>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
> <shempmcgurk@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71"
> <wayback71@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
> > > > <shempmcgurk@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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?
>
I think certain laws are written in such a way as to
allow "executive orders" so that the President can change
regulations on existing laws...not to change the actual law but to,
from an administrative standpoint, change how the law is implemented.
And it's not just the president who can do it; perhaps Congress will
word the law in such a way that the Attorney-General or the
Secretary of Transportation can administer a law under their
jurisdiction in a similar manner.
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.
