Search for Native American ancestry
Their should be a link that would bring up known Native Americans within a persons ancestry tree. Like you currently have the option to see how you are related to different famous people currently, we should be able to use similar to find known Native American ancestors. Or Even better than that would be the ancestor profile showing up in different colors based on country or tribe of birth. So we can see at a glance our Nordic, French, or even Cherokee ancestor origin.
I am excited to find this site. I am enrolled in the Nez Perce tribe and I also have some Ojibway.0
How would one "know" that a person in the tree is Native American? Specific sources that must be present? And what is a Native American, anyway? I believe that term excludes Canadian indigenous peoples, as well as Mexican and on south through South America. I'm not sure if it covers indigenous peoples who lived in what is now the western part of the United States, which belonged to Spain and Mexico in the times before 1848. What you are asking for is not really doable or clear.0
@CrystalBurgett-Bratt Here is what I understand from your Idea:
- You would like to identify/distinguish Native American ancestry with "different colors based on country or tribe of birth. So we can see at a glance our Nordic, French, or even Cherokee ancestor origin."
You can do so (sort of) - by changing to the Fan Chart Birth Place setting which has different colors in the tree view. Theoretically if Native American tribal lands were identified as tribal/nation territories then these colors could be separated in this Fan Chart tree view. Yes, this would imply that the person profiles of Native Americans, Canadian indigenous, or any tribal/indigenous peoples for that matter - select the proper tribal/nation territory for Birth Place. This also implies that FamilySearch Places would need a specific Community Project or dedicated Community contributors to submit such places. I am not too familiar with Native American birth documents nor tribal territories (although I have seen some interesting YouTube documentary/topical videos concerning Native American tribes) so have no idea whether such records extend back very far... some tribal customs throughout the world had/have oral genealogy traditions - so that could substitute for records.
2.- You would like a Native American category to appear in the Famous Relatives Activity.
Such a request could be doable. It would just need to gather support (upvotes) and put some FamilySearch resources behind it. There is another app - BYU FHTL (Family History Technology Lab) Relative Finder - which would be a good approach toward implementing such requested groups. In fact it already has some Public Community Native American groups listed:0
So, genthusiast, unless I misunderstood, the poster is asking FamilySearch to identify all Native Americans so one can see one's Native American ancestors just like one can go to Famous Relatives, which FamilySearch has already identified who are famous, and see who one's famous ancestors are.
Your suggestion will only work when someone has identified who their Native American ancestors are.0
? Yes, identify Native American profiles by tribal affiliation... This is entirely possible through profile details.
But I think the Idea is also about identifying famous Native Americans just as other groups ... Thus my constructive contributions to the Idea...0
First, how do we know that famous Native Americans haven't already been built into the famous relatives activity? That activity only shows you famous people YOU are related to, at least according to relationships in the FamilySearch tree, which people complain about incessantly for its inaccuracy. One of the biggest myths that Americans carry is that they are descended from a Native American, so if you don't see a famous Native American there, maybe you really aren't part NA. And secondly, tribal affiliation is misleading. I am working with several related Native Americans born (or descended from those born) in New Mexico to build their family tree. Three of them have done their DNA and it shows they are genetically associated with 3 groups of indigenous Americans ranging from Canada down to central Mexico. Two of them have done their DNA in 2 different databases. To be honest, I have not asked if they have an official, documented affiliation with the tribe near their ancestors' location, but I know for sure only one of them could have. One that is not officially affiliated with a tribe had around 50% indigenous DNA. Also, there is a real problem with the term tribe. Tribe is a term that doesn't translate across national borders today. It has become written in to US federal or US State law. Each tribe determines the criteria for becoming a member. And LOTS of people have not registered. And those that do can apparently have choices. While visiting New Mexico, I talked for quite a while with a woman who had documentation for ancestry from both Navajo and one of the Pueblo tribes. When she gave birth, she told me experts helped her figure out which tribe to register her child in, (using her husband's genealogy as well) and so what happened is she was registered in a different tribe than her child. And what about different laws in Mexico and Canada. While DNA may link groups of indigenous peoples, governments won't. So, looking for ancestors, historically, it gets even more confusing and difficult to document as you consider life under Spain in the 1500 - 1700s.
So, I go back to my original comments about the difficulty of FamilySearch. How do you propose FamilySearch identify "Native Americans" for you, going back 150 years, as that activity appears to go? When you say tribal affiliation, does that mean officially listed on a document? And when you say Native American, do you mean United States indigenous or would someone related to the family of Benito Juarez find him listed there? Is he a Native American by your definition?0
@Gail Swihart Watson Yes, people can have problems with any definition of terms with which they want to have a problem. To me my contributions to the Ideas above are fairly simple and leave the decisions you are talking about to the users/FamilySearch. My posts above demonstrate a possible path for any group of users to accomplish what I understood as the objectives of this Idea. If these are not the objectives - perhaps the Idea needs clarification. If you have other Ideas or objectives - then you can bring those up... Thank you for the more lengthy discussion - now I understand more about the difficulties you were attempting to point out. That the legal system or clans/tribes (whatever term you would like to use) may proscribe membership of native groups should have nothing to do with users of FamilySearch being able to represent ancestors/relations in the Tree - and come to agreement on how to represent them. Luckily I don't need to have a definition of a person - I can just enjoy their profile (and hopefully add to the ones I research - correctly).0
I agree completely that every person working in genealogy should take the opportunity to identify all ethnic, racial and nationality that the sources document. At its simplest, it is a matter of complete information. It can also be a matter of pride in your ancestors to want to tell their complete story.
When FamilySearch can't get something as [theoretically] straight forward as standardized place locations, what would they do with standardized ethnic identity? I had ancestors who married in Knox county Indiana in 1820ish. The standardized location for the marriage record, which could not be corrected, was Knox Atoll, Marshall Islands (in the middle of the Pacific Ocean). I put up such a stink it eventually got corrected, but I can only imagine what ethnic group would have been assigned from such a mistaken location.0
@Gail Swihart Watson When FamilySearch can't get something as [theoretically] straight forward as standardized place locations, what would they do with standardized ethnic identity?
Yes, the Places auto-standardization routine/AI has been a problem. I think users researching/defining ethnicity has been kind of hands off for FamilySearch - leave that to the users to decide/enter. I think that policy will probably continue - as I also believe it should. However, the objectives of this Idea do not appear to be contrary and can still be accomplished - as I was attempting to contribute...1