• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Race Fraud

varwoche said:
Despite which, people claiming n-a ancestory was a thing, especially amongst young people. We all want to be special is some way or another.

Discrimination wasn't an impediment for Elizabeth Warren. Nor for Rachel Whatshername. And apparently not for Buffy.
Click to expand...


People forget that we’ve already had an NA Vice President. His ancestry was not an impediment.
 
Trausti said:
People forget that we’ve already had an NA Vice President. His ancestry was not an impediment.
Click to expand...

I didn't forget, I never knew. Interesting bit of trivia though, thanks for that.

Edit, doesn't really count, he was a republican.
 
Last edited:
Delvo said:
Of course it was. For one thing, she was a "folk" singer, and a big part of what that genre was all about was embracing cultures & ethnicities & styles other than Euro-American. And white families claiming to have some invisible bit of "native" ancestry was so common it became a trope precisely because people thought it sounded cool (-er than being just white).
Click to expand...

Hell, most Americans seem to think British Isles ancestry is lame now, even though most whites here must be predominantly that. Self-reported ancestry apparently has German as the highest, which I think is horse crap.
 
varwoche said:
Despite which, people claiming n-a ancestory was a thing, especially amongst young people. We all want to be special is some way or another.

Discrimination wasn't an impediment for Elizabeth Warren. Nor for Rachel Whatshername. And apparently not for Buffy.
Click to expand...

I think one issue here is that our society is made up of many smaller sub-cultures. It's both true that on average in the larger American society of the time, Native Americans were discriminated against, and all else being equal an individual had a harder life for being Native American than being white, but also that within some sub-cultures (and the Folk-music subculture was one) Native Americans were looked on positively.

Also worth noting is that, even for those embedded within any particular sub-culture, they have to interact both within and across sub-cultures. As an individual you're affected strongly by the sub-cultures that you're embedded in, but you're also affected by the larger society of which that is a part. How much one values that particular sub-culture one is embedded in would affect the calculus here (of whether or not one consider the net effect to be positive or negative).
 
Venom said:
Self-reported ancestry apparently has German as the highest, which I think is horse crap.
Click to expand...

Sounds believable to me. Beer, hot dogs, and hamburgers are German or German-American. And half of the last 6 presidents have German last names (Trump, Bush, Bush Sr). It's probably just too ingrained here to notice.
 
Venom said:
Hell, most Americans seem to think British Isles ancestry is lame now, even though most whites here must be predominantly that. Self-reported ancestry apparently has German as the highest, which I think is horse crap.
Click to expand...

Actually probably not. The US had a lot of German immigration from early on. It's just that the events of the first half of the twentieth century stopped a lot of people talking about their German ancestry.
 
Pulvinar said:
Sounds believable to me. Beer, hot dogs, and hamburgers are German or German-American. And half of the last 6 presidents have German last names (Trump, Bush, Bush Sr). It's probably just too ingrained here to notice.
Click to expand...

Also: kindergarten. Pretty damn widespread, I'd say. The Germans may have been the most thoroughly melted in the pot!
 
ahhell said:
I think its more likely that if she isn't actually native, it was just a piece of family lore that got passed down that she believed.
Click to expand...

Given the details, that idea doesn't seem to fit very well.

So, her claim is that she was adopted by white parents.

Sainte-Marie's website says she is "believed to have been born" on the Piapot First Nation reserve in Saskatchewan, and that she was adopted by a white American couple as a baby.
Click to expand...
She said her "growing-up mother" had told her many things "including that I was adopted and that I was native but there was no documentation as was common for indigenous children born in the 1940s".

"I may not know where I was born, but I know who I am," she said.
Click to expand...

However a birth certificate seems to contradict that:

That adoption claim is central to CBC's investigation, which reported that Sainte-Marie has a birth certificate in Stoneham, Massachusetts.

That document allegedly indicates that Sainte-Marie - whose full name on the certificate is Beverley Jean Santamaria - was born to Albert, who was Italian-American, and Winifred Santamaria, whose parents had mostly English ancestry.
Click to expand...

Some are questioning whether the birth certificate is real, but that seems far-fetched to me. So if it's "a piece of family lore" then does that mean that her actual biological parents falsely told their daughter that she was adopted? Was is actually common for indigenous children to be adopted by white people with no documentation in the 1940s? (Never mind that this would have been an international adoption, as her parents were Americans and the story is that she was born on a reservation in Saskatchewan.)

If that's "family lore" that got passed down to her, that's pretty messed up.
 
Puppycow said:
Given the details, that idea doesn't seem to fit very well.

So, her claim is that she was adopted by white parents.



However a birth certificate seems to contradict that:



Some are questioning whether the birth certificate is real, but that seems far-fetched to me. So if it's "a piece of family lore" then does that mean that her actual biological parents falsely told their daughter that she was adopted? Was is actually common for indigenous children to be adopted by white people with no documentation in the 1940s? (Never mind that this would have been an international adoption, as her parents were Americans and the story is that she was born on a reservation in Saskatchewan.)

If that's "family lore" that got passed down to her, that's pretty messed up.
Click to expand...
I figure it's more likely "family lore" that she made up.
 
Pulvinar said:
Sounds believable to me. Beer, hot dogs, and hamburgers are German or German-American. And half of the last 6 presidents have German last names (Trump, Bush, Bush Sr). It's probably just too ingrained here to notice.
Click to expand...

Population stats from the colonial era and European immigration show that British Isles (including Ireland) ancestry is the highest overall.

Seems Anglo-Americans just absorbed many German surnames over time and still Anglo names are in the great majority. If you are "white American" and don't live in Wisconsin or Minnesota I have to assume you are predominantly British by blood, though no doubt German is the second-largest ancestry among whites. But Americans seem to love claiming this over "boring" colonial British. Also we had a revolution and beat them back to Britain, now we're all Americans, etc.
 
Last edited:
Venom said:
Population stats from the colonial era and European immigration show that British Isles (including Ireland) ancestry is the highest overall.

Seems Anglo-Americans just absorbed many German surnames over time and still Anglo names are in the great majority. If you are "white American" and don't live in Wisconsin or Minnesota I have to assume you are predominantly British by blood, though no doubt German is the second-largest ancestry among whites. But Americans seem to love claiming this over "boring" colonial British. Also we had a revolution and beat them back to Britain, now we're all Americans, etc.
Click to expand...

"Have to assume", like the precise ethnic heritage of a white person in North America isn't the most inconsequential thing in the world.
 
Venom said:
Population stats from the colonial era and European immigration show that British Isles (including Ireland) ancestry is the highest overall.

Seems Anglo-Americans just absorbed many German surnames over time and still Anglo names are in the great majority. If you are "white American" and don't live in Wisconsin or Minnesota I have to assume you are predominantly British by blood, though no doubt German is the second-largest ancestry among whites. But Americans seem to love claiming this over "boring" colonial British. Also we had a revolution and beat them back to Britain, now we're all Americans, etc.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what data you're looking at, but see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States about halfway down, the "Immigration summary since 1830" table. It shows Germany having the highest immigration rates of all countries for 1850 and later, often double the UK rate.

It certainly sounds strange to me to hear German ancestry considered less boring than colonial British.
 
novaphile said:
Is it worth mentioning that Pennsylvania Dutch, were actually German?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Dutch
Click to expand...

Probably not, but now that you've mentioned it, I feel like it's worth asking why you thought it was worth mentioning. Do you think the Pennsylvania Dutch are committing race fraud? Do you think Rachel Dolezal is looking at a prior art complaint, lodged by a certain community of germanic origin but netherlandic appellation?
 
varwoche said:
Despite which, people claiming n-a ancestory was a thing, especially amongst young people. We all want to be special is some way or another.

Discrimination wasn't an impediment for Elizabeth Warren. Nor for Rachel Whatshername. And apparently not for Buffy.
Click to expand...

It became chic in the late 1960s and early 1970s, largely because of the revisionist history of the American West that became popular around then. See for example Soldier Blue, a 1970 account of the Sand Creek Massacre (for which, by the way Buffy Saint-Marie contributed the title song).
 
theprestige said:
Probably not, but now that you've mentioned it, I feel like it's worth asking why you thought it was worth mentioning. Do you think the Pennsylvania Dutch are committing race fraud? Do you think Rachel Dolezal is looking at a prior art complaint, lodged by a certain community of germanic origin but netherlandic appellation?
Click to expand...

No, just surprised at the idea that any American could consider it to be unusual to have German ancestry.
 
There's nothing exotic or unusual about German ancestry here. That was pitifully obvious utter nonsense, conjured up to "explain" something that didn't even need an explanation: why so many people of German ancestry would "claim" to be of German ancestry. :rolleyes:
 
TragicMonkey said:
Actually probably not. The US had a lot of German immigration from early on. It's just that the events of the first half of the twentieth century stopped a lot of people talking about their German ancestry.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Even some of your so called "Dutch" immigrants were not actually Dutch at all. For example, the so-called "Pennsylvania Dutch" are actually German - the name coming from confusion between "Dutch" and "Deutsch" .
 
Pulvinar said:
I'm not sure what data you're looking at, but see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States about halfway down, the "Immigration summary since 1830" table. It shows Germany having the highest immigration rates of all countries for 1850 and later, often double the UK rate.

It certainly sounds strange to me to hear German ancestry considered less boring than colonial British.
Click to expand...

My point is British ancestry is underreported and underemphasized. Of course if you just count the immigrants it's easy to think Germans are the most numerous. Post-colonial British Isles outnumbered every other Euro group by a good amount. There were also large numbers of English immigrants later on, not as much as German, but combined with Ireland they do exceed German. But it pays to be here first.

Composition of Colonial America

According to estimates by Thomas L. Purvis (1984), published in the European ancestry of the United States, gives the ethnic composition of the American colonies from 1700 to 1755. British ancestry in 1755 was estimated to be 63%, comprising 52% English and Welsh, 7.0% Scots-Irish, and 4% Scottish.[25]

Studies on origins, 1790

The ancestry of the 3,929,214 population in 1790 has been estimated by various sources by sampling last names in the very first United States official census and assigning them a country of origin.[14] There is debate over the accuracy between the studies with individual scholars and the Federal Government using different techniques and conclusion for the ethnic composition.[29][14] A study published in 1909 titled A Century of Population Growth by the Census Bureau estimated the British origin combined were around 90% of the white population.[30][31][32]

Another source by Thomas L. Purvis in 1984[33] estimated that people of British ancestry made up about 62% of the total population or 74% of the white or European American population.[33] Some 81% of the total United States population was of European heritage.[34] Around 757,208 were of African descent with 697,624 being slaves.[35]
Click to expand...


Former U.S. Census demographer Campbell Gibson estimated that about half of the U.S. population before 1990 could be attributed to this original post-Independence population. And this of course doesn't include the nearly 7 million English and Irish who immigrated the following century.
 
IMV it might well be true about Buffy St. Marie's parents adopting her in the 1940's and technically, illegally naming themselves as the biological parents. It happened a lot in Ireland; an illegitimate baby would be adopted by parents having difficulty conceiving or out of compassion and they'd name themselves as the natural parents. This has caused problems for the adopted children of these parents later on in life. Legally, of course, there is a proper process that should have taken place and formalised. I can quite believe Buffy was one such adopted baby; childless couple sees the opportunity to have an orphaned (presumably) cute little baby girl for themselves. And nobody to challenge it.
 
theprestige said:
I'm asking you what the connection is. People who downplay their UKian heritage aren't committing race fraud.
Click to expand...

It seems part of the general tendency here to claim some part of you that is small or socially insignificant because it's America the melting pot everyone wants to show how diverse they are. And even quite xenophobic folks do this from my experience. Not saying it's bad, just annoying at times.
 
Vixen said:
IMV it might well be true about Buffy St. Marie's parents adopting her in the 1940's and technically, illegally naming themselves as the biological parents. It happened a lot in Ireland; an illegitimate baby would be adopted by parents having difficulty conceiving or out of compassion and they'd name themselves as the natural parents. This has caused problems for the adopted children of these parents later on in life. Legally, of course, there is a proper process that should have taken place and formalised. I can quite believe Buffy was one such adopted baby; childless couple sees the opportunity to have an orphaned (presumably) cute little baby girl for themselves. And nobody to challenge it.
Click to expand...
The evidence suggests otherwise...birth certificate, hospital records, non- existent adoption record, family member denials, her story which has changed over the years.
 
varwoche said:
The evidence suggests otherwise...birth certificate, hospital records, non- existent adoption record, family member denials, her story which has changed over the years.
Click to expand...

Re the birth certificate. This is a document that can be registered by either parent. It is quite feasible - and did happen in Ireland - that her parents having taken her from the Native Indian go-between presented her as their own offspring. It doesn't name a hospital. Alternatively, perhaps the mother had an extra-marital affair with a Native Indian man and her husband accepted the resulting offspring as his own. This has happened in England where the child was obviously of a different heritage from the father. Look at Heidi, her sister, looks nothing like Buffy. It could well be that Buffy had to construct a narrative around her roots - many adopted children do this, which could explain why her story changes. Plus of course, she made a lot of money out of Soldier Blue and some great records. Add into the mix family conflict, and maybe it is not really an exposure after all.
 
varwoche said:
Full stop. Are you knowledgeable about MA state law?
Click to expand...

No, but I can well believe in the 1940's with war babies and as Buffy says, the treatment of the US/Canadian Native American tribes, it is quite possible her parents registered her as their own having just taken her from whoever, without the pesky formalities of adoption. Also, there was a lot of infidelity going on in he war years and that's another possibility. Whoever the mother is married to becomes the legal father if his name s on the birth certificate even if he is not the biological father. - Just my opinion.
 
Vixen said:
No, but I can well believe in the 1940's with war babies and as Buffy says, the treatment of the US/Canadian Native American tribes, it is quite possible her parents registered her as their own having just taken her from whoever, without the pesky formalities of adoption. Also, there was a lot of infidelity going on in he war years and that's another possibility. Whoever the mother is married to becomes the legal father if his name s on the birth certificate even if he is not the biological father. - Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
What is the deal with dismissing official documents? There's a birth certificate. It's on record. It can be verified. BSM is saying, no no, ignore the verifiable, documented account. The real truth just coincidentally happens to be something that isn't documented and cannot possibly be verified.

Poor record keeping is a gold mine for identity forgers. Claiming that your true identity is from a place of poor record keeping makes your claim less plausible, not more plausible. You can imagine as many scenarios for BSM as you like. There's only one scenario that is officially documented. Imagining other scenarios won't falsify that document, no matter how baroque your imagined scenarios are.
 
Puppycow said:
The birth certificate says that she was born at a hospital (New Eng. San. & Hosp.) and is signed by the attending doctor.
Click to expand...

OK, I see the name of the hospital now. Is it the hospital that registers the birth in the USA/Canada? I ask because in the UK, it is the parent registers the birth at the registry office. Even if it was the hospital notifying a birth, how do they know who the father is, except by verbal affirmation of one or other of the parents?
 
Vixen said:
OK, I see the name of the hospital now. Is it the hospital that registers the birth in the USA/Canada? I ask because in the UK, it is the parent registers the birth at the registry office. Even if it was the hospital notifying a birth, how do they know who the father is, except by verbal affirmation of one or other of the parents?
Click to expand...


Try reading the birth certificate you said you've already read...
 
Vixen said:
OK, I see the name of the hospital now. Is it the hospital that registers the birth in the USA/Canada? I ask because in the UK, it is the parent registers the birth at the registry office. Even if it was the hospital notifying a birth, how do they know who the father is, except by verbal affirmation of one or other of the parents?
Click to expand...
You've introduced an intriguing possibility that not even Buffy endorses. The mom got knocked up while vacationing in Canada.

Textbook JAQing.
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
You've introduced an intriguing possibility that not even Buffy endorses. The mom got knocked up while vacationing in Canada.

Textbook JAQing.
Click to expand...

I get that everybody has a birth certificate. However, there was a recent case of someone in Ireland who discovered that the parents named on her birth certificate were not her parents at all. She did some research and discovered that it had been relatively common for some parents to have skipped the formal adoption phase and just bunged their own names onto the birth cerrtificate.

Buffy claims something like this happened to her. She says it happened to Native Indian persons in the 1940's. Sounds plausible to me.

Some statistician claimed that up to one in three fathers named on birth certificates in the 1940's were not the biological fathers. Most probably completely unaware. It is only the dawn of DNA testing that people have started to discover the startling truth.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I get that everybody has a birth certificate. However, there was a recent case of someone in Ireland who discovered that the parents named on her birth certificate were not her parents at all. She did some research and discovered that it had been relatively common for some parents to have skipped the formal adoption phase and just bunged their own names onto the birth cerrtificate.

Buffy claims something like this happened to her. She says it happened to Native Indian persons in the 1940's. Sounds plausible to me.

Some statistician claimed that up to one in three fathers named on birth certificates in the 1940's were not the biological fathers. Most probably completely unaware. It is only the dawn of DNA testing that people have started to discover the startling truth.
Click to expand...

Of course it sounds plausible. The fraud wouldn't work if it didn't.

But nobody has discovered anything in this case. There's just the unevidenced, unverifiable claim. The only "startling truth" here is the official document that contradicts the claim. What's the deal with you dismissing official documents? Do you have some better evidence of what really happened?
 
Vixen said:
I get that everybody has a birth certificate. However, there was a recent case of someone in Ireland who discovered that the parents named on her birth certificate were not her parents at all. She did some research and discovered that it had been relatively common for some parents to have skipped the formal adoption phase and just bunged their own names onto the birth certificate.
Click to expand...

Ireland is not the USA.

Vixen said:
Buffy claims something like this happened to her. She says it happened to Native Indian persons in the 1940's. Sounds plausible to me.
Click to expand...
1) Where does she make this claim - is it with the other claims of being from 3 different tribes?

2) A Dr certified that he had delivered the baby at the named hospital in the USA. For it to be "plausible" can you please indicate where we know that in the 1940s that the state of Canada - allowing babies with no documentation to cross the border, the state of the USA - allowing babies with no documentation to cross the border, the USA hospitals allowing their names to be used fraudulently, and the attending Doctors lying on state documents was happening?


Vixen said:
Some statistician claimed that up to one in three fathers named on birth certificates in the 1940's were not the biological fathers. Most probably completely unaware. It is only the dawn of DNA testing that people have started to discover the startling truth.
Click to expand...

What has cuckooing got to do with this instance?
 
theprestige said:
Of course it sounds plausible. The fraud wouldn't work if it didn't.

But nobody has discovered anything in this case. There's just the unevidenced, unverifiable claim. The only "startling truth" here is the official document that contradicts the claim. What's the deal with you dismissing official documents? Do you have some better evidence of what really happened?
Click to expand...

We also have her cousins and uncles denying her origin story. This fraud is clear cut. I can even give her the benefit of the doubt as to why she started telling tall tales about her origins. It does seem thanks to the letter from one of her uncles that the "Indian" label origins were perhaps from press agencies (what we would call PR agencies today) stories (which did back then invent fictitious histories - you only have to look at the stories they created for many of the stars of Hollywood to see this "creativity" aka lying in action.
However she has to account for how her story changed over the years before settling on one origin story.
 
Vixen said:
I get that everybody has a birth certificate. However, there was a recent case of someone in Ireland who discovered that the parents named on her birth certificate were not her parents at all. She did some research and discovered that it had been relatively common for some parents to have skipped the formal adoption phase and just bunged their own names onto the birth cerrtificate.

Buffy claims something like this happened to her. She says it happened to Native Indian persons in the 1940's. Sounds plausible to me.

Some statistician claimed that up to one in three fathers named on birth certificates in the 1940's were not the biological fathers. Most probably completely unaware. It is only the dawn of DNA testing that people have started to discover the startling truth.
Click to expand...
A hospital in MA assisted with this subterfuge? And a MA doctor? And i suppose in your fevered imagination her relatives have an agenda?

Your idle speculation is disconnected from the facts to an impressive degree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom