NW> Like you, I have around 1/4 Cherokee heritage (Documented on the maternal 
s
NW> with a Great-grandmother being 100% Cherokee and there is at least one on 
t
NW> paternal side who was at least 50%).  Although there is known to be that 
am
NW> (through genealogical studies), I wouldn't think of applying for 
registery.
I'm half white and I don't, personally, think there's anything whatsoever 
wrong with people of significant white heritage being enrolled members of 
their tribe. Cultural heritage is much more important, and the tribes choose 
their enrollment criterion to suit their own needs and beliefs. For some, 
increased enrollment may strengthen them socially and politically; they have 
wider enrollment parimeters. For others, they find that a glut of mixblood or 
off-rez enrollees has weakened their cultural or economic structure, and may 
tighten parimeters or close their rolls.
Critisizing people for identifying with what may be a minority of their 
genetic heritage is as ridiculous as looking for indian blood where none 
exists, or claiming indian heritage based on a family rumor of a distant 
"cherokee princess".
I think there is validity in the "wannabe" discussion; there are lots of 
wannabes these days and it's an annoyance and a threat to cultural survival. 
But picking apart the breeds just because they ARE breeds, regardless of 
percentage, isn't just foolish; it's racist.
--- GEcho 1.00
---------------