This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Now that dumuzid, an editor I greatly respect, has weighed in ill leave the attribution of researchers looking into her Yaqui heritage alone. But I do want to explain my reasoning for the RMV. Rereading it, the researchers research would be relevant for the white mountain apache claims, however as the researchers only looked into american tribal registries, and the yaqui are a nation in mexico, I felt (and feel) that it is inappropriate to state that the researchers also looked "looked into the claim" and imply that they carry similar or more weight than her sisters, given that it does not appear that they actually looked into that beyond asking her sisters. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I do think the attribution as we currently have it is appropriate -- Googleguy, I share some of your concerns (as well as those about the complexities of native identity from the New York Times piece), and that's why I don't think we should put the ancestry in any absolute terms. "Has no Native ancestry" is basically impossible to show, as 300 years ago, we all would have had thousands of direct ancestors and it is impossible to make categorical statements about the entire group. I do, however, think it is fair to say that "researchers haven't found anything" or "no demonstrable links" or the like. That's not an absolute, and allows for the epistemological skepticism that I think the subject requires. Then again, I'm just an old guy with thoughts. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Bit late but I want to jump in here to say I agree with this. It's fine to say that researchers haven't been able to find any clear evidence of Native ancestry, because that's true and well-documented. What's not well-documented is that she definitively was not Native American: as critics of Keeler note, it might be difficult for someone to definitively source their ancestry to a Native tribe even if they were in fact descended from them. Loki (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Indigenous heritage is really not that difficult to find if it's true. And when someone claims a specific community, and that community doesn't claim them back, you have your answer. That's what has happened here. The truth is that many of the tribes have far more detailed and accurate records of their citizens, ancestors and descendants than do non-Native populations.
Despite this, there's a common myth that many non-Native people have mysterious, hidden Native ancestry. It's called a bloodmyth. This false family lore is incredibly common in the US. Usually the stories turn out to be false. As census and other documentation has been put online in recent years, many family stories are now able to be checked and the truth discovered. - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 20:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
We're getting pretty far afield now, which is largely my fault, but I do feel the need to briefly respond. Bloodmyth is absolutely a real thing--I found this article particularly interesting along those lines (and anecdotally true in my experience). But native identity really is more layered and fraught then simply "claimed by a community," largely thanks to the colonial inception of our modern day systems in the late 19th Century. You can have people raised in a community and considered a member who are not federally enrolled due to blood quantum requirements. There are something like 200 unregistered tribes in the United States, many of which are not disputed as having real indigenous roots. In a former life, I had occasion to deal with questions of native descent as a result of ICWA, and the standard response I would get was "we have no records of this person" (back to bloodmyth for a moment: I never had a single answer in the affirmative). Many tribes are only too well aware that their records are incomplete and that a large chunk of their history is simply unavailable to them. All of this is to say, Corbie, that I agree with you entirely about bloodmyth. And if I were to guess, I also agree that it's what we're dealing with here, specifically. All that being said, however, I do feel the need to posit that native identity and ancestry are not easy binaries, and the definitions involved are not always crystal clear. Apologies again for the diversion, but cheers to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed we're getting further afield so I'll keep this brief. It's clear from Sacheen's family that they don't have a family Bloodmyth. From listening to how her story changed over time I think it's pretty clear she just got the Native fantasy in her head, on her own, and ran with it. *shrugs* - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 21:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that's entirely possible too! Dumuzid (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@Dumuzid I'd just like to mention that Yaqui records, much like records for Mi'kmaq and other Nations in Canada can be traced in the US and Mexico through the Catholic church. Yaqui specific mission records go back to the 1700s and have been digitized. These records include, births, marriages and deaths as well as day to day communications and records that often times mention families or individuals. Hiakim was heavily Catholicized and while an individual may not have been baptized or married in the church, their entire family would not have been able to have escaped having been recorded. Here is one example specifically from Hiakim [1]https://oac.cdlib.org/search?style=oac4;titlesAZ=d;idT=UCb112411551Indigenous girl (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Indigenous girl, you really don't have to convince me of Littlefeather's identity. I don't personally think she had any notable native ancestry. I just tend to argue for being humble as to what we can and cannot know. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
