wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk"
<shempmcgurk@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "wayback71"
<wayback71@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk"
> > > <shempmcgurk@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In [email protected], MDixon6569@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Better yet, some kid who's parents are in the Ku Klux
> > Klan,
> > > > sends
> > > > > > off his
> > > > > > > DNA sample and it shows a much more prominent African
> link
> > > > only
> > > > > > two or three
> > > > > > > generations back!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Apparently, there's a DNA company out there that's using
> DNA
> > > > testing
> > > > > > for the same reason...BUT for a different purpose: locate
> an
> > > > African-
> > > > > > American ancestor so that you can take advantage of
> > > affirmative-
> > > > > > action!
> > > > > >
> > > > > I heard of an upper middle class family that is using the
> > > father's
> > > > very, very distant
> > > > > American Indian heritage so his son can have an advantage
in
> > > > college admissions in a few
> > > > > years, as well as maybe qualify for money. They could care
> > less
> > > > absout being Indian, they
> > > > > just want the benefits.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This sounds strange since there are strict guidelines for how
> > > close a
> > > > relationship you have to have to be considered "Native
> American"
> > > by
> > > > the US government...
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't know the U.S. law but in Canada you can be, literally,
> > > 1/64th actual Indian blood and be officially considered
> an "Indian"
> > > and, yet, be 63/64ths Indian blood and be denied that
> > classification.
> > >
> > > And if you get the "classification" there are very real and
> > tangible
> > > benefits and advantages to it.
> > >
> >
> > Well, that's interesting. How does one show that one is 1/64th
> > American indian, and get benefits, and 63/64th AMerican inidan
and
> > not?
> >
>
>
> The law as it stands today says that one parent has to be
> classified "Indian". And live on a reservation.
>
> Extrapolate the situation where one parent is Indian and the other
> is non-Indian and then take it down several generations where the
> offspring only marry non-Indians and you'll see that,
> mathematically, you can have a descendant in 6 generations who is
> 1/64th of actual Indian blood is still legally an "Indian".
>
> Now, not to get too confusing, but the current law was changed
about
> 1985. Prior to that, your FATHER had to Indian in order to get the
> Indian status. So, you could have someone in, say, 1870, and it
was
> the MOTHER who was Indian and the father who was non-Indian and
> although this first generation individual was 50/50, they were
> classified as non-Indian. Then assume that each generation's child
> is a male who marries a full-blooded Indian female and you'll see
> that in 6 generations the descendant would be 63/64ths actual
Indian
> blood but not have the right to be classified as "Indian".
>
Ah, OK. After a little thought I realized it had to be something
stupid like that. Laws are seldom well thought-out, I've noticed. I
just read the executive order that gives the Pres and VP the right to
classify or declassify anything they want. It makes explicit that it
doesn't change the procedures for classifying, but doesn't mention
the procedures for declassifying. Was this a deliberate oversight to
allow leaks by the White house without going through proper
procedures, or was it just sloppy wording?
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
