Re:Why so many Americans claim Cherokee ancestry
by lobster_johnson on Thursday November 05, 2015 @09:46PM
(#10517573)
Not saying it was a brilliant article, but I got all three points without having to read it multiple times, and I thought it was quite clear. I liked that he didn't spoon feed the reader with predigested conclusions.
Re:Why so many Americans claim Cherokee ancestry
by serpentor on Friday November 06, 2015 @10:47AM
(#10520027)
I'm complaining about his beating around the bush, not a reading comprehension thing. I like to know where the author stands on the topic at the outset, otherwise the article feels dishonest.
For example:
I think there are a lot of people lying to
themselves and others about their own
ancestry.
Isn't it interesting that so many people feel
compelled to form opinions about how we might
notice that there are statistical variances,
when comparing observable heritage, as
compared to reported heritage? I wonder why
that would be? Some might say these are
alleged fabrications, but then again this
could all be very innocent.
Re:Why so many Americans claim Cherokee ancestry
by lobster_johnson on Friday November 06, 2015 @12:00PM
(#10520456)
But that's clearly inferred by this:
In the United States alone, the Cherokee Nation of
Oklahoma estimates there are over 200 fraudulent
groups claiming to be Cherokee. Visit websites
devoted to genealogy, and one will find scores of
Americans expressing their disappointment when DNA
testing contradicts family legnds about great,
great grandma being Cherokee.
You could argue that he doesn't provide the evidence (who are these 200 groups, and where do we find these "scores of Americans expressing their disappointment"?), but that's par for the course in a fluffy article like this. I don't see any bushes being beaten around, however.
Re:Why so many Americans claim Cherokee ancestry
by bjterry on Friday November 06, 2015 @03:19AM
(#10518357)
The problem is that by not plainly stating his position, if someone challenges it he can always fall back on, "I didn't say that" which is annoying for interlocutors. He doesn't even have to be the kind of person who would fall back on that defense, because it's so common that people are on their guard for it. It's difficult to have a quality discourse with someone that won't make their point plainly and argues mostly by implication.
He needs to add at least one sentence clarifying that he believes most, if not all such claims to be full of shit, and pants-on-head silly, or just plain college student shenanigans.
His article would further benefit from a line or three stating plainly that:
1. The Cherokee possess the most popular of all Native American tribal names. People who are lying tend to craft their lies around well-known popular things, especially when a well-known thing might be THE ONLY thing they can remember in a subject area.
2. The Cherokee nation possesses a sympathetic tale as part of the fabric of their historical background. This benefits liars, because it's more difficult to accuse lies upon a person courting sympathy. You better be sure of your accusation, or you'll seem to be a villain amongst the liar's audience.
3. The Cherokee actually DO have a REAL diaspora of actual credible descendents, larger in size than most other nations. This contributes to a knock-on effect that ties into reason number one, there are more actual Cherokees floating around, thus they are more well-known, and thus remain the go-to Indian name for people who might craft lies to embellish their heritage in casual conversation.
These are the main points I'm gathering from the author's article, although he kind of couches his words in oblique assumptions about the reader.
Maybe he's worried about catching heat over proposing these sorts of ideas.