There’s an article at Timeline that presents a very interesting case for why so many white Americans with Southern roots claim to have Cherokee ancestry when it’s just not possible that many people could. Meagan Day suggests it’s a way of asserting genuine Southern identity:
First, let’s look at who claims to be Cherokee: Elizabeth Warren, Johnny Cash, Johnny Depp, Miley Cyrus, and Bill Clinton for starters. Their families are from Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee/Kentucky, and Arkansas again, respectively. White people claiming Cherokee heritage are especially common in the Southeast United States, where the Cherokee lived between 1000 A.D. and the 1838–9 forced relocation known as the Trail of Tears. That makes these claims somewhat plausible, because early on Cherokee people did intermarry with white settlers at an uncommonly high rate compared to other Native American tribes. Still, the number of people claiming Cherokee heritage far outstrips the number of possible descendants from these intermarriages.
Second, let’s look at when white people started to claim Native American heritage in the Southeast. It was in the 1840s or 50s, as the federal challenge to Southern slavery was growing stronger and Civil War loomed on the horizon, that Southerners first started to claim “Cherokee blood.†In the decades prior to the Trail of Tears, Cherokee intermarriage with white settlers had dropped off, as white Southern public opinion had turned against Cherokees. For white people to claim distant Cherokee heritage in 1855 or so had the interesting effect of “legitimating the antiquity of their native-born status as sons or daughters of the South,†as Gregory Smithers writes in Slate. In a crucial moment of swelling Southern pride, pointing out that your family had been here long enough to intermarry with Cherokees was a method of staking a claim to Southern identity. Southern white identity.
I think there’s another possibility. Could it be that a very large number of white Southerners have one or more black ancestors, possibly light-skinned blacks who were passing as whites? Cherokee ancestry would have been a much more socially acceptable way of explaining those family pictures than black ancestry.
I used to hear about Indian blood 40+ years ago to explain those bronze babies that were popping up but not since, so, its a possibility.
I don’t find that second point in the Slate article very convincing. In the 1840s and 1850s, racial attitudes have hardened. Earlier, Indians were seen as white, culturally inferior, but able to assimilate, particularly through intermarriage and practice of European-style agriculture. Some even thought that Indian skin pigment would whiten with generations of civilization.
In the 1830s, Jackson became President, unleashing the power of popular sovereignty with Indian Removal being the key piece of legislation. Indians that had assimilated were voted off their land by majorities of Congress in a series of laws and treaties during this decade. This was the controversy of a generation, and it was one in which the Indians became a race apart, no longer white, nor capable of true civilization. And a majority of Americans, mainly in the South, wanted their land.
I do not find it credible that Cherokee ancestry would be claimed in the 1840s and 1850s in response to a “federal challenge to Southern slavery [that] was growing stronger.” What federal challenge? Why would fabricating a multi-racial identity legitimize slavery, particularly as racialization of Indians had been an important part of the means of denying Indians their lands? This strikes me as an implausible view of history based upon an agenda.
“Still, the number of people claiming Cherokee heritage far outstrips the number of possible descendants from these intermarriages.”
I’m not sure how she makes this conclusion, and I suspect that its based upon ignorance of how quickly descendants multiply. Pocahontas had one child with a European, but very quickly became related to the important families of Virginia, which reproduced rapidly. One of the Mayflower passengers had about a dozen children who each had about a dozen children, leading to some estimates of 14 million descendants today from one individual.
Apparently around 800,000 Americans claim to be descended from Cherokees, with 70% claiming to be part-Cherokee. I don’t find these numbers incredible. Some of them may have the wrong Indian tribe or may be concealing black ancestry, or be complete fantasy, but the numbers don’t seem improbable given early and extensive intermarriage before the 18th century. (Cherokee Chief John Ross, born 1790 was 7/8ths Scottish.)
From a study of 23&Me data, average ancestry contribution for each self-identified race:
African-Americans:
73.2% African ancestry,
24.0% European ancestry,
0.8% Native American ancestry.
Latinos:
65.1% European ancestry,
18.0% Native American ancestry,
6.2% African ancestry
Europeans:
98.6% European ancestry,
0.19% African ancestry,
0.18% Native American ancestry.
There are significant regional differences hiding behind these averages, but this study suggests that 5 million whites have Native-American ancestry and 6 million have African ancestry. I would guess that many would not know it without a DNA test, and the test still may not tell them.
http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297(14)00476-5
At some point Native Americans morphed from barbarians, so it was ok to forcibly convert them to Christianity and take their land, into noble savages. Brave, fearless warriors who fought against overwhelming odds. I wonder if it was just cool to be part of that group.
Steve
The earliest attested appearance of the phrase was in John Dryden’s 17th century play, “The Conquest of Granada”, so I’m not sure there was any “morphing” involved. French lecturers may have been using the phrase prior to that for some time. They had pretty much been thought of that way since modern contacts.
As to forcible conversions, I know of none such by the English or French. To the best of my knowledge that was a practice of the Spanish and, possibly, the Portuguese. I’m not sure how to disaggregate the treatment of the indigenous population in the Americas from the country that was doing the treating but there certainly appear to have been differences.
I myself am part Cherokee owing to high cheekbones and extensive family lore. Still waiting for my response from Dr. Warren, who may be my sister.