[serpentor]

God damn it. That guy needs to learn to spell out certain key points, when writing an article. Maybe he'll consider bouncing his material off an editor from time to time.

  I’ve long ceased questioning students about the specifics 
  of their claims. Their imagined genealogies may simply be 
  a product of family lore, or, as is occasionally the 
  case, a genuine connection to a Cherokee family and 
  community.

  ... help explain why the Cherokees occupy a prominent place 
  in our collective historical consciousness.

  ... why so many Americans hope to find a Cherokee in their family tree.

He doesn't come right out and say it, for whatever reason, but the thrust of the article is that such claims are dubious, tall tales.

He needs to add at least one sentence clarifying that he believes most, if not all such claims to be full of shit, and pants-on-head silly, or just plain college student shenanigans.

His article would further benefit from a line or three stating plainly that:

1. The Cherokee possess the most popular of all Native American tribal names. People who are lying tend to craft their lies around well-known popular things, especially when a well-known thing might be THE ONLY thing they can remember in a subject area.

2. The Cherokee nation possesses a sympathetic tale as part of the fabric of their historical background. This benefits liars, because it's more difficult to accuse lies upon a person courting sympathy. You better be sure of your accusation, or you'll seem to be a villain amongst the liar's audience.

3. The Cherokee actually DO have a REAL diaspora of actual credible descendents, larger in size than most other nations. This contributes to a knock-on effect that ties into reason number one, there are more actual Cherokees floating around, thus they are more well-known, and thus remain the go-to Indian name for people who might craft lies to embellish their heritage in casual conversation.

These are the main points I'm gathering from the author's article, although he kind of couches his words in oblique assumptions about the reader.

Maybe he's worried about catching heat over proposing these sorts of ideas.

[lobster_johnson]

Not saying it was a brilliant article, but I got all three points without having to read it multiple times, and I thought it was quite clear. I liked that he didn't spoon feed the reader with predigested conclusions.

[serpentor]

I'm complaining about his beating around the bush, not a reading comprehension thing. I like to know where the author stands on the topic at the outset, otherwise the article feels dishonest.

For example:

  I think there are a lot of people lying to 
  themselves and others about their own 
  ancestry.

Compared to:

  Isn't it interesting that so many people feel 
  compelled to form opinions about how we might 
  notice that there are statistical variances,
  when comparing observable heritage, as 
  compared to reported heritage? I wonder why 
  that would be? Some might say these are 
  alleged fabrications, but then again this 
  could all be very innocent.

[lobster_johnson]

But that's clearly inferred by this:

    In the United States alone, the Cherokee Nation of
    Oklahoma estimates there are over 200 fraudulent
    groups claiming to be Cherokee. Visit websites
    devoted to genealogy, and one will find scores of
    Americans expressing their disappointment when DNA
    testing contradicts family legnds about great,
    great grandma being Cherokee.

So, first of all, there are groups that outright make fraudulent claims about Cherokee ancestry. Secondly, there are lots of people who have believed — and claimed — to be descendants of Cherokee who discover that they have in fact been mislead.

You could argue that he doesn't provide the evidence (who are these 200 groups, and where do we find these "scores of Americans expressing their disappointment"?), but that's par for the course in a fluffy article like this. I don't see any bushes being beaten around, however.

[bjterry]

The problem is that by not plainly stating his position, if someone challenges it he can always fall back on, "I didn't say that" which is annoying for interlocutors. He doesn't even have to be the kind of person who would fall back on that defense, because it's so common that people are on their guard for it. It's difficult to have a quality discourse with someone that won't make their point plainly and argues mostly by implication.