Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: Kokki on January 27, 2010, 09:22:07 pm
-
If someone asked me what I think about Nokia..
Anywhere you look, there`s a mast after mast. They`re known to cause wide spectrum of disease: from leukemia to headache. Only one mast pollutes 20km to every direction. And yes, we`re living in the middle of nowhere. How is this possible? Who needs so great connections? Nobody.
I believe in "conspiracy theory". Depopulation, mind control and slavery.
Nuclear power, masts, gmo, vaccines.. "...they`re more powerful than bombs, they`re more powerful than guns. They`re the best way to control population" - from Monsanto-video. As you propably know, half of this country is polluted by Tshernobyl radioactive waste. That material keeps radioactive for many thousands of years and gets enriched in natural cycle. 70% of our people don`t want GMO here. Guess what? It`s already here. All of these are potential killers. Not only for us, but for every living creature.
Let me know what you think about this.
How far we can just watch this without doing anything?
-
i am totally paranoid...so i give
you can live righteously and also spread knowledge...there is a great foundation that goes to monsanto meetings and is working hard to change the system within the system.... healthfreedomusa.com, i was lucky enough to attend a small meeting with the two who started this foundation and still take the majority of the responsibility for the work that they do. they are legit. i think it is hard for people to even grasp the monstrosities that occur each day and each second because they are so wide ranging, effect every aspect of our life and also encompass so many things we are familiar with or "depend" on. when you depend on a sick system you yourself become sick...
-
The only reason these people are able to disperse, is because we have no community
Displacement & isolation of humanity, creates inhumanity, as there is no empathy in television & media & economics
As long as we see the people we walk by every day, & do not greet them, & stop seeing them as displaced units, there will always be inhumanity & injustice
We have to form communities, or our cities will become dysfunctional & our leaders will turn on us, as they are today
The perfect community is tribalism, where no relatives or wives & husbands & brothers & sisters exist, everyone is a mother & a father, a wife & husband, simply because of the relativity of empathic concern, freely given, without economical or barter, within a sustainable community, based on the economy of empathy & compassion, while avoiding that brought of isolation which leads to greed & avarice, in compensation of that which isolate
-
The only reason these people are able to disperse, is because we have no community
Displacement & isolation of humanity, creates inhumanity, as there is no empathy in television & media & economics
As long as we see the people we walk by every day, & do not greet them, & stop seeing them as displaced units, there will always be inhumanity & injustice
We have to form communities, or our cities will become dysfunctional & our leaders will turn on us, as they are today
The perfect community is tribalism, where no relatives or wives & husbands & brothers & sisters exist, everyone is a mother & a father, a wife & husband, simply because of the relativity of empathic concern, freely given, without economical or barter, within a sustainable community
The Branch Davidians created just such a community near Waco, TX; they were murdered by the gov't as a lesson to us all.
Your last paragraph describes the hippie commune. All failed.
-
The Branch Davidians created just such a community near Waco, TX; they were murdered by the gov't as a lesson to us all.
Your last paragraph describes the hippie commune. All failed.
True communities based on tribalism, are nothing like hippie communes, theyre economical & political powerhouses
If you study primitive tribes, theyre able to survive without technology & economies, precisely because of ability to create sophisticated self sustaining, community powerhouses of self enclosed self sufficiency
-
The perfect community is tribalism, where no relatives or wives & husbands & brothers & sisters exist, everyone is a mother & a father, a wife & husband, simply because of the relativity of empathic concern, freely given, without economical or barter, within a sustainable community, based on the economy of empathy & compassion, while avoiding that brought of isolation which leads to greed & avarice, in compensation of that which isolate
Poly AMORY. That's what you're saying. That in a perfect community, everyone may love everyone, all the time, and knows to love everyone.
Big government by far does try to separate people more than most other institutions do. We don't have to communicate. They'll speak for all of the people in a country etc, as if they all want the same thing as whatever politician/leader that pops up wants.
edit: misspelled a simple word typo
-
Poly AMORY. Thant's what you're saying. That in a perfect community, everyone may love everyone, all the time, and knows to love everyone.
Big government by far does try to separate people more than most other institutions do. We don't have to communicate. They'll speak for all of the people in a country etc, as if they all want the same thing as whatever politician/leader that pops up wants.
Yes, polyamory is one of the most, if not the most powerful forces on the planet, ALL animals practise it
If you look at how europeans & asians, have naturalised & domesticated tribes & primitives, the first thing they introduce is marriage, this creates massive community fractures & powerstruggles, as everyone is no longer able to love & care for every stranger, theyre all isolated & grouped into dysfunctioning families, instead of fully functioning tribally caring for each other as naturally as possible
They did the same thing with Britain, Spain, germany, holland france, etc., they introduced marriage & family, when they were already forming far superior & sophisticated forms of forming relationships, through tribalism
Marriage is at the root of all dysfunctia in all cities & civilisations
-
I should've mentioned marriage through religion, as all missionaria are designed to create the first stage of social engineering, the fractionating of tribalism via, family, from the word familial, that which seems or feels familiar
This basically only allows you to have empathy for the group born to you, & your parents, while the hundreds of people who could be caring for you, & you could be caring for in return, all those relationships, all those potentials for learning & understanding, in your very own street, are no longer seen as ppl to care for
Warping our understanding of empathy, to economical & family factors
All modern marriages & MOST social engineering techniques, are based on the results of experiments conducted on the african people in the massive Black Slave Traders in europe & asia & prior to that the egyptians & slavery before the egyptians, the Hurrians, a pre-sumerian super civilisation, remnants & survivors of the saturnian age
transferrence of power via immasculation, victimisation & auto-gender misidentification
Men are immasculated & their power as masculinity is transferred to the woman, the woman however is never taught how to use that power, instead she is taught to use it to victimise herself, as being the fairer sex & the hundreds of other sexual stereotypes, she adheres to, such as the glass ceiling, & not having equal rights
This is why women were given equal rights & voting rights, so late, as late as the 1950's, their reality had to reinforce their stereotypes of victimisation, otherwise the power she has in the family unit, reverts back to the male, as men & women naturally because of our ingrained tribalism, are taught to co-operate as equals, within our gender limits, ie men cant give birth, & women cant hunt as physically as men
It's co-operation between men & women which is what social engineering is designed to prevent, by immasculating the male & distributing the power to the female & the children, because of the females natural instinct to seek out powerful ppl, not just males, the family unit as a whole is taught to worship authority & power, instead of co-operation & self knowledge
In short worship the slave master
http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/transcripts/Alan_Watt_Blurb_Gender_Conflict_Manipulation_110106_Pt1.html (http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/transcripts/Alan_Watt_Blurb_Gender_Conflict_Manipulation_110106_Pt1.html)
"It's an interesting phenomena with this system of sadomasochism, where those who feel powerless worship power.
That's why even in the black communities where there's been more work done on them to destroy their culture, from the ancient times, right down through the slave trading days, the men and women were segregated initially. The women were given favors by the boss man and the men that they could be mated with were demeaned and punished and made to seem powerless in the black woman's eyes, and that's why black women today still are the bosses in families.
They are real bosses. The men have never been allowed to be men. This was for control purposes by a scientific elite, well understood because slavery is so, so old."
-
Interesting, but how come those societies that lived in 'polyamory' were so easily disrupted?
If they were so powerful I imagine they should have had a defense mechanism or at least could make up and effective one.
Maybe this was/is a stage through which our society needs to pass in order to evolve toward a more advanced form of organization.
-
Because the tribes had devolved, or had always lived with completely with nature
The hurrians are simply a technologically more advanced race, you could apply that to anyone to the europeans etc., but through the ages, theyve always been the same ppl
They founded the sumerians, gave them barely enough technology & moved onto bigger things, like the greeks, egyptians etc
The first World Order was created, when the schools of the magi, or priests around the world converged & merged with this pre-sumerian ppl, in exchange for technology & advanced knowledge
This convergence was responsible for the rise of most major civilisations, like the romans & greeks etc., as they perfected their techniques of mass control
This convergence went onto create everything from the numbers in our watches to the dates & months on our calendars
They're known today as a sun cult, for a very significant reason, not because they worship the sun, as is believed by people like jordan maxwell, but because that's the age the golden age ended, & the rise of the sun, & the fall of the saturn star
Before the rise of the sun, there was no concept of good or bad, or even the concept of a beginning & an end, which is why we seem to have such a sophisticated understanding of omnipotence
Technology always destroys sentiency, as its a lifeform in itself, we unfortunately dont know how to co-exist with technology, as naturally as our environment
It's essentially an alien concept, & im not referring to the sticks & stones from our environment, but the act of displacing our intelligence & communication & actions through a foreign inanimate medium is inherently dangerous
As interacting with inanimate dead matter, something we have no concept of existing with, as we dont know how to exist in a constant state of death, or inanimacy, will always strive to multiply, but out of balance with us
Biological computers & pc's which function & breath as part of our natural environment is crucial
Which is why our machines give off so many toxic gases & pollution, we simply dont know how to exist with them
"However, for this particular period, the object of marrying or mating up to marry was altered, carefully, quietly, to redefine the position of the men and it was done with the introduction of certain words, which alters the perception of the totality of the person.
We find that in the songs you don't find the man singing about the girl or the girl singing about the man; suddenly everything became "baby". They called everybody "baby". Now in psycholinguistics, regardless of what you think it means superficially, because people don't think beyond the superficial if it hits them, it wasn't just meaning that you were cute. A baby is still a baby. A baby is a young, immature human being and a baby is a helpless thing. A baby has no maturity and no real decision-making as we would say in a social structure. It can't do it. It's too young, too immature.
Now think of the words in the upcoming song and analyze it, because if the woman was truly serious—which she's not of course. This is all part of the agenda. If she was truly serious about what she's saying, she's not looking for the quiet, mature, well-informed male. She's looking for a child in a sense, but not a child just to take care of. It's a child that she would end up being married with. Well how long can you carry on calling the person you're living with and growing with and getting older with a baby, a baby? Not just a baby, but a little baby. Psycholinguistics at work. "
-
The Branch Davidians created just such a community near Waco, TX; they were murdered by the gov't as a lesson to us all.
Your last paragraph describes the hippie commune. All failed.
I thought that David Koresh, aka Vernon Howell, required that all the women in the compound be his wives, including the wives of the men who joined.
-
Polyamory wasn't practised by native tribes, it's just an unusual modern phenomenon. Now, polygamy/polyandry was undoubtedly practised in such tribes. Moving this to the hot topics forum, given the controversial nature of conspiracy theories.
-
Now think of the words in the upcoming song and analyze it, because if the woman was truly serious—which she's not of course. This is all part of the agenda. If she was truly serious about what she's saying, she's not looking for the quiet, mature, well-informed male. She's looking for a child in a sense, but not a child just to take care of. It's a child that she would end up being married with. Well how long can you carry on calling the person you're living with and growing with and getting older with a baby, a baby? Not just a baby, but a little baby. Psycholinguistics at work. "
The "baby" word is an example of the English language of course. In my language, there is a different word which can be masculine or feminine and it does not imply a child.
Now about this mass control thing. I think that having a way to get a large number of people to act in unison toward a particular goal can be a good thing, especially in case of a catastrophic event. So the mass control can also have a positive implication. The fact that it's not used for the best of all concerned is another thing.
Even the really advanced societies should have a way to get all people to go in one direction together, for the best of all concerned. How would they do that?
-
Polyamory wasn't practised by nativd tribes, it's just an unusual modern phenomenon. Now, polygamy/polyandry was undoubtedly practised in such tribes. Moving this to the hot topics forum, given the controversial nature of conspiracy theories.
Yes, the ability to choose partners freely, but polyamory is more closer to the truth, as they switched mates freely without the social stigma attached to it, & multiple partners while not the norm, was also the norm
-
This free love notion is just another example of noble-savage mythology. If you look at native tribes, they actually had very harsh restrictive rules for every part of their lives(after all they had to survive),ranging from complex puberty-rites to marriage. So, polyamory would not be likely in societies with such rigid social structures.
-
I really dont have the time to research polyamory, but i would strongly disagree with you, on the sophistication of forming relationships, what i do know is, these cultures, had co-operation & cashless societies & worked with their environment, far more efficiently then we do & reaped the benefits
Women are taught to victimise themselves & targetted by the media, by assuading their sexuality, a womans sexuality is, which is basically their instinct to form succesful relationships, if you look at the nurturing & bonding chemicals in any relationship, a large majority are formed at sex, the rest as the person assesses the relationship, exactly because they are the long range planners, & nurture families & societies accordingly
ALSO most importantly, we HAD an age of paeleo for thousands of years, it was ONLY uptil the rise of the industrial age, the 1800's men & women in cities & towns, dont practise paleo practise's
It's only 2-3 generations, in the early 1900's people were STILL picking up fish from streams & rivers with their barehands in towns & cities
Pollution & stores, are relatively recent phenomenon
on the theme of social engineering, here's a quote from glen kealey
"Since then, they have by means of a step-by-step conspiracy, lied about world history, divided humans in order to conquer and destroyed the credibility of women as long range nurturers and planners;
convinced some braindead men that they should themselves lead a new patriarchal elitist system (based on the works of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle), while in fact taking over the management of world affairs themselves under the cover of secret societies governed at the top, symbolically, by "men who wear dresses in public" (ie: Kings, Politicians, Priests, Judges, Lawyers, Doctors, Scientists, Arab Emirs, Scots and selected University Professors and Graduates ~ MBA, PHD and LLD).
These Priest-Hoods have destroyed the paradise that was here long ago and now infest our word boxes with their confusing variety of languages (6000) and criminal financial system that rewards thieves and idiots."
-
This free love notion is just another example of noble-savage mythology. If you look at native tribes, they actually had very harsh restrictive rules for every part of their lives(after all they had to survive),ranging from complex puberty-rites to marriage. So, polyamory would not be likely in societies with such rigid social structures.
Whoah, whoah, hold on there, bro. The Cherokee, from whom I am partly descended, did not practice marriage of any kind. The most important male figure in a child's life was the mother's brother. They were most definitely closer to polyamory than to polygamy or -andry.
-
Whoah, whoah, hold on there, bro. The Cherokee, from whom I am partly descended, did not practice marriage of any kind. The most important male figure in a child's life was the mother's brother. They were most definitely closer to polyamory than to polygamy or -andry.
Did some checking, and , as I suspected, there were very strict rules involved with Cherokee societies:-
http://www.cherokeebyblood.com/cheromarriage.htm
ie no 2nd marriages allowed, no intermarrying within the clan etc.
Even in the few cases where some form of loose sexual activity was practised, such as the Inuit, there was some logic to it, not emotion. For example, the Inuit lived in isolated communities, so gave their wives to male guests out of hospitality - but this had nothing to do with modern practices such as polyamory or swinging, they just did it in order to prevent inbreeding, a common occurrence in otherwise isolated communities.
-
Did some checking, and , as I suspected, there were very strict rules involved with Cherokee societies:-
http://www.cherokeebyblood.com/cheromarriage.htm
ie no 2nd marriages allowed, no intermarrying within the clan etc.
Even in the few cases where some form of loose sexual activity was practised, such as the Inuit, there was some logic to it, not emotion. For example, the Inuit lived in isolated communities, so gave their wives to male guests out of hospitality - but this had nothing to do with modern practices such as polyamory or swinging, they just did it in order to prevent inbreeding, a common occurrence in otherwise isolated communities.
No offense, but...I think you may have been snookered. Tribes want to seem normal to white people, particularly the Cherokee, who get accused of being "white" by other tribes...making up fake marriage practices is an excellent way to accomplish that.
Here's some quote from the wikipedia, pale-face...
"Cherokee attitudes towards marriage are flexible. Before the 19th century, polygamy was common.[48] Traditionally, couples, particularly women, can divorce freely.[49]
In the 19th century in Indian Territory, marriage between Cherokees and non-Cherokees was common but complicated. A European-American could legally marry a Cherokee woman by petitioning the federal court with approval of ten of her blood relatives. Once married, the man became an "Intermarried White" member of the Cherokee tribe with restricted rights; for instance, he could not hold any tribal office. He also remained a citizen of and under the laws of the United States. Common law marriages were more popular.
If a European-American woman married a Cherokee man, the children of such a union would not have a clan and traditionally not be considered Cherokee; however, this has legally changed under current tribal enrollment laws among the three Cherokee tribes. These stem from the matrilineal and matrilocal aspects of Cherokee culture.[48]"
Take a look at the second bolded quote, which supports my assertion that children were disciplined by their mother's brother.
Come on, Geoff, did you really think a European oppressor like yourself would know more about my people than me? LOL just kidding.
Seriously, though, it's a deep topic, and Native American marriage practices varied tremendously from group to group.
-
The paragraph doesn't really prove the notion of polyamory, indeed it even points out that Cherokee laws made intermiarrage at least in theory very difficult requiring the assent of 10 blood relatives. Also, Polygamy , for one thing, isn't the same as polyamory, the latter simply being a free-for-all. I am not suggesting that tribes always practised Christian monogamy or some such nonsense, I am simply stating that tribal laws around the world were very strict and extremely complicated for birth to puberty to death. If they'd not given a damn what people did and just had a laissez-faire society, they wouldn't have survived.
-
The paragraph doesn't really prove the notion of polyamory, indeed it even points out that Cherokee laws made intermiarrage at least in theory very difficult requiring the assent of 10 blood relatives. Also, Polygamy , for one thing, isn't the same as polyamory, the latter simply being a free-for-all. I am not suggesting that tribes always practised Christian monogamy or some such nonsense, I am simply stating that tribal laws around the world were very strict and extremely complicated for birth to puberty to death. If they'd not given a damn what people did and just had a laissez-faire society, they wouldn't have survived.
Look, I realize you're trying to de-romaticize the notion of primitive lifestyles. I agree. However, I think it's important to be factual. There are tribes even today that practice polyamory.
Here's a quote from the Wiki on the Mosuo--
"Every relationship in Mosuo culture is called a walking marriage. These bonds are "based on mutual affection"[6]. Traditionally, a Mosuo woman or male will initiate interest in a potential partner. If the companion expresses interest, the woman gives the man permission to visit her. Such pairings are generally conducted secretly, so the man walks to her house after dark, spends the night with her, and returns home early the next morning. Mosuo women and men can engage in sexual relations with as many partners they desire."
And another--
"Mosuo families tend to trace their lineage through the female side of the family. Sometimes they may not know who the father of a child is. This does not carry the same negative stigma as in Western societies."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo)
That's the link.
I can provide plenty of other examples. It's up to you. I can do this all week.
Don't even bother saying "these are isolated examples". I have so many others, and am more than willing to dig them up. :)
-
*Ahem*, ahem:-
"Myths
Mosuo women should not be considered promiscuous
While it is possible for a Mosuo woman to change partners as often as she likes – few Mosuo women have more than one partner at a time. Anthropologists call this system “serial monogamy”. Most Mosuo form long-term relationships and do not change partners frequently[6].Some of these pairings may even last a lifetime.
Fathers of children are commonly known
It is source of embarrassment if a mother cannot name a child's father[6]. The large majority of women know their children's father. At a child's birth, the father, his mother, and sisters come to celebrate and bring gifts. One the first day of each year, a child visits the father to pay respect to him and his household. A father also participates in the coming of age ceremony. Though he does not have an everyday role, the father is nevertheless an important part.
"
Even the matrilineal system is shown to be based on practical tribal concerns rather than some matriarchal system as such.
-
*Ahem*, ahem:-
Even the matrilineal system is shown to be based on practical tribal concerns rather than some matriarchal system as such.
Do I really have to keep digging up examples? There's a tribe in the Amazon that specifically believes that a mother needs to have sex at least 4 or 5 times to create one fetus. They think it takes that much semen to create a fetus. Often the women of that tribe specifically name 2 men as the father of a child, and both men are expected to contribute to the child's upbringing. Here's the link:
discovermagazine.com/2003/apr/featfather (http://discovermagazine.com/2003/apr/featfather)
I can keep this up aaaaalll week.
-
The above example would count as polyandry, not free love. And is likely just a way to prevent inbreeding. Simply put, I don't see primitive tribes as arbitrary swingers who just did things for the hell of it. They had specific reasons, social/cultural etc.
-
Oh, wait, here's more:
"xtramarital trysts were a way of life for the Canela -- until the encroachment of outsiders. "Multiple lovers, that's just part of the life. It's recreation, just like races and running. It's all done in the spirit of joy and fun," says William Crocker of the Smithsonian Institution, who has studied the Brazilian tribe since 1957. When a woman got pregnant with her husband, she would go out to find as many as five more "fathers" for her fetus. Since every bit of semen was believed to contribute to the baby, a dedicated mom looked for a variety of desirable traits in her lovers: sexual skills, good looks, oratory talents, top-notch singing abilities -- and naturally, a good provider."
www.alternet.org/story/13648/ (http://www.alternet.org/story/13648/)
That's the link.
Like I said, aaaalllll week.
-
You're missing the point, I'm stating that any such practices have nothing whatsoever to do with free-love but are ways for mothers to get support from multiple "fathers" instead of just one etc.Here's a page which points out what I was trying to say:-
http://www.alternet.org/story/13648/
-
You're missing the point, I'm stating that any such practices have nothing whatsoever to do with free-love but are ways for mothers to get support from multiple "fathers" instead of just one etc.Here's a page which points out what I was trying to say:-
http://www.alternet.org/story/13648/
Right. However, your earlier point seemed to be that a society where a female had open continuous free choice of multiple partners could not work.
-
Right. However, your earlier point seemed to be that a society where a female had open continuous free choice of multiple partners could not work.
No, I was simply stating that I didn't believe in polyamory/free-love. I didn't have anything against the notion of Inuit offering their wives to guests etc., I just wanted to make clear that there were more important reasons behind such activities than swinging.
-
point seemed to be that a society where a female had open continuous free choice of multiple partners could not work.
I think it could work, and work out very harmoniously. Of course the "continuous free choice of multiple partners" would have to be something she developed. Everything has to come "organically".
Monogamy, monoandry and monoamory are not in everyone's genes. There are people whose ancestry is much different. We all especially including them would do well to respect that in them. One problem is that some people are not true to themselves. They don't even communicate with themselves if they don't have to.
It's hard to have a relationship with even one other person when people don't even think enough or care enough to love themselves.
To be poly would not only not be only free, but it would involve lots of caring and other energy. Like they say, you are not given liberty, you take liberty. I think it's the same. I don't think poly would work if taken upon haphazardly. I think it needs a great awareness.
No, I was simply stating that I didn't believe in polyamory/free-love. I didn't have anything against the notion of Inuit offering their wives to guests etc., I just wanted to make clear that there were more important reasons behind such activities than swinging.
I too believe that groups like the Inuit need to get new genes added to the pool sometimes, not to mention it was so frigid there that it may save the guests life. I imagine most of the guests were men, so it makes sense they shared their wives. If women had been travelers instead, I bet they might have offered their husbands as blankets instead. Not to mention, hopefully it gave fun to the spouse. Fun should help make health. It must get boring in isolated places sometimes. Too much boredom would not be good for health.
-
No, I was simply stating that I didn't believe in polyamory/free-love. I didn't have anything against the notion of Inuit offering their wives to guests etc., I just wanted to make clear that there were more important reasons behind such activities than swinging.
I'm sorry, that's incorrect. Your earlier posts state otherwise. However, thank you for playing.
LOL just kidding.
-
I'm sorry, that's incorrect. Your earlier posts state otherwise. However, thank you for playing.
LOL just kidding.
Since my earlier posts suggested nothing of the kind, I'll let it be. Incidentally, I have nothing against female-dominated societies(I'm a big fan of ancient Babylonia after all).
On another note, I've noticed that a number of Caucasian-Americans claim Cherokee ancestry, for entirely spurious reasons. Yet, looking at your photo, you can't have much thereof( a 1/16th maybe?), if that.
-
I've noticed that a number of Caucasian-Americans claim Cherokee ancestry, for entirely spurious reasons.
I know blond hair and red hair blue eyed very white skinned people who claim to be Cherokee. I have noticed this as I meet new people over the past thirty years. Maybe they intermarried a lot.
Me, I don't think I look Native American. I do have some physical traits that suggest I have native blood though. I do not claim to even possibly be Cherokee.
I think there are some African Americans who also claim to be of Cherokee.
I think the bloodlines must have become diluted.
-
I know blond hair and red hair blue eyed very white skinned people who claim to be Cherokee. I have noticed this as I meet new people over the past thirty years. Maybe they intermarried a lot.
It's just that I've heard from various Americans that it's fashionable nowadays to claim to have Cherokee DNA, and that while a few Americans in the MidWest and the like do indeed have Native American admixture, that most people claiming such have no grounds at all for doing so( their ancestors having migrated only in the last 150 years at best).
-
Since my earlier posts suggested nothing of the kind, I'll let it be. Incidentally, I have nothing against female-dominated societies(I'm a big fan of ancient Babylonia after all).
On another note, I've noticed that a number of Caucasian-Americans claim Cherokee ancestry, for entirely spurious reasons. Yet, looking at your photo, you can't have much thereof( a 1/16th maybe?), if that.
It's somewhere around 1/16, roughly. I have ancestors going back in most directions for at least 6 or 8 generations in this area of North Carolina. My great-great-great grandmother was full-blooded Cherokee, her name was Quintilla Adams, she lived in Wilkes County, NC, which is about 1 hour from where I live now. There were about 1000 Cherokees that hid in the mountains of NC and stayed behind and avoided the Trail of Tears. She was descended from them. I hear from my mother that I have some Cherokee ancestry in her bloodline, but I've never asked her specifics.
Basically, anybody who has a lot of ancestors that lived in and around the mountains of the Carolinas, southwest Virginia, and east Tennessee 150 years ago or more has an extremely high chance of Cherokee ancestry. The Cherokee freely mixed with the whites, and even the Cherokee elders that run the reservations today are mostly mixed. Some are as much as half-white. The funny thing is, even those half-white Indians sometimes look just like white people. I went to school with a girl who is half Lumbee, and, except for having dark hair and eyes, she looks just like a European. However, my neighbor is also half Lumbee, and she looks like a pureblood Indian. It really varies.
-
Interesting info. If that was your only Cherokee relative, that would make you 1/32nd Cherokee, which would explain your Caucasian physical appearance. But, yes, admixtures vary considerably - for example, I look nothing like my parents who were both very dark-complexioned for Northern Europeans.