Contradiction in your definition as there are plenty of people with paperwork who you would look at and not be able to state their heritage simply by looks. That’s because of the rule I noted earlier on federal law allowing each tribe to determine who they will put on their rolls.
When I moved to OK in 1972, I lived in Osage County, home to the tribe of the same name. I had plenty of classmates/neighbors with clear Indian heritage by their appearance and/or their name. A 100% Osage was not unknown at that time but it is a lesser population now. Today, I live in the Tulsa area where primarily three traditional tribal areas come together: Osage, Cherokee, Muscogee-Creek. The Cherokee group is spread through NE OK with a fairly broad qualification standard for their rolls so quite a few people claim that heritage.
“Contradiction in your definition as there are plenty of people with paperwork who you would look at and not be able to state their heritage simply by looks.”
Really? You want to argue about that? Start by rereading what I wrote. I said looks **or** paperwork. I knew a guy who was 50% Sioux and had red hair and freckles.
And I’m not talking about rolls. Back in 1956, when I started school, nobody talked about rolls. You knew who was an Indian by who looked Indian. Only thing, if you didn’t look Indian and you wanted to claim it, you had to back it up some other way.
Can’t remember too much of that. One time, this kid named Parker said to some kids, “This is my father, grandson of Quanah Parker. Tell him I’m not an Indian.”
There were no takers. (To be fair, his dad was a really scary looking dude.)
All this political stuff with who’s on the rolls and who’s not started when money entered the picture.