilate that needs to be respected. It is what it is. It would take an act of congress to over ride Dawes and it would violate contemporary sovereignty. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You have a misunderstanding about me Corbie regarding Wikipedia's stance over citizenship we can talk about that later not here. I see a sentence referring to inaccuracies I'll add citations later and not change anything else about it.
 * Yes well I didn't have time to do a full c/e I was going to do that, and what quotes was taken out of context the only quote that was being used was from the genealogist and there was nothing altered about what he said. My main focus right now is making sure that irreconcilables is included as it should be. That's not POV.
 * I've read about Redbird Smith he was interesting Indigenous girl I will email you back soon.Mcelite (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Native Americans, known as “irreconcilables”, were so suspicious of the government that they declined to enroll at all, creating some descendants that are unenrollable in their tribe/s, however many irreconcilables that refused to enroll were still forced to enroll. Does this fit better per the 2 sources so it's made clear that even though irreconcilables existed not all of them avoided being enumerated.Mcelite (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Dawes
After rereading the article again (and again) I am wondering why there is hyper-focus on Dawes. We have articles on the Dawes Act and Dawes Rolls. This also isn't the Cherokee article. I would like to trim a considerable amount of content that is overstated. Archives.gov lists 692 rolls and the article (which is not about rolls or Indian census records) focuses on one. This is extremely biased and quite frankly unfair. I'd like some discussion to happen around this. Indigenous girl (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This needs cleanup. Go for it. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 17:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's overstated and does need cleanup, but it also covers several tribes, including the third largest in the US, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. Yuchitown (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * Yes we need to remember Dawes isn't just about the Cherokee, and at the same time some c/e needs to be done to improve it a bit.Mcelite (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, which doesn't mean swapping in "Choctaw" in text about the Cherokee,. Once again, you're introducing errors. If you don't know the material, stop editing. We're already finding more cases, like on Black Indians, where you have misrepresented the sources. You can't just change the name of the Nation. If the standards are the same, source it. But twice now you've put in "sources" that don't source the content you're adding. This is making me very leery of these changes. Especially after looking at your edits from ten years ago on the talk page of Black Indians, where you did this same POV push, and same WP:ICANTHEARYOU behaviour when people tried to talk to you about it. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 18:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't judge me from when I was a kid Corbie....I was still learning. If you want to talk things out then fine do so on my talk page, but I haven't altered anything and yes I gave you a source since you obviously don't trust me. I did no POV push adding in Choctaw that was clearly to reduce how much Cherokee was used.Mcelite (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And we always have to check the sources because you've tended to misrepresent sources, like the Katz book and some of the BQ articles. We've all tried talking to you on your talk page, and on all the articles, where you act like the conversations on all the other pages aren't happening. This is not good. You have been using Wikipedia to try to fabricate Native identities for people who can't document heritage, and here you lied about warnings and conduct. This is a very serious problem, and you're not a kid anymore. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 19:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Off topic
I hadn't previously read through the prose on this article and a great deal of it has little to do with blood quantum and instead is just general discussion of Native identity through history. For instance, why are Lumbees even mentioned? (They get CIBs from the DOI, but don't require a minimum blood quanta.) Why is the US census mentioned? I'll probably try to migrate material to Native American identity in the United States, unless people can recommend better articles to place this off-topic material. Yuchitown (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown

The following material doesn't seem to fit into Native American identity in the United States, nor does it relate to blood quantum laws, so placing here, so hopefully people can find appropriate places to put it. Yuchitown (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown

Few American Indians were recorded in US censuses prior to 1900. American Indians were not included in US censuses from 1790 to 1840. Those individual American Indians living in mainstream communities were included in the US census beginning in 1860. An attempt to include Pueblo Indians in the 1850–1870 New Mexico Territory Censuses.

The question of identity is complex. Researcher Paul Heinegg and Dr. Virginia DeMarce found that ancestors of 80 percent of free people of color (including individuals on the census later claimed as Lumbee ancestors) in the 1790 and 1810 censuses on the North Carolina frontier were descended from families of white women and African men, and were free in colonial Virginia because of the mother's status. Many mixed-race people in frontier areas identified as Indian, Portuguese or Arab to escape racial strictures.

In 1924 Virginia passed the Racial Integrity Act, which required that every individual be classified as either white or black. (Some other states adopted similar laws.) In application, the law was enforced to the standard of the "one drop rule": individuals with any known African ancestry were classified as black. As a result, in the censuses of the 1930s and the 1940s, particularly in the South's segregated society, many people of African American and Native American heritage who were either biracial or multiracial were largely classified as black, even though they identified culturally as Native American. The result negatively affected many individuals with mixed African American and Native American heritage. Because there are few reservations in the South, such individuals had to provide evidence of ancestry to enroll in a tribe. The changes in historic records erased their documentation of continuity of identity as Indian. During the early years of slavery, some Native Americans and Africans intermarried because they were enslaved at the same time and shared a common experience of enslavement. Others made unions before slavery became institutionalized, as they worked together.

Today, the proposed regulations for children adopted into Native families are that they may not be federally recognized members unless they have a biological parent who is enrolled in a tribe. Such cases of adoption are less frequent than in the past. Historically, especially recorded during the colonial years and the 19th century in the American West, many tribes adopted young captives taken in war or raids to replace members who had died. Whether European or of another Native American tribe, the captives generally were fully assimilated into the tribal culture and were considered full members of the tribe. Generally, they remained with the tribe, marrying other members and rearing their children within the cultural tradition.

Savannah35 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC) What is tribal rolls?
Can you explain more on what is tribal rolls and the imports of tribal rolls? Savannah35 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Reading and Writing in the Natural Sciences
— Assignment last updated by H2Oworks (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Cultural Memory
— Assignment last updated by ANaticchioni2004 (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)