Talk:Jimi Hendrix

Heritage

Since the FA review in 2014, a new book has been published, titled Black-Native Autobiographical Acts: Navigating the Minefields of Authenticity, by a San Francisco State University Professor, Sarita Cannon. Regarding Harry Shapiro and Caesar Glebbeek's biography, which was used as the source for the WP article, she writes:[1]

While Jimi Hendrix was the first person to be inducted into the Native American Music Award Hall of Fame ... his Indian heritage has not been officially documented ... In Electric Gypsy, Harry Shapiro and Caesar Glebbeek provide a detailed family tree that traces Hendrix's paternal ancestry to his great-great-grandparents: a "full-blood Cherokee princess" and an "Irishman named Moore." (Shapiro and Glebbeek 1990, 6) In terms of blood quantum, this would make Jimi Hendrix one-sixteenth Cherokee (Shapiro and Glebbeek 1990, 13). Hendrix learned about his Indian ancestry from his grandmother, Nora Rose Hendrix (nee Moore) who was born in 1883 to the "Cherokee Princess's" son, Robert, and a Black woman named Fanny (Shapiro and Glebbeek 1990, 6). Shapiro and Glebbeek describe Hendrix's visits as a child to Nora in Vancouver where she told stories about her life as a vaudeville performer and recounted "Indian tales of wonder." (Shapiro and Glebbeek 1990, 34) From a young age, Hendrix knew about his native heritage and was informed by the version of Indian culture that his grandmother Nora shared with him. But no documentation of Hendrix's Cherokee blood has been found, and its absence is potentially problematic, especially given the history of appropriation of Indian cultures and identities by non-Indians.

Any ideas on how this be handled in the article?

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

See the source and text I added, as well as what I cut. The "Cherokee Princess" [sic] claim was part of her stage persona. And his. Anyone who actually writes "Cherokee Princess" is not a reliable source. I've spelled out in the text that the claim was part of their stage personas. And that though Hendrix does seem to have taken it more seriously than she did, it has been debunked by genealogists. I can tell you that, as much as many of us would love to claim him, sadly, no tribe claims him because it's simply not true. Native identity is not about what someone claims, it's about whether a legitimate tribe claims them. (If you don't know, I am heavily involved in the Indigenous wikiproject and we deal with issues of Native identity in bios every day. See the Pretendian article, for example.) - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I will also add, that the Cherokee are not only the most well-documented tribe, but they have better genealogical records than most white people of the same eras. It's a myth among non-Natives that these things are hard to find out. Additionally, the Cherokee Nation has one of the most (arguably the most) liberal enrollment policies of any legitimate tribe out there. All one has to do is document one Cherokee ancestor. There are tons of people who would be eager to find that ancestor for Jimi. They tried. Hard. The ancestor isn't there. There are also a bunch of fake Cherokee "tribes". I'm sure some of those may have claimed him, but the fake groups don't require any ancestry or cultural connection at all, just a "sincere belief" that one has some ancestry. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

First, let me say that I'm not interested in perpetrating an idea of Hendrix's heritage that is not true. But since this is a featured article, it should reflect only what is published in reliable sources. Shapiro and Glebbeek were one of the first to publish an in-depth Hendrix bio (1990 with a genealogical chart), which was used in the article and discussed in the Cannon quote above. More recently, Charles R. Cross' Room Full of Mirrors (2005) added to Hendrix's heritage, claiming that he was "at least one-eighth Native American". [p. 17] If it is later claimed that they were wrong, there should be a reliable source that shows this.

After a brief search,[2] I could only find Cannon, who only goes as far as to say "his Indian heritage has not been officially documented ... no documentation of Hendrix's Cherokee blood has been found". The online essay link you added (Shaefer 2017) says "Amateur genealogists have since cast doubt on the claim", but does not identify who they are or point out what specific errors they found in the earlier authors' research. I did googlebook searches for "sam schaefer",[3] "samantha schaefer",[4] and "schaefer" + "hendrix",[5] but didn't find that they published any books. Also, "schaefer" + "Racial Ambiguity and Mid-twentieth Century American Musicians",[6] doesn't show any results. Cannon's book, which has a chapter on Hendrix (32 pages), was published four years after Schafer's essay. It seems unusual that she does not cite Schaefer if Schaefer is a known expert nor mention the results of newer genealogical research if it is available. Are there any more reliable sources which show that Hendrix's Indian heritage has actually been debunked and is not just lacking in documentation?

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

What proof of heritage has ever been offered besides his accounts of his grandmother's stories?

The "aspects of Indian culture" he "adopted" for his stage persona were not Cherokee. They were pretendian - based on Hollywood and vaudeville stereotypes, as had been his grandmother's stage persona. The stereoptypes were mix and match Plains/African/Creole/invented. There was absolutely nothing indicating a Cherokee heritage, cultural connection, or cultural knowledge. Not a single thing. I'm sorry, but we see these things all the time, and it's very clear he was, most likely with utter sincerity, operating under a blood myth. His claims were of recent heritage. Were they true, he'd have proud cousins in community, right now, claiming him.

Most non-Natives, including non-Native genealogists, don't know about the extensive genealogical records kept by the Cherokee, and don't have access to them. Family stories of blood myths aren't reliable. Watch Dr. Gates' documentary on this issue in Black families. Just as many white families invented stories of "Indian" ancestors to hide their Black ancestors, many Black families invented Native stories to hide painful (or simply less-appealing) stories of white ancestors. If he had any Cherokee ancestry, we'd have proof. It would have been published long ago. And I'd be able to make a phone call right now and confirm it.

Tribal officials rarely go to the trouble of making official statements about false claimants (though these things are discussed all the time, informally). I only know of a few times they've done it, and it's generally been in more recent years when a person has said or done something harmful. Aside from some stereotypes with the "exoticism", that many were engaging in at the time, Hendrix was not someone most would see as harmful in any way, so I think many looked the other way. I know some even wish it were true, being fans. But that doesn't mean we can leave a falsehood in on WP. And, FWIW, the NAMMYs are kind of a joke. They routinely include pretendians in their "Native" categories and award people who promote stereoypes. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a case of conflicting sources. On one hand, several Hendrix biographers have noted Hendrix's Indian or Cherokee "heritage" and on the other, an academic asserts that this has not been officially documented, which causes certain problems. Currently, the main article only includes one mention of Indian heritage (his mother's "alleged Cherokee heritage", Cross p. 12) [only Cross claims this, now removed] and his induction into the Native American Music Hall of Fame. One footnote includes material with Schafer as the source. As outlined above, Schaefer does not appear to meet the "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" exception in WP:SELFPUBLISH. The footnote also includes material from The Blood of Entertainers: The Life and Times of Jimi Hendrix's Paternal Grandparents, an article by Hendrix's sister, Janie. It provides details about their grandmother's Cherokee heritage and vaudeville career, which may also be unsuitable.

Propose to remove "alleged Cherokee heritage" from the second paragraph and [done] reword the first along the lines of:

Jimi Hendrix's heritage was African American and Irish. His paternal grandfather, Bertran Philander Ross Hendrix, was born in 1866 out of an extramarital affair between a woman named Fanny and a grain merchant from Urbana, Ohio, or Illinois, one of the wealthiest men in the area at that time. Hendrix's paternal grandmother, Zenora "Nora" Rose Moore, was a former dancer, and the two met and married while traveling the U.S. in a vaudeville troupe. Hendrix and Moore relocated to Vancouver, where they had a son they named James Allen Hendrix on June 10, 1919; the family called him "Al".

I believe this removes any perceived falsehoods. I'm not sure how to handle the NAMMY, except to link the same footnote as above.

—Ojorojo (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

There are still problems with the wording that gloss over these biographers inability to either understand, or reliably report on, Cherokee heritage - notably their culturally inaccurate terminology. Also, Ojorojo, this is important: It is not up to academics to say who is and is not Cherokee. It is up to the Cherokee people. They say Hendrix is not Cherokee. Self-claims, which are all Hendrix has, do not count.

I'll take a pass at it:

Jimi Hendrix's heritage was African American and Irish. His paternal grandfather, Bertran Philander Ross Hendrix, was born in 1866 out of an extramarital affair between a woman named Fanny and a grain merchant from Urbana, Ohio, or Illinois, one of the wealthiest men in the area at that time. Hendrix's paternal grandmother, Zenora "Nora" Rose Moore, was a former dancer and vaudeville performer who would prove to be a profound influence on the young Hendrix. Hendrix and Moore relocated to Vancouver, where they had a son they named James Allen Hendrix on June 10, 1919; the family called him "Al".

It's important, especially for a FA, to stick to the sources. The two cited biographers both have not "noted that Nora alternately claimed" anything. She died in 1984, well before either bio was written. Shapiro includes a long list of acknowledgements, including several Hendrix family members (but not Nora) and genealogical libraries; Cross does likewise, but no genealogical libraries. Cross does not list the earlier grandmothers by name, so it's not clear why he differs from Shapiro's genealogical chart. My earlier wording is accurate – wherever they got their information, they present it as simple statements, with no "according to" or "as claimed by".

Also, neither source says that Nora was a "profound influence on the young Hendrix", but rather that Jimi liked her a lot and enjoyed listening to her stories. It sounds more like what Janie Hendrix wrote in her article, but, being a primary source, she probably shouldn't be used. So, unless you have some more reliable sources, these changes shouldn't be made (but the last sentence you've added is OK).

—Ojorojo (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix's heritage was African American and Irish. His paternal grandfather, Bertran Philander Ross Hendrix, was born in 1866 out of an extramarital affair between a woman named Fanny and a grain merchant from Urbana, Ohio, or Illinois, one of the wealthiest men in the area at that time. Hendrix's paternal grandmother, Zenora "Nora" Rose Moore, was a former dancer and vaudeville performer. Hendrix and Moore relocated to Vancouver, where they had a son they named James Allen Hendrix on June 10, 1919; the family called him "Al".

More concise, less false claims to distract. She can't have "shared Native culture with him" if she wasn't Native. And given what he presented as "Native culture", I'm sorry, but that's not what happened. I have the utmost compassion for his belief in this blood myth, but that's clearly what it was - a myth. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

But for WP purposes, it only matters what reliable sources have to say. The first paragraph has been added, but there are still problems with the footnotes. Again, the first sentence is simply untrue – none of the sources say nor imply this. There is no record that Nora, Jimi, or other family members referred to a "Cherokee princess". Shapiro and Glebbeek appear to be the only ones who use the term and they do not attribute to to anyone. I found an additional reliable source that specifically says that Hendrix is "not enrolled in any Cherokee tribe". More has been trimmed and clarified.

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Some clarification is probably needed regarding Hendrix's NAMMY in another footnote under "Recognition and awards".

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

You don't seem to me to have read the guidelines I asked you to read about what is and is not a reliable source for Indigenous identity. Have you read The guidelines by the Indigenous wikiproject on this issue? Anything can call itself "Native", but if they list known non-Natives, they are not RS. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

One non-Native author's opinion about whether or not someone was Playing Indian is insufficient for inclusion in something like this. It's opinion. If that is to be included, so should the source I cited, on an academic website, that discussed his conscious use of "racial exoticism" as part of his stage persona. I cringe writing that, as I love Hendrix, but it's true. As are the quotes where he also claimed to be Cuban and "from Mars". It was showmanship. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The mention of the native-topic encyclopedias was to provide some context for Hendrix's NAMMY, otherwise it might seem like a random choice to readers who may have skipped over the Ancestry section. They weren't sources for his ethnicity, so they really aren't needed. Regarding the rest: Hendrix had a peculiar way of expressing himself and used a lot of imagery and humor. Being Cuban and from Mars were clearly jokes, but I honestly don't believe that being part Cherokee was one or that he was intending to deceive or using it as just another gimmick. Added the latest version. —Ojorojo (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I used to contribute to this article. In 2016, I attempted to get a citation for the claim that Hendrix was Irish, and found conflicting and insufficient information. I suggest either we remove that first sentence, or go back to saying he had a diverse heritage. In the “Blood of Entertainers” article published by Janie L. Hendrix, it is stated that Robert Moore, Jimi Hendrix’s great-grandfather, was a freed slave. It also says that his wife Fanny was half African-American and half Cherokee. There is no mention of Irish heritage for either of them. The Shapiro book that claimed that Robert Moore was half Irish and half Cherokee, and that Fanny was African-American. Janie Hendrix was not a blood relative, but her 2008 account seemed just as believable as the 1990 book. Because of the disputed information, I explained the situation at the time, removed the reference to him being Irish and no one objected. Now it's back in there, but references to Hendrix being part Irish are scant, certainly compared to the claims that he was part Cherokee.

As for the Cherokee question - what is not disputed in the two conflicting sources above is that Hendrix’s paternal grandmother was one-quarter Cherokee. I understand there is a history of people making vague claims of being part Native American. Maybe Hendrix’s claim is not backed by a lot of evidence, but a number of prominent sources claim it. We tend to go with what the sources say. I don't see any reason to exclude reference to him being part Native American, unless there is definitive new research with strong evidence that he was not. What are your thoughts? Tidewater 2014 (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read, or re-read more carefully, the extensive discussion above about how we reliably source Cherokee identity claims on Wikipedia, including the links I posted, such as to the WP:BLOODMYTH essay by the Indigenous Wikiproject. We've resolved how to handle this. As to the Irish ancestry, I really haven't looked into it, but the usual WP sourcing standards apply. If we have RS sources, it stays, if we don't, it goes. Or, if it's unclear, we can put his possible Irish heritage in a footnote with the exact wording used in the best sources available. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. After several confusing edits and a tag, it seemed easier to restore the wording from the FA reviewed version, so "Irish" reappeared (convenience rather than by design). The source, Shapiro and Glebbeek, prepared a genealogical chart and describe Robert Moore's parents (Nora's grandparents) as a "full-blood Cherokee" and "an Irishman named Moore" (no other names) [1990, p. 6]. Other sources include "The only information available [about Mr. Moore] is that he was a wealthy English or Irishman." [Brown 1992, p. 6]; "Nora Moore, the daughter [sic] of a full-blooded Cherokee mother and an Irish father" [Lawrence 2005, p.4]; and Nora "was part Native American—Cherokee—as well as part African American and Irish". [Obrecht 2017, p. 25] That's about it – some may feel that being one sixteenth this and one thirty-second that is not really that important. If you think the Irish claim is too slim, go ahead and remove it or move it to a footnote. My personal feeling is that a relatively short bio of Hendrix should not get bogged down with competing details and long explanations of why one is more correct than the other. —Ojorojo (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Ojorojo, and I agree. Your many contributions to the article and attention to detail are appreciated. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

As for the Cherokee claim, the way you have it seems good - I have a couple improvements to suggest. Removing it from the main article and having a footnote is fine, though the footnote says "non-native" biographers referred to him as being part Cherokee. Is that relevant? It seems that the accuracy of the claim should be all that matters, not the ethnicity of the biographer. Hendrix and some family members believed they were part Native American. Many sources echo this, but other sources say it is unproven. Most sources and most of the footnote text echo this discrepancy, but #10 is a general article about cultural appropriation that doesn't even mention Hendrix. Seems like original research. I'm not sure if #9 mentions Hendrix either. We should stick to sources that mention Hendrix and specifically address the claim.

As for the Irish claim, it's unclear and a footnote on that would be fine as well. The two sources above (a biographer and an adopted family member) disagree. I suggest removing the first sentence, and adding a new footnote. Any objections? Tidewater 2014 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The background of the author goes to their knowledge and credibility. "Non-Native biographers" is relevant and important to include as most non-Natives have no idea how Indigenous identity (or descendancy) is determined. As we note in the linked materials, even the New York Times has gotten it wrong, because they don't ask actual Natives. The people who say he had Cherokee heritage also wrote blatant misinformation about Cherokee people. We needed to contextualize that to show why those biographer's statements about his ancestry aren't credible. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I hear you but that’s a slippery slope – even if we went with that premise, say a biographer is Mohawk. They aren’t necessarily going to know any more than a non-Native whether someone is Cherokee. Tribes aren’t all the same. Not to mention, how do we know the biographers are not Native? But I’m getting off topic – like you I see no compelling reason for the article to state that Hendrix was part-Native. It would be acceptable to say something to the effect that he and his family claimed/believed they were, but it’s such a minor detail I’ll leave that to someone else. I’ll make some minor tweaks in a few days and add the footnote previously described for the Irish issue. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

A possible solution would be to replace the "Several non-Native Hendrix biographers ..." sentence with one about statements that have been made by members of the Hendrix family over the years: Hendrix and his father Al, brother Leon, and sister Janie, all have made statements that Nora had Cherokee ancestry.[Roby 2012, p. 165 quoting Jimi][Higgins 1970, p. 60 quoting Al][Leon Hendrix 2012, p. 32][Janie Hendrix 2008? essay] The statements were made in their own words, so there is no room for biographers' bias or misinterpretation. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that would be an improvement. We cite the current third-party sources, as flawed as they may be, to get some perspective and context on the self-claim. In absence of supporting evidence, a self-claim by an immediate family member is really no different, in terms of veracity, than Hendrix's own statement. Additionally, it's the biographers, for decades spreading tales of "Cherokee Princess" ancestors, and being cited uncritically as factual, who are to blame for the perpetuation of these myths. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Onecurrency's opinions on DNA, visual assessment of Cherokee heritage, etc:

Extended content

In the absence of DNA analysis, the "exact" nature of Jimi Hendrix's genetic heritage will remain unknown- even as to paternity. Let's start with a crude "eye test". Could he pass for "African American"? Certainly. Could he pass for "Irish"? No-at least not beyond a tiny fraction. Could he pass for [part-]"Cherokee"? Yes. Putting "Irish" and "African-American" on a par is absurd. "Cherokee"- much less so. So who is "Cherokee", and who makes the call? Legally, it may be up to the Cherokee Nation to decide. For historical purposes - like a Wikipedia entry- that is insufficient. Let's not pretend the elders or other political authorities are "neutral" truth-seekers on the matter. https://www.salon.com/2013/05/21/slave_descendants_seek_equal_rights_from_cherokee_nation_partner/ The Jefferson family of Virginia denied affinity with Thomas' offspring by his slave Sally Hemings for about 200 years- until DNA proved all those "self-serving" tales and lewd rumors (not to mention contemporary "eye tests" by guests at Monticello) true. The "Princess" myths may be quite offensive as "Pretendian", but Cherokee perpetuation of slavery long after the Trail of Tears and subsequequent allegiance with the Confederacy are not "pretend" stories- and are also quite offensive. "Heritage" in this context is not a legal term. It may refer to inherited ethnicity, nationality, genetics, or cultural upbringing or allegiance. The Cherokee Nation denied that even "African" slaves they had owned from birth were entitled to share the benefits of tribal membership. But since many of those material benefits came from the United States (a better historical if not legal term might be "reparations") they were forced to accept- at least in writing- President Lincoln's terms of emancipation with full equality in 1866. But the term "Cherokee"- like "African-American" or "Irish" or "Irish-American"- is also subject to interpretation. The cultures, societies, tribes, nations or empires that dominated North and South America before Columbus were not so primitive as to ignore the benefits of systematic genetic and cultural diversity. (Those few remote "indigenous" peoples that survived despite insularity and isolation remained insular and isolated- relegated to a small mountainous island like Dominica or a deep pocket of the Amazon jungle.) The Cherokee were large and powerful enough to be deemed a threat or competitive nuisance to US expansion in the South so President Jackson viciously expelled them all in 1838 (in open defiance of the written legal opinion of the US Supreme Court- still led by John Marshall, who had assigned his fellow self-appointed-for-life Federalist cabal in black robes the unofficial role as ultimate interpreters of the Constitution- the "Supreme Law of the Land" by its terms). A nominal cash payment was tendered for the land, but that would go to the Cherokee elites- slaveholders who better could afford the difficult but "voluntary" relocation. For the marginal members- like mixed-heritage or even lower-status "full-blooded" Cherokee, odds may well have favored running and hiding in the hills as fugitives- full disassociation with any visible Cherokee identity to avoid internment camps... forced marches... genocide. This is exactly the story that Jimi's maternal grandmother Clarice told about her "Cherokee forebears" (as related by Jimi's aunt Delores to Charles Cross, Born in 1894, in Little Rock, AK, Clarice claimed that slaves hid Cherokee fugitives, who then intermarried with them. They would have actively hidden their inherited cultural identity and sought to mix their children's DNA ASAP- not just for disease immunity but to survive the law- even in an underclass. (A person with Tiger Woods' genetic mix, e.g. might have avoided internment in a US concentration camp as late as the time of Jimi's birth by blending in (hiding) as "purely" African-American.) In telling this history Clarice's forebears would have been admitting to a federal crime (harboring a fugitive) that may have been enforceable long after emancipation- albeit highly unlikely toincur any penalty. You can't always hide mixed ethnicity from contemporary "eye tests" (no pun intended)- children naturally seek the truth about their genes. She probably looked a little different in subtle ways more noticeable to her cohort. But also pride in inherited cultural identity or secret beliefs and customs can survive for many generations after complete "disassociation". For example, many Spanish and Portuguese Jews who converted to Catholicism to escape the Inquisition retained the practice of secret rituals for four hundred years- to the point where the descendants had no idea of their origin, but passed on the ritual observance to honor their ancestors who believed them worth the risk. perhaps they wanted to harbor a small symbol of resistance to the official state persecution. In the 1940's it was still unsafe to acknowledge Jewish heritage anywhere in Europe: a sect of "Karaites" in Crimea escaped the genocidal race laws of the Nazis in occupied Crimea only by "pretending" to have no connection to Judaism, aided by false testimony from complicit rabbis who were doomed themselves. A large Jewish community (sometimes called a "kingdom") in Ethiopia dated back to the 4th Century AD according to their tradition. They never hid their identity, but at times they lost contact with all other Jewish communities and retreated to isolated mountainous territory to retain autonomy. In the 16th Century the question of their status arose and a prominent Egyptian rabbi "ruled" that they were, in fact, Jews. But by the 1970's, when they sought to resettle en massein Israel under the Law of Return, they looked just like all other Ethiopians- at least to the unschooled eyes of (white) European Jews- and they had little to no knowledge of evolved rabbinic judaism anywhere else- in contrast to the Jews of Yemen, e.g. Some skeptics (and some racists) thought they were just pretending to be Jews for a chance at a better life in modern Israel. But by 1975 even the Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi accepted them in full based mostly on their traditional oral history. Only later did DNA studies tend to confirm their version. They tend to share some DNA with even the whitest Jews that other Europeans or Ethiopians lack. Judaism is a belief system separate from an ethnicity or cultural affinity, but the point is the burden should be on the skeptic to disprove a self-assigned heritage or affinity. Substituting "Irish" for "Cherokee" is an insult to Jimi Hendrix's memory. To the extent that genetics are relevant to "heritage", if Al was not in fact Jimi's biological father what difference would it make? If his grandmothers were descended from "African" slaves merely owned by Cherokee blue-bloods who didn't mix, what difference would it make? To my knowledge, Jimi never expressed the slightest interest in any distant Irish heritage despite his extended time in England. Why would he? They were slave-holding rapists who rejected any paternal responsibility- (unlike Al). He could have easily adopted some of the rich Irish folk musical influence. He did not. What he did do was dedicate a powerful song on his first album to Native Americans: "I Don't Live Today"- which remained a standard in his concerts. If you dismiss the piece as part of a put-on "stage persona" you know little about Jimi Hendrix's life and music. (I'll leave it to the musicologists to debate the authenticity of the instrumental titled "Cherokee Mist" (perhaps posthumously)- suffice it to say that it rings much truer to my untrained ear than the contemporary pop hit "Cherokee People".) I am not aware of any particular interest he had in his African roots, despite the growing identification in the 60's among Americans. I believe the closest he ever got was a "vacation" to Morocco. He didn't easily fit any particularly East African, West African, or South African phenotype- he resembled "the Wild Man of Borneo" to some mocking British press. That's in Asia. None of Jimi's four grandparents ever visited Ireland or Africa. What is "Cherokee" heritage? You claim the Cherokee have accurate genealogical records. Do they include who was kidnapped, intermarried, bought as a slave? Can you really prove ancient paternity when estimates show as many as 1 in 8 fathers are in error even these days? The fact that no "official" Cherokee has come forward to claim affinity is proof of nothing. If Nora's great-grandmother had married a black man, early 19th Century Cherokee "record-keepers" (in what written language, exactly?) may have lost or refused any further contact. Such "official" records might have been fatal in 1838. Both elders and fugitives would try to permanently erase any such proof. Cherokee slave owners would not be the first racial purists in the US to vehemently deny paternity of their slave's child- and have the mother nevertheless inform posterity. Your ignorance of Jimi's stage persona is a tell. His unique fashion sense was purely his own invention- influenced of course by flamboyant Little Richard whom he backed for a tour. He merely dedicated I Don't Live Today to "The American Indian". That's it. The electric guitar is not an indigenous instrument. He was proud to play his original, modern urban take on traditional Blues, Rock and Roll, the Star Spangled Banner... What cultural element did he appropriate from the Cherokee? You would prefer he denied his own grandmother's oral history? Prove it with evidence or I choose to believe his version. Onecurrency (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

Onecurrency, I've compressed your excessively long opinion piece and tangents. Re-read the links about how we determine Native identity on Wikipedia, as well as how it is determined by the Cherokee. This is not speculative; it has been decided by the Nations. No one uses DNA. Also, this issue has zero to do with the Freedmen issue - it's a simple matter of a mistaken Blood Myth. Again, this has all been covered. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Moved posts below from end of page where user started duplicate Heritage section and posted again. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "identity". The word used is "heritage". Note the root for "inherit"; "inhere [to]". No, the Cherokee Nation does NOT get the final say,

for biographical purposes, who is Cherokee, or "a Cherokee". They only get to make the technical legal call- and even that may be subject to judicial review in US courts for certain purposes. Irish" here is pathetic and insulting, since Jimi neither had nor wanted any connection to his purported slaver ancestors- yet he expressed interest in his purported Cherokee heritage. Onecurrency (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"Hendrix had African American and Irish ancestry."

This is just plain wrong.

A more accurate statement would be: "Hendrix had African-American and Cherokee heritage- on both sides."

<ref>https://www.amazon.com/Room-Full-Mirrors-Biography-Hendrix-ebook/dp/B000FCKC9C/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1650431644&refinements=p_lbr_biography_subjects_browse-bin%3AJimi+Hendrix&s=books&sr=1-1/ref> <ref>https://www.amazon.com/Jimi-Hendrix-Electric-Harry-Shapiro/dp/0312130627/ref=sr_1_8?qid=1650431644&refinements=p_lbr_biography_subjects_browse-bin%3AJimi+Hendrix&s=books&sr=1-8/ref> Onecurrency (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Nope, these sources have already been evaluated and discarded. They are not reliable sources for Native American identity. Please read these links. RS sourcing in this area is a bit different; please respect the effort that Indigenous Wikipedians have put into explaining it. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Ankle injury/ medical discharge

"Hendrix...lied that he had received a medical discharge after breaking his ankle during his 26th parachute jump.[61][nb 9]"

The source support for him "lying" about his ankle injury seems to be pretty weak. In the major Hendrix documentary "Hear My Train A' Comin'" the medical discharge for a broken ankle is presented as factual. There are other sources that say his military records mention an ankle injury as the reason for his honorable medical discharge. Unless there's conclusive evidence that he lied about the ankle injury, then the most one can say is that some sources say he did have such an injury and others say he lied about it. TheBlinkster (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello: Many biographies about Hendrix include something along the lines of "he received an honorable discharge for medical reasons because of a broken ankle he received during a parachute jump". But his military records don't seem to bear this out. One biography includes "All [Hendrix's biographers], however, had maintained that Hendrix's break from the army was due to a literal break—a broken ankle. Hendrix's army files say nothing about a broken bone but instead make clear that the army did not want him any more than he, apparently, wanted the army."[7]

While Hendrix's military records[8] may be incomplete, they show that when the discharge procedure was initiated (May 1962), the only complaints against him were behavioral related with no mention of physical injuries or disabilities. It started as an AR 635-208 general discharge as "undesireable", but was approved on 27 June 1962 under 635-209 as a general discharge under honorable conditions due to "unsuitability" (which Hendrix signed). There are many statements about his poor performance (missing bed checks, sleeping on duty, lack of interest in his equipment, etc.), but nothing about an injury.

Roby and Scheiber (one of the sources used in the article) write:

Alphonso Johnson [a band mate while Hendrix was in the army] provided additional insight into the case against Private Hendrix: "His friend Billy Cox was getting out soon, and Jimi didn't want to stay in the Army alone, so Jimi said he broke his ankle to get out. Jimi wore a cast for about two weeks after he was out, and then it came off. He faked that one. I used to ask him how it was doing, and he said, 'Oh, just fine." He knew I was teasing him. He'd figured a way to get out and be with Billy. [p. 26]

So, although there may be no "conclusive evidence that he lied about the ankle injury", there is no Army record that he ever sustained one or that his discharge was for anything related to a physical injury or disability. Propose to make the following change: "Hendrix later spoke of his dislike of the army and lied that he had received a medical discharge after breaking his ankle during his 26th parachute jump.[61][nb 9] However, no army records have been produced that indicate that he received or was discharged for any injuries. [Gelfand 2006, p. 32]

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Why "African American"? How is that Relevant

I don't see other articles with African American when it's not relevant 147.161.12.2 (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:ETHNICITY Hendrix's race is notable in that he was a trailblazer for African-American rock musicians in particular, and one of the few African-Americans in the genre, at least at that level of fame. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)