Proving Native American Status for Application

[jl lin]

23andme and other commercial dna tests do not reliably confirm or deny Native ancestry. Their pool of reference individuals is very limited by the frequency of intermarriage with other groups.

I have Native American ancestry and claimed it rightfully, despite not being directly affiliated with the present day tribes for political reasons. I will happily explain this choice if I am ever called on it. I think that it is blatantly racist to require Native Americans to maintain political affiliations in order to claim their heritage when other groups are not held to that standard.

Part of the tragedy of my heritage is that many NA children were forcibly taken from parents and raised in white homes or in orphanage / boarding schools. They were denied the opportunity to learn their native languages and cultures. To further disenfranchise them and their descendants by denying their right to claim their ancestry is an attempt at revictimization. It completes the intent of those who attempted to forcibly whitewash those stolen generations. I refuse to accept that for myself.

Then again... I don't just claim my ancestry for purposes of med school applications. It is absolutely a part of how I see myself and my relationship to others. If your identity is so fluid that it can shift to whatever is most beneficial to you at that time, then it isn't an identity... it is an expedient fiction.

And that is the issue, really. Sad as it is, NA is placed as a "protected class" of people, but NA as a "protected class" is completely bogus. They were crushed down to nothing and then forced to separate and assimilate in massive ways other groups were not. It's heartbreaking.

My GGM ended up being put down as caucasian on census b/c they just felt badly for families that were mixed and in other cases, that is what the male head of household would tell them. In her state, it was illegal for NAs or Af-Ams to be married to caucasians.

I have a lot of Northern European in me, but I am interested in my NA ancestors and family out of natural curiosity and re: how certain genes associated w/ NAs are relevant to health. I don't feel that it would be wrong to state the fact that I am part NA, but I know people would make an issue out of it. If one group doesn't have to prove their connection directly to their group in the same way as another does, there is something VERY wrong there. I think it is called a double standard. More hypocrisy of politics and their influences.

Like pretty much all people of NA descent, I don't expect anything for compensation of great losses for these people--people from whom I also come, along w/ my NE descent.

Is there a double standard? Without question. Other groups do expect compensation and have a greater voice in that, and that IS the real political difference.

The NAs pretty much faced the reality that they were swallowed up long ago. Death by massive disease, battle, and just plain raiding destroyed most of their representation, and then survivalist assimilation swallowed up the rest. Probably many folks may well show NA (DNA is really ~ to Asian) DNA racial identification--for those that have been in the US long enough--centuries--there is a fair chance that Af-Am and NA are in a lot of us. It is funny that phenotype representation is an unfair factor as well. Once again, the rule that perception and not reality becomes the reality stands. This is a strong tool of political influences--the use of perception over the actual reality.

There is, however, no question that there is disparity in the treating of abused and diminished races, and in reality NAs are treated in a more desparate way than any other race in the US. In fact, their treatment on the whole was pretty much genocidal in nature in the US. Sadly, no one really bats an eye if you are part NA. Talk about a group that gets no respect. It's almost as if these folks are a non-entity--with the exception of a few that try to hold on to their culture. How can I say this? It's like the NA have been absorbed into the caucasian race, and that is too bad. And it has always been like that.

OP, I don't know what to tell you, except find out about your roots and any ties to these people, and then be part of helping them in some way. They truly are the under represented, even of all the under represented. Talk about being endangered. They are beyond that now. But don't expect anything from the very power that drove them pretty much into extinction--the US government.

Corrected some errors.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Affiche]

The biggest disappointment in this thread is the assertion that Native Americans must live on a reservation or be actively involved in their Native American community to claim their heritage while other URMs do not.

 

[LizzyM]

As I have been raised in white culture, and I identify as white... would it be unethical for me to claim my minority status after proving my affiliation in the instance I am not accepted my first go-around?

@Yahaatheth I wish you had made this question a poll.

 

[DokterMom]

The biggest disappointment in this thread is the assertion that Native Americans must live on a reservation or be actively involved in their Native American community to claim their heritage while other URMs do not.

If someone is genetically substantially NA, but was raised in a white family and 'mainstream white culture', looks white, and has not historically been actively involved with Native American culture in any meaningful way -- then is it really "their heritage" to claim?

Please note that I'm not suggesting it was in any way acceptable for NA cultures and populations to have been so systematically decimated. Just that given the fact that they were - generations ago - their very invisability tends to make them irrelevant.

 

[ZedsDed]

@Yahaatheth I wish you had made this question a poll.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

 

[Promethean]

If someone is genetically substantially NA, but was raised in a white family and 'mainstream white culture', looks white, and has not historically been actively involved with Native American culture in any meaningful way -- then is it really "their heritage" to claim?

Please note that I'm not suggesting it was in any way acceptable for NA cultures and populations to have been so systematically decimated. Just that given the fact that they were - generations ago - their very invisability tends to make them irrelevant.

Given how many *entirely* NA people were in that very situation due to what was essentially widespread institutionalized kidnapping, then yes, I think it is absolutely their heritage to claim, and to say otherwise is, as I said earlier, to complete the intent of those who attempted to eradicate NA people. It is a cultural genocide following and carrying on the intent of the genetic one.

I think this is an area where, yes, some people might abuse a loophole... but closing it would mean locking out people who have legitimate claim to a heritage that was almost stolen from them. The good of recognizing those claims outweighs the potential harm that might come from giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who doesn't deserve it.

I almost didn't mark NA on my apps because I didn't want it to help me in any way. But to not mark it felt to me like denying my family. I'd rather defend against claims that my heritage is not really my heritage than to pre-emptively deny it myself to avoid the trouble. That pride in my identity is the very thing that most confirms my right to it.

 

[Affiche]

If someone is genetically substantially NA, but was raised in a white family and 'mainstream white culture', looks white, and has not historically been actively involved with Native American culture in any meaningful way -- then is it really "their heritage" to claim?

Please note that I'm not suggesting it was in any way acceptable for NA cultures and populations to have been so systematically decimated. Just that given the fact that they were - generations ago - their very invisability tends to make them irrelevant.

The "looks white" aspect is what I disagree with. My issue with this thread is that African-Americans who are genetically substantially AA but were raised in a white family/'mainstream white culture', who have not been historically involved with AA culture in any meaningful way- are still able to claim their African heritage and no one sees anything wrong with it. But if it's a Native American, well he doesn't look the part, so he must be white!

The only difference is that typically someone who is substantially African (except white African) will look black, so they're encouraged to claim their heritage no matter how much they actually identify with it, but NAs may look white, so they're not. To me, that's a blatant form of racism. You're treating two groups differently only because of the color of their skin.

 

[Goro]

Rachiie, try telling that to the people of Ferguson, MO. Or Dr. Henry Louis Gates (formerly of Harvard, now at Princeton).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_controversy

More relevant, OP's 25% ancestry doesn't gain any traction with me, not will it with Adcoms.

The "looks white" aspect is what I disagree with. My issue with this thread is that African-Americans who are genetically substantially AA but were raised in a white family/'mainstream white culture', who have not been historically involved with AA culture in any meaningful way- are still able to claim their African heritage and no one sees anything wrong with it. But if it's a Native American, well he doesn't look the part, so he must be white!

The only difference is that typically someone who is substantially African (except white African) will look black, so they're encouraged to claim their heritage no matter how much they actually identify with it, but NAs may look white, so they're not. To me, that's a blatant form of racism. You're treating two groups differently only because of the color of their skin.

 

[Promethean]

More relevant, OP's 25% ancestry doesn't gain any traction with me, not will it with Adcoms.

So, here's the thing. I want to go to medical school more than anything else I can imagine to do. I'd turn down any other opportunity offered to me instead, including going into space. My seat is something that I have had to really struggle in order obtain, an uphill climb against circumstances of my birth and upbringing, so that it has taken me until midlife to be able to get here...

...and if I had to choose, I'd still rather lose my seat than deny my family's history. I won't change my answers about who I am in order to please Adcoms. If that is the only reason that someone is claiming an identity, then they are in the wrong. But if it is really how they see themselves, then it shouldn't matter what it looks like to the committee.

I wish that it counted against me, or was totally neutral. Then, there would be no controversy about it. That is a privilege that ORM folks have. They don't have to worry about if they will be assumed to be gaming the system, just for saying who they are.

 

[DokterMom]

When the rest of the world tells you (a la Dr. Henry Gates) that "You're black" then it's not a heritage you can simply pick up or set down. Society hangs a label on you, and that "driving while black" stigma doesn't simply disappear because your upbringing may have been stereotypically white.

@rachiie01 - "To me, that's a blatant form of racism. You're treating two groups differently only because of the color of their skin."
Yeah, that is racism. Hipocrasy too. But it's also the reality of the world we live in. Our world treats people differently because of the color of their skin (and gender), fearing some, diminishing some, trusting some, ignoring some.

@Promethean - "Given how many *entirely* NA people were in that very situation due to what was essentially widespread institutionalized kidnapping, then yes, I think it is absolutely their heritage to claim, and to say otherwise is, as I said earlier, to complete the intent of those who attempted to eradicate NA people. It is a cultural genocide following and carrying on the intent of the genetic one."
Their heritage to claim -- I'd be more comfortable with the word "birthright", but I won't quibble. What I'm trying to suggest though, is that this heritage is not something a person can legitimately claim for the first time on a medical school application. The word "heritage" implies that something in addition to genetics. It implies a culture, a community, an identity. It should never have been stolen. But where it was, I feel that the applicant needs to do something pro-active to 'reclaim' that culture before claiming they have it.

 

[Goro]

No one, and I mean no one here is claiming that you have to deny your ancestry, that's outright stupid.

But for some people, it's not going to gain them any traction for an advantage in interviews.

Unfortunately, there ARE people who try to game the system, and so we're hyper-vigilant towards it.

A Caucasian who is claiming URM status because Acheii was 100% Navajo isn't URM, nor UIM. Period.

So, here's the thing. I want to go to medical school more than anything else I can imagine to do. I'd turn down any other opportunity offered to me, including going into space. My seat is something that I have had to really struggle in order obtain, an uphill climb against circumstances of my birth and upbringing, so that it has taken me until midlife to be able to get here...

...and if I had to choose, I'd still rather lose my seat than deny my family's history.

I wish that it counted against me, or was totally neutral. Then, there would be no controversy about it. That is a privilege that ORM folks have. They don't have to worry about if they will be assumed to be gaming the system, just for saying who they are.

 

[Affiche]

Rachiie, try telling that to the people of Ferguson, MO. Or Dr. Henry Louis Gates (formerly of Harvard, now at Princeton).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_controversy

More relevant, OP's 25% ancestry doesn't gain any traction with me, not will it with Adcoms.

I'm sure they would respond similarly to Jews being told not to claim their heritage because they look white.

Different minority groups suffer for different reasons. Bringing up racial profiling doesn't accomplish anything but to demean the struggles of a different minority group.

 

[Affiche]

@DokterMom if your family or societal status is adversely affected because you belong to a minority group, that isn't something you can pick up or set down either, regardless of your skin color. Those struggles may be invisible to society, but they're no less there.

 

[Goro]

Ahh, but that's not relevant. Jews are ORM, so there's no impetus to claim or deny ethnicity or heritage for med school admissions.

The key thing here is for admissions, it's 100% up to you to check the ethnicity box.

But it's what the school wants, not what the applicant wants, that counts in the end.
I need you to focus here, not on the wrongs of History, but why the URM status exists, and why it merits a bonus to people who rightly claim it.

Under-represented

Albert or Jane Yazzi who live in Window Rock, NM are people the U NM or U AZ want to train as doctors.

Someone who is 25% Navajo, and has not done anything about their Navajo ethnicity except to check a box, not so much.

Black Americans, by the very existence of their skin color, have already checked that box.

This is the reality of our nation.

I'm sure they would respond similarly to Jews being told not to claim their heritage because they look white.

 

[Affiche]

Ahh, but that's not relevant. Jews are ORM, so there's no impetus to claim or deny ethnicity or heritage for med school admissions.

The key thing here is for admissions, it's 100% up to you to check the ethnicity box.

But it's what the school wants, not what the applicant wants, that counts in the end.
I need you to focus here, not on the wrongs of History, but why the URM status exists, and why it merits a bonus to people who rightly claim it.

Under-represented

Albert or Jane Yazzi who live in Window Rock, NM are people the U NM or U AZ want to train as doctors.

Someone who is 25% Navajo, and has not done anything about their Navajo ethnicity except to check a box, not so much.

Black Americans, by the very existence of their skin color, have already checked that box.

This is the reality of our nation.

Hypothetically speaking, would you agree that OP has a right to check this box if his heritage can be linked to the absence of his mother or SES?
What I disagree with is the notion that because his skin is light, he has to be involved with the NA community. This is a requirement that adcoms have for NAs, but not for AAs or latinos or any other ethnic group. However, as others have mentioned, a lot of the hardship faced by NAs relates to being separated from their biological families and homes. You don't have to be involved in the NA community to be affected by those hardships.

 

[Promethean]

Their heritage to claim -- I'd be more comfortable with the word "birthright", but I won't quibble. What I'm trying to suggest though, is that this heritage is not something a person can legitimately claim for the first time on a medical school application. The word "heritage" implies that something in addition to genetics. It implies a culture, a community, an identity. It should never have been stolen. But where it was, I feel that the applicant needs to do something pro-active to 'reclaim' that culture before claiming they have it.

Yeah, no disagreement with the bolded.

Where I'm from, everyone knew my ancestry from looking at me, because it is more common there to have native roots. Now, I live in a place where the indigenous tribes were completely wiped away, and I pass for more or less European, possibly with some kind of East Asian mixed in. Whether I like it or not. I felt pressure to hide my NA ancestry to avoid being seen as someone trying to game the system. I didn't want to be mistaken for a Caucasian looking for an advantage. If I had claimed just that side of my heritage on my med school app, it would have been the first time I had NOT identified myself as also of native descent. I definitely agree that it is not legit to adopt an identity only when it is of benefit to you.

EDIT: Nor to abandon an identity when you sense it might be a detriment. Thus my choice to persist in claiming mine as I have always done, even if it did cause someone to question my credibility.

 

[RedPhys]

Haha! For some reason, it reminded me about a med student at UMDNJ who was from Mozambique. He lived there for about 20 years and another 20 in the US.

He also was of Portuguese descent, and was a fourth-generation Mozambique-ian.

Fast forward to med school. In some class exercise on diversity, everyone is asked to define what they are for some cultural exercise.

For this guy, he's definitely African. But he's also American since he's a US citizen and spent half his life here. Also, he's white.

So what does he do? Combine all three into "White African-American". Everyone gets massively outraged over that, and eventually he gets suspended for a year.

Here's the full story: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7567291

Tbh, I really wish we lived in a racial-label-free world in which your skin color isn't your defining characteristic.

I really cannot believe this country sometimes.

 

[BamaNicole]

As offensive as I find the term half breed, that may well be the official designation that OP's mom has within her tribe. That is why I didn't pipe up with a correction. As awful as the term may be, if that is what the tribe calls it, that is their business.

Just because people in your mother's tribe choses to use that term in an unofficial way doesn't mean its not offensive. Its meant to be demeaning which I'm sure you understand and really no one should perpetuate that.....ever.

 

[Promethean]

I really cannot believe this country sometimes.

That reminds me of news outlets referring to dark skinned people in other countries as "African-Americans" Because it has become the default PC term for people who might otherwise consider themselves "of African descent," the talking heads run into trouble when they want to talk about people in, for instance, France, who are "of African descent."

Recent example:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/anderson...tion-of-french-terrorist-as-african-american/

Spoiler: We are all, ultimately, of African descent. I understand the reasoning behind affirmative action... I just hope that someday, I will get to see a world where it is no longer necessary. Dr. King's dream still hasn't been fully realized, but I think we are still on the way.

 

[Goro]

Sure.

I have the bolded to emphasize again that too many people have tried to use this status for unethical reasons, and so Adcoms want a little more evidence that the applicant will bring something to the Class, other than a checked box. @gyngyn has pointed out that this applies to URM Latinos as well. Do black applicants get a pass? For the most part, as long as there's evidence that the applicant can handle med school. is it unfair that black applicants may be a bye? The NYer in me says "tough". we don't live in a perfect world, alas.

Hypothetically speaking, would you agree that OP has a right to check this box if his heritage can be linked to the absence of his mother or SES?
What I disagree with is the notion that because his skin is light, he has to be involved with the NA community. This is a requirement that adcoms have for NAs, but not for AAs or latinos or any other ethnic group. However, as others have mentioned, a lot of the hardship faced by NAs relates to being separated from their biological families and homes. You don't have to be involved in the NA community to be affected by those hardships.

 

[Affiche]

I have the opposite experience. Anytime someone tries to overtly be politically correct, I cringe. And it usually has the unintended consequence of drawing attention to something that would otherwise be irrelevant.

YES. My brother-in-law is black and my nephew is half black, half white. We don't use the term "African-American" in my family, we use the term black. My BIL's mother would whoop me upside the head if I called her "African-America" because not all of her family is African lol.

 

[Affiche]

Sure.

I have the bolded to emphasize again that too many people have tried to use this status for unethical reasons, and so Adcoms want a little more evidence that the applicant will bring something to the Class, other than a checked box. @gyngyn has pointed out that this applies to URM Latinos as well. Do black applicants get a pass? For the most part, as long as there's evidence that the applicant can handle med school. is it unfair that black applicants may be a bye? The NYer in me says "tough". we don't live in a perfect world, alas.

Fair enough, but it shouldn't ever be considered a negative if someone claims NA heritage but isn't involved with the NA community, which is what a lot of posts in this thread are suggesting is the case. As long it's encouraged to claim your heritage with the understanding that it may not provide any value to your application, I can live with that.

As for African-Americans getting a bye despite some of these applicants having high SES, professional parents and no connection to their AA community, that's an entirely different racism issue. Latinos and Arabs are racially profiled too, but they don't get a bye at all. You can say "tough", but I call hypocrisy. Adcoms can't preach moral standing to us and then turn around and say "tough" when they practice their own unethical practices. Respectfully, we'll have to agree to disagree on this ethical issue.

 

[Goro]

This is where the interview will be necessary.

Fair enough, but it shouldn't ever be considered a negative if someone claims NA heritage but isn't involved with the NA community, which is what a lot of posts in this thread are suggesting is the case. As long it's encouraged to claim your heritage with the understanding that it may not provide any value to your application, I can live with that.

Agreed. We now return you to your regularly schedule inflammatory SDN thread!

As for African-Americans getting a bye despite some of these applicants having high SES, professional parents and no connection to their AA community, that's an entirely different racism issue. Latinos and Arabs are racially profiled too, but they don't get a bye at all. You can say "tough", but I call hypocrisy. Adcoms can't preach moral standing to us and then turn around and say "tough" when they practice their own unethical practices. Respectfully, we'll have to agree to disagree on this ethical issue.

 

[Promethean]

Haha! For some reason, it reminded me about a med student at UMDNJ who was from Mozambique. He lived there for about 20 years and another 20 in the US.

He also was of Portuguese descent, and was a fourth-generation Mozambique-ian.

Fast forward to med school. In some class exercise on diversity, everyone is asked to define what they are for some cultural exercise.

For this guy, he's definitely African. But he's also American since he's a US citizen and spent half his life here. Also, he's white.

So what does he do? Combine all three into "White African-American". Everyone gets massively outraged over that, and eventually he gets suspended for a year.

Here's the full story: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7567291

Tbh, I really wish we lived in a racial-label-free world in which your skin color isn't your defining characteristic.

It turns out that there was rather more to that story than was initially reported (as usual.)

Seems that his suspension may have had more to do with actual unprofessional behavior than his claimed identity:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/20...udent_tossed_out_by_newark_federal_judge.html

 

[Affiche]

@Goro come on, I know that you know how to quote better than that!

 

[jl lin]

If someone is genetically substantially NA, but was raised in a white family and 'mainstream white culture', looks white, and has not historically been actively involved with Native American culture in any meaningful way -- then is it really "their heritage" to claim?

Please note that I'm not suggesting it was in any way acceptable for NA cultures and populations to have been so systematically decimated. Just that given the fact that they were - generations ago - their very invisability tends to make them irrelevant.

Thing is, first, that can and has been said to be an issue of some Af-Am folks--there is a double standard with this reasoning.
Second, if a person found out some time later, and wants to inquire further and be a part of this culture, who cares?
Again, b/c someone has to not look white, their phenotypical presentation is the main factor? Really? That's on the absurd side.

So since NAs 'vanilla-up,' phenotypically speaking, more so as compared with a number of Af-Ams, and b/c Af-Ams have a greater lobby politically speaking, it's all good for some of one group but not some of another???? What is incredibly wrong with this picture?

Politically speaking, it's OK b/c NAs were not massively sold into slavery to the same degree, b/c initially they had the home-field advantage? So that makes all the abuses against the NAs less valid and relevant? They didn't have time and opportunity, in many cases, to line up their heritages and maintain cultural relevance with their groups. They were massively killed or forced into some isolation, and for most of those left over, they were forced into assimilation with whites in order to survive--"red skin" vanillas out better than Af-Am skin, in general. That's great.

People have heard much more about Af-Am history but are grossly lost as to the actual history of those most native to our nation. Ah well. Like I said. Too bad for them. Seriously the general lack of understanding and knowledge of history is astounding. And there goes, at least part of the reason for the double standard. Sigh.

 

[jl lin]

Fair enough, but it shouldn't ever be considered a negative if someone claims NA heritage but isn't involved with the NA community, which is what a lot of posts in this thread are suggesting is the case. As long it's encouraged to claim your heritage with the understanding that it may not provide any value to your application, I can live with that.

As for African-Americans getting a bye despite some of these applicants having high SES, professional parents and no connection to their AA community, that's an entirely different racism issue. Latinos and Arabs are racially profiled too, but they don't get a bye at all. You can say "tough", but I call hypocrisy. Adcoms can't preach moral standing to us and then turn around and say "tough" when they practice their own unethical practices. Respectfully, we'll have to agree to disagree on this ethical issue.

The double standard in thinking is immoral and unfair, period. A behemoth travesty and wronging has been forced upon NAs--and as no one gave a crap back in the day, they care even less today. It is as if NA may as well mean n/a in terms of being a relevant, respected protected class that received any kind of true restitution for the atrocities placed against them. But it's OK, b/c they were just "attritioned" away.

 

[jl lin]

It turns out that there was rather more to that story than was initially reported (as usual.)

Seems that his suspension may have had more to do with actual unprofessional behavior than his claimed identity:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/20...udent_tossed_out_by_newark_federal_judge.html

Something fishy all the way around there. Sure he put himself in that position, but one wonders if he was targeted and they were looking for something. Had they been looking at others that were not targeted, chances are they would have found something more problematic then "lactating lovelies." Heck, I have seen worse stuff here. Not enough information to make a fair analysis.

 

[jl lin]

Yeah, no disagreement with the bolded.

Where I'm from, everyone knew my ancestry from looking at me, because it is more common there to have native roots. Now, I live in a place where the indigenous tribes were completely wiped away, and I pass for more or less European, possibly with some kind of East Asian mixed in. Whether I like it or not. I felt pressure to hide my NA ancestry to avoid being seen as someone trying to game the system. I didn't want to be mistaken for a Caucasian looking for an advantage. If I had claimed just that side of my heritage on my med school app, it would have been the first time I had NOT identified myself as also of native descent. I definitely agree that it is not legit to adopt an identity only when it is of benefit to you.

EDIT: Nor to abandon an identity when you sense it might be a detriment. Thus my choice to persist in claiming mine as I have always done, even if it did cause someone to question my credibility.

And that is just wrong. You shouldn't have to hide the truth of your identity/heritage just b/c someone will ASSume you are trying to game the system. As far as I am concerned, the debt owed to the NA people is just as great as the one owed to the Af-Am people, if that is the way things are going to go down. Just b/c there is more political pressure to give understanding to one doesn't negate the same respect to another. But it's not based on right & wrong, ethics, or principles. It's based on politics--and that is where the crime is. So before anyone judges anyone else, so long as a person can biologically prove their claim, it's all BS to let the carpet down for one group while pulling it up or making it even difficult to even carry, much less unroll, for another group.

 

[jl lin]

Ahh, but that's not relevant. Jews are ORM, so there's no impetus to claim or deny ethnicity or heritage for med school admissions.

The key thing here is for admissions, it's 100% up to you to check the ethnicity box.

But it's what the school wants, not what the applicant wants, that counts in the end.
I need you to focus here, not on the wrongs of History, but why the URM status exists, and why it merits a bonus to people who rightly claim it.

Under-represented

Albert or Jane Yazzi who live in Window Rock, NM are people the U NM or U AZ want to train as doctors.

Someone who is 25% Navajo, and has not done anything about their Navajo ethnicity except to check a box, not so much.

Black Americans, by the very existence of their skin color, have already checked that box.

This is the reality of our nation.

See that is the disparity, the glaring contradiction, the absurd hypocrisy. The world being unfair isn't a sound excuse for this here in this nation. The truth is, the determination of will be given more "grace," if you will and who won't is not based in justice but in the foolishness of politics. There are some Af-Ams that, without ultra-cacausian genetic cleansing, and they do not look as phenotypically black as well. American Indians (I've been using NA out of easy of typing.) by their very genetic existence have already checked the box.

 

[knv2u]

Until he gets a DNA test done, his claims are nothing but mere speculation. The percentage of White-European Americans with North American Native American ancestry has been ridiculously overblown. Harvard conducted a study with 23andme which analyzed 160,000 individuals on a genome-wide scale and not surprisingly the White American collective averaged only "0.18%" Native American. People who fall far above the standard mean are few and far between. (no pun intended)

It's an insult to people of actual Native American ancestry for White Americans to claim it especially to collect on benefits.
Unlike the majority of people who may claim it here, I can actually prove Native American heritage:

That is where you're wrong. The

Spoiler: sample size

used by 23andme for NA is large enough to yield a positive (or negative) verification of NA ancestry since they practically cross-reference your genome with approximately 500,000-700,000 SNP markers -the highest by far for any company- in that "pool of reference".


The reason why I say that applicants who claim NA ancestry should be part of a registered tribe is because generally, on official government forms it is not enough to be genetically American Indian but also to be a member of one of the 567 recognized American Indian tribes in the United States of America (exclude South, Central and Mexican-Americans). All I'm saying is tread carefully.

Are you going to include the diagram with your application?

 

[virtuos locust]

Are you going to include the diagram with your application?

No, because:
1. I don't/wouldn't identify as NA but Hispanic on applications
2. I'm far from applying to Med school and wouldn't check NA to try to get benefits
3. I was only trying to prove a point here to other posters hence why I posted my results, otherwise I'd never feel it'd be appropriate to bring it up

 

[virtuos locust]

As for the assertion that I am incorrect regarding 23andme's potential to confirm or deny native heritage, I will refer to the site itself:

https://customercare.23andme.com/hc...an-23andMe-identify-Native-American-ancestry-

Currently 23andMe has several features that can reveal genetic evidence of Native American ancestry, although they are not considered a confirmatory test or proof of such ancestry in a legal context.

There are quite a few services that will sell you DNA tests on false pretenses, so that people who want to satisfy their vanity by "proving" that great grandma was an Indian Princess. I like 23andme because it isn't one of those. Their claims don't outpace the science. It would be nice if their users did not overclaim on their behalf.

Keyword: legal context
Although 23andme cannot bind themselves to providing health reports, ancestry reports, etc. for legal purposes, the scientific premise behind their technology still stands. IF you are not completely satisfied with the results you can download your raw data from the 23andme servers and upload it using more sophisticated and precise genome tools/calculators such as the one ran by one Dr. Doug McDonald (see BGA project) . It goes through a more accurate genome analysis due to the higher number of samples already available (in this case for NA) . I am not overselling or "overclaiming" anything on their behalf so I suggest you invest some time in reading the science behind it before accusing me of doing such things.

 

[samac]

Haha! For some reason, it reminded me about a med student at UMDNJ who was from Mozambique. He lived there for about 20 years and another 20 in the US.

He also was of Portuguese descent, and was a fourth-generation Mozambique-ian.

Fast forward to med school. In some class exercise on diversity, everyone is asked to define what they are for some cultural exercise.

For this guy, he's definitely African. But he's also American since he's a US citizen and spent half his life here. Also, he's white.

So what does he do? Combine all three into "White African-American". Everyone gets massively outraged over that, and eventually he gets suspended for a year.

Here's the full story: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7567291

Tbh, I really wish we lived in a racial-label-free world in which your skin color isn't your defining characteristic.

He lost. This article paints a very different story.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/20...udent_tossed_out_by_newark_federal_judge.html

Edit: just saw where Pro beat me to it.
So I'm going to rant.

If OP had 1 parent 100% Navajo I don't think it would be an issue, but the issue lies in that OP is 25%. 1/4. Without any other ties to the community other than being a fraction of the heritage is it truly right to claim that status?
When you've never claimed the status before (you checked ethnicity boxes when you applied to college) and you want to do it now to get an edge to medical school you're part of the problem.

 

[deleted480308]

The irony of the urm policy's attempt to combat racism is that it results in a bunch of (statistically likely to be) white people sitting in a room deciding if you are Native enough to get the extra points...

Good luck with it OP, wish you well

 

[Affiche]

The irony of the urm policy's attempt to combat racism is that it results in a bunch of (statistically likely to be) white people sitting in a room deciding if you are Native enough to get the extra points...

Good luck with it OP, wish you well

Or other minority groups demeaning your hardship because it's not up to par with their own.

 

[jl lin]

He lost. This article paints a very different story.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/20...udent_tossed_out_by_newark_federal_judge.html

Edit: just saw where Pro beat me to it.
So I'm going to rant.

If OP had 1 parent 100% Navajo I don't think it would be an issue, but the issue lies in that OP is 25%. 1/4. Without any other ties to the community other than being a fraction of the heritage is it truly right to claim that status?
When you've never claimed the status before (you checked ethnicity boxes when you applied to college) and you want to do it now to get an edge to medical school you're part of the problem.

It matters not. What is the difference if someone can show 25% Af-Am or 25% AI (NA)? If you share that link with a people that have been oppressed and given grossly disparate treatment, you have that link. And it is b/c of the forced and massive kill-off and assimilation (genetically speaking) that 1/16th is the cut off. There just aren't that many AI (NA)s w/ 1/16th or above anymore--b/c of the fact that they were killed off or forced to assimilate over 100's of years w/ caucasians. But you see, naturally and politically there will be and is this "Oh well. That's too bad for the AIs. That's the way the ball bounces when a group of people are pretty much wiped out." There is something wrong with that when one group doesn't have the same burden of validation of ancestry and another does--especially when the other is pretty much nil in representation, comparatively speaking. I mean there is a totally legitimate social injustice position here; but it has historically been brushed aside over and over again. The reason, in part, is b/c there are just not enough numbers of them and there has been so much forced assimilation, and finally, b/c they "mix" easier, phenotypically speaking, with whites--especially given the numbers and time frame for this mixing.

 

[jl lin]

Or other minority groups demeaning your hardship because it's not up to par with their own.

Sadly, the big difference is that AIs are pretty close to extinct compared w/ Af-Ams in this country. Remember that the Europeans pretty much just wanted to bulldose over the AIs in order to possess the land. Although some were used in slavery, they weren't a part of the massive slave trade.

The slaves, OTOH, were like cattle that they needed to protect enough in order to make a profit.

The AIs were like trees they had to run over in order to put down "asphalt parking lots." Af-Ams were part of their investment.

AIs were refuge and a massive liability. There was no care for the kill-off of AI men, women, and children. They weren't part of the massive profit; they were just liabilities and stood in the way of profit. So, you kill enough off by disease and plundering, and then you relegate them to small little boundaries, where they cannot live as they knew of, yea, that is bound to affect reproduction. The rest, in order to survive, assimilated with the whites and moved far away from where they had lived.

But for the Af-Am, reproduction was a plus for investors, just in the same way as it was a plus for having cattle reproduce.

Both RL scenarios are tragic, yet because of the desire to protect "the property" and the long-term benefits of reproduction, one group proliferated, whilst the other declined and were abnegated.

That abnegation persists today without any consideration or thought of restitution. AIs are just the die-off of European progress. You know what is just as bad as being oppressed? Being raped, robbed, and forgotten.

 

[DokterMom]

None of it's fair.
And the actions taken by our country's founders against native peoples were flat-out genocidal horrific. (Smallpox blankets?!)
And the follow up actions taken by local governments and community leaders were as deceitful, corrupt and double-dealing as any in the modern world. (read Linda Hogan's Mean Spirit for a depressing eye-opener)

So what to do about it?

• Preserve the remaining fragments of NA cultures. (Easy to agree with in principle, but in practice, not so simple. For example, do you keep people on reservations to assure the survival of the language? Do you interfere in religious activities to 'keep them alive'?)

• Reparations for victims and survivors? (Sounds nice, but in practice, pretty impossible to administer, considering it's generally several generations after the fact.)

• Encourage those people who are still an active part of native cultures to take leadership roles in their communities? So train more NAs to be doctors within NA communities? (Again, it sounds good, but you need to transplant young people for decades to provide adequate training, and then there's no guarantee they'll want to return to their home communities to serve in areas of high need.)

It sucks @jl lin -- And I don't disagree with most of what you've written. But try translating your righteous indignation into actionable policies and see how far you get?... There's no shortage of people who "want to do the right thing." But the how's and what's of doing it still elude --

 

[deleted480308]

None of it's fair.
And the actions taken by our country's founders against native peoples were flat-out genocidal horrific. (Smallpox blankets?!)
And the follow up actions taken by local governments and community leaders were as deceitful, corrupt and double-dealing as any in the modern world. (read Linda Hogan's Mean Spirit for a depressing eye-opener)

So what to do about it?

• Preserve the remaining fragments of NA cultures. (East to agree with in principle, but in practice, not so simple. For example, do you keep people on reservations to assure the survival of the language? Do you interfere in religious activities to 'keep them alive'?)

• Reparations for victims and survivors? (Sounds nice, but in practice, pretty impossible to administer, considering it's generally several generations after the fact.)

• Encourage those people who are still an active part of native cultures to take leadership roles in their communities? So train more NAs to be doctors within NA communities? (Again, it sounds good, but you need to transplant young people for decades to provide adequate training, and then there's no guarantee they'll want to return to their home communities to serve in areas of high need.)

It sucks @jl lin -- And I don't disagree with most of what you've written. But try translating your righteous indignation into actionable policies and see how far you get?... There's no shortage of people who "want to do the right thing." But the how's and what's of doing it still elude --

We could just leave them the hell alone and stop assuming they need our direction

 

[ZedsDed]

Just want to throw out there that I disagree that phenotype doesn't matter. A kid who is 1/4 American Indian, who looks completely white, who has always been seen by others as white, and who has always identified as white, is going to have a hard time convincing others that they suddenly live the American Indian experience come application time. Additionally, they can go back to living as a white individual anytime they see fit. A 1/2 black kid (or even 1/4 black kid) doesn't have that option. Mixed individuals who are seen as "black" are almost always phenotypically different from the average Anglo-Saxon, and will live a different experience from those who "look" very white.
This doesn't necessarily apply to the OP. Because it is at least arguable that his life was affected by his heritage.

 

[jl lin]

Point is the phenotypical expression shouldn't matter. If they know the science of who they are in that regard, same as Af-am that should be enough. Period
The cut off is 1/16th.

 

[ZedsDed]

Point is the phenotypical expression shouldn't matter. If they know the science of who they are in that regard, same as Af-am that should be enough. Period
The cut off is 1/16th.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. The "science of who they are in that regard"?

 

[jl lin]

None of it's fair.
And the actions taken by our country's founders against native peoples were flat-out genocidal horrific. (Smallpox blankets?!)
And the follow up actions taken by local governments and community leaders were as deceitful, corrupt and double-dealing as any in the modern world. (read Linda Hogan's Mean Spirit for a depressing eye-opener)

So what to do about it?

• Preserve the remaining fragments of NA cultures. (Easy to agree with in principle, but in practice, not so simple. For example, do you keep people on reservations to assure the survival of the language? Do you interfere in religious activities to 'keep them alive'?)

• Reparations for victims and survivors? (Sounds nice, but in practice, pretty impossible to administer, considering it's generally several generations after the fact.)

• Encourage those people who are still an active part of native cultures to take leadership roles in their communities? So train more NAs to be doctors within NA communities? (Again, it sounds good, but you need to transplant young people for decades to provide adequate training, and then there's no guarantee they'll want to return to their home communities to serve in areas of high need.)

It sucks @jl lin -- And I don't disagree with most of what you've written. But try translating your righteous indignation into actionable policies and see how far you get?... There's no shortage of people who "want to do the right thing." But the how's and what's of doing it still elude --

Disparate treatment is disparate treatment. What is expected for one group shouldn't be different for another if there are genetics and lineage to support the claim. Otherwise there is a glaring double standard and major discrepancy in the application of social justice. It's not OK to shrug and blink it away.

 

[DokterMom]

Disparate treatment is disparate treatment. What is expected for one group shouldn't be different for another if there are genetics and lineage to support the claim. Otherwise there is a glaring double standard and major discrepancy in the application of social justice. It's not OK to shrug and blink it away.

I have 1/16 NA lineage. (Let's ignore, for a minute' the other 15/16ths of my lineage which came from the populations who exterminated the NAs. And the fact that I'm a blue-eyed blond and grew up SES-advantaged is irrelevant.)

So do I qualify? Should I?

 

[j4pac]

Is a cyber race war about the start in this mo'fo?

 

[deleted480308]

Is a cyber race war about the start in this mo'fo?

Impossible, people can't even figure out what race they are

 

[jl lin]

I have 1/16 NA lineage. (Let's ignore, for a minute' the other 15/16ths of my lineage which came from the populations who exterminated the NAs. And the fact that I'm a blue-eyed blond and grew up SES-advantaged is irrelevant.)

So do I qualify? Should I?

Yes. If you can genetically demonstrate this--phenotypical demonstration notwithstanding. Can you prove this genetically and with lineage? One of my children has blond hair and blue eyes. He still has AI lineage. He and his siblings are 1/16th AI; but he looks like a Dutch boy. His father's mom is 100% Italian; but he does not look like an typical Italian either. Genetics is a funny thing. Point is respect the status for what it is. Unless they procreate w/ those of a strong % of AI, the cut off stops w/ them.

If an Af-Am can make a claim, even if they weren't raised in the hood, then ... hmmm...how is this social justice being equitably applied?

 

[LizzyM]

Why do genetics matter? Does the medical school community and society at large benefit if there is genetic diversity in its class and in the pool of practicing physicians? Doesn't it matter more how people live and present in public than their genetics? If the purpose of diversity in the medical school class is to present a diversity of experiences within the classroom to enhance the learning environment, what does the 1/16th-anything with no life experience related to that genetic heritage bring to the table? If the goal is to provide communities with clinicians who patients will recognize and trust as "one of us", and who are likely to live in and feel comfortable serving in those communities, how does someone who admits not being a part of such a community have any business being admitted as a member of that community?

 

[jl lin]

Why do genetics matter? Does the medical school community and society at large benefit if there is genetic diversity in its class and in the pool of practicing physicians? Doesn't it matter more how people live and present in public than their genetics? If the purpose of diversity in the medical school class is to present a diversity of experiences within the classroom to enhance the learning environment, what does the 1/16th-anything with no life experience related to that genetic heritage bring to the table? If the goal is to provide communities with clinicians who patients will recognize and trust as "one of us", and who are likely to live in and feel comfortable serving in those communities, how does someone who admits not being a part of such a community have any business being admitted as a member of that community?

Well I'd ask why phenotypical presentation would be more valid than genetics--especially with regard to this two low represented and horrifically abused groups. AIs make up ~ 2% of population--that is pretty much the lowest in terms of under-represented. If the core argument is related to social justice, yes. It does matter.

Again, what does Af-Am raised by white families or disconnected from the Af-Am culture have to do either? The issue is as much about social justice against a grossly marginalized group. If you throw that out for one group, you'd have to throw it out for another. But here is the real issue--the political backlash that would ensue. This is insult to injury and disparate treatment among disparate treatment. It's a totally fair point.

Plenty of Af-Am reap the benefits of a marginalized group and don't "give back" after graduation to their own marginalized or even other marginalized groups. How can one miss the smell in "Denmark" here?