U.S. Census!

"Race" IS a cultural construct. There is no genetic or biological basis for race and not all racial distinctions in all of human history have been based on appearance. Roughly speaking, the cultural idea of "race" is based more on identifying reproducing population groups--a way of defining and separating out who is "us," "them," and "the other." How populations segregate--by appearance, geographically, by religion, etc., is secondary but seems to be something we notice. The more population groups mix, the less relevant the concept becomes. In terms of appearance, though, think of it this way: All humans have the genetic potential to carry any human trait. Within populations that have been segregated in some way from others over long periods of time, many may share common traits. The expression of several common traits simultaneously within a group that already identifies itself or is identified by others as a population group can lead to the cultural creation of a "race." Mutational markers can also be associated with certain population groups. The thing is, as soon as any group begins reproducing with individuals from outside the group, their common trait combinations and mutations spread. Even a single prolific individual can have a big impact, that is how geneticists have traced the route of Ghenghis Khan and identified roughly 16 million of his male descendants. In our country, more and more we are defining "race" based on continental descent--European American, Asian American, African American. But how many average Americans would identify Indians from India, Vietnamese, Japanese, Tibetans, Koreans, Eastern Russians, and Siberian peoples all as "Asian"? And how many of those groups, here or in Asia, would identify with the others as being of the same "race"? To them, to say that they are "Asian" simply identifies their continent of origin, not their "race." Not so long ago, English poets and English/German American politicians referred to the "Irish race." Also not so long ago in the United States, many Mediterranean Americans were referred to as "gypsies" by those descended from earlier Northern European and English immigrants and not considered part of the white "race." That the word "gypsy" in Europe actually referred to the Romani, didn't matter even when known--to established Americans descended from the most common earlier settlers, anyone dark complected not AA could be or was a "gypsy" or, confusingly enough, "Spanish." How about First Americans? Today First Americans are identified as a single racial group. I have no doubt, however, that First Americans did not view themselves as a single group until very recently in the long history of people on this continent. Bottom line, how a race is defined depends purely upon who is defining it. If you identify as First American or are descended from First Americans and support recognition, then I think you are free to identify as such for the Census.

I identify as a black Indian. I'm putting down 2 tribes: Montaukett and cherokee as 2 great grandmothers are full Indian.

If you did a DNA test, 4 of 5 of us in our family would probably be identifable as having Native American ancestors. Only 2 of us physically look Native American. Only 2 of us are legally members of a tribe. To really confuse things, the two that look more Native American aren't the two legally members of their tribe. I wound up marking Native American for the two who have legal tribal membership. I just decided the best thing to do was to mark Native American for those I could legally prove it.

To answer the Census correctly, if you are both Native American Indian and White, then check both boxes. List the NA Indian tribe if known.Mine was more complicated. My birth records are sealed, and the Children's Home did release the non-ID until 2007 (see [URL="http://forums.adoption.com/ohio-adoption-records/370132-worthingtons-childrens-home.html"]here[/URL]). When I did an autosomal DNA test (AncestryByDNA 2.5), my Native American Indian estimate was to be 29% (possible range of 20% to 38%). After I located my birth-mother's family in early 2010, she confirmed my birth-father (through a third party intermediary) was from Mexico (Mestizo: half NA Indian & half Spanish), and some of the information recorded by the social workers at the time was not completely correct. I do not know the exact tribe from Mexico, and my modified birth certificate listed me was white.Therefore, when I answered the Census, I listed Hispanic, Native American Indian, and White. For Hispanic, I indicated Mexico, and for the NA Indian I put N/A since I will not know this information until I locate my birth-father. I could have probably received minority aid in college if the adoption records hiding my Native American Indian / Hispanic ancestry had not been sealed. When I was growing-up, people asked if I was part Native American Indian, or Latino. Not sure why ancestry was hidden from me for so many years.