Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Considering that a person's appearance (i.e. blackness) has been of paramount importance throughout American history, the topic has always been one that has been extensively discussed throughout our history. This thread is merely but one more example.
Then take it to the history thread - it's not genealogy. And it's of no importance to doing genealogy.
The color of a person's skin would be important in genealogy particularly in African American families. I have a grand father ( a blood relative) who did not appear to be a black person at all. He was orphaned at a young age and separated from his other nine siblings. He wrote on his WWI draft record "Negro" I suspect because the choices in those days were; negro, white, caucasian, or Indian, or Mexican. My mothers brother told me that in the 1880's it was typical for Europeans to have Native American or Mexican wives and families separate from their White families. Based on the Color of his skin, when I look for genealogy resources to find out more about him I leave the African American resources and look at Mexican, Native Americans or Irish family history in the area where I know he was born. Many of my relatives on this side of my family have red hair and freckles which is not common among African Americans.
Your opinion. History impacts genealogy and vice versa. Can't have genealogy without history.
If you don't like the thread, don't read the thread.
Genealogy is based on heritage. You can't study heritage without taking notice of inherited traits. Skin color has dominated the lives of some of us for more arbitrary reasons. If people make issue of the color thing when talking genealogy they need to get over it . It matters when it comes to who you are.
The color of a person's skin would be important in genealogy particularly in African American families. I have a grand father ( a blood relative) who did not appear to be a black person at all. He was orphaned at a young age and separated from his other nine siblings. He wrote on his WWI draft record "Negro" I suspect because the choices in those days were; negro, white, caucasian, or Indian, or Mexican. My mothers brother told me that in the 1880's it was typical for Europeans to have Native American or Mexican wives and families separate from their White families. Based on the Color of his skin, when I look for genealogy resources to find out more about him I leave the African American resources and look at Mexican, Native Americans or Irish family history in the area where I know he was born. Many of my relatives on this side of my family have red hair and freckles which is not common among African Americans.
By basing your research on something so superficial as skin color, and discounting any records, you're more likely to fail in your search.
By basing your research on something so superficial as skin color, and discounting any records, you're more likely to fail in your search.
why would I look in African American data bases for information about a person who is obviously not African American? Perhaps I should look in Slave records for an Irish immigrant who was held as a slave.
The whole reason Anthropologist coined the word "race" was to make this kind of research easier. It allows us to gather information about an individual through their physical characteristics and group them accordingly in a larger group. I don't think any serious student of the behavioural or social sciences would refer to skin color as superficial. My parents were not 100% sure of the ethnicity of all their grandparents. One of my parents remembers a grandparent who was very dark complected and thought to be pure African. I used that information to trace that relative to a plantation owner in the area with the same surname as my relative. Plantation owners would some times write descriptions of slaves in property ledgers or runaway reports describing their approximate age, completions, skills, or talents
Last edited by thriftylefty; 08-10-2011 at 07:41 PM..
why would I look in African American data bases for information about a person who is obviously not African American? Perhaps I should look in Slave records for an Irish immigrant who was held as a slave.
The whole reason Anthropologist coined the word "race" was to make this kind of research easier. It allows us to gather information about an individual through their physical characteristics and group them accordingly in a larger group. I don't think any serious student of the behavioural or social sciences would refer to skin color as superficial. My parents were not 100% sure of the ethnicity of all their grandparents. One of my parents remembers a grandparent who was very dark complected and thought to be pure African. I used that information to trace that relative to a plantation owner in the area with the same surname as my relative. Plantation owners would some times write descriptions of slaves in property ledgers or runaway reports describing their approximate age, completions, skills, or talents
There's no need to be so sarcastic about it. It's my opinion that you are likely to miss things by discounting it. First off, there's the simple case of the recorder making errors. Discounting any record just because you don't think it'll apply to your ancestor is foolish.
And genealogy is neither a behavioral nor a social science. I didn't say that skin color didn't matter in the world, just that it should be discounted when doing genealogy. I've found records of whites that were mistakenly listed as black in the census. I've found records of whites listed in Indian records.
People did not live in little boxes. They interacted with one another. A slave narrative might have a lot of information about the slave owner. The slave owner's plantation ledger might have lots of information about the slave. Ignoring either of them when doing genealogy because of the race of the individual we're researching is just short-sighted.
There's no need to be so sarcastic about it. It's my opinion that you are likely to miss things by discounting it. First off, there's the simple case of the recorder making errors. Discounting any record just because you don't think it'll apply to your ancestor is foolish.
And genealogy is neither a behavioral nor a social science. I didn't say that skin color didn't matter in the world, just that it should be discounted when doing genealogy. I've found records of whites that were mistakenly listed as black in the census. I've found records of whites listed in Indian records.
People did not live in little boxes. They interacted with one another. A slave narrative might have a lot of information about the slave owner. The slave owner's plantation ledger might have lots of information about the slave. Ignoring either of them when doing genealogy because of the race of the individual we're researching is just short-sighted.
However, also do not discount the fact that many people made conscious decisions to "pass" for White during those times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
