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.
Free POC were most likely Indian. We evaluate these terms "mulatto" and "colored" according to how they're used today when their origins are different.
That being said, many Europeans mated with Indians as a means to take hold of the land. I'm not saying that was the primary reason, but Choctaws, for example, are matrilineal. Property passed through the women. This is why you'll probably find more "European man/Indian woman" pairings than "European woman/Indian man". Because the "United States" is patrilineal, once the man marries into the family, he can control the land when the territory becomes a state.
Free POC were most likely Indian. We evaluate these terms "mulatto" and "colored" according to how they're used today when their origins are different.
That being said, many Europeans mated with Indians as a means to take hold of the land. I'm not saying that was the primary reason, but Choctaws, for example, are matrilineal. Property passed through the women. This is why you'll probably find more "European man/Indian woman" pairings than "European woman/Indian man". Because the "United States" is patrilineal, once the man marries into the family, he can control the land when the territory becomes a state.
I always read that the Native Americans didn't have the concept of owning land. Rather, they were the caretakers of the land. So a Euro man marrying a Native woman would not inherit any land.
Also, the reason for Euro man and Native woman being more prevalent is because the first settlers were men. Not many Euro women around in the early colonies.
I always read that the Native Americans didn't have the concept of owning land. Rather, they were the caretakers of the land. So a Euro man marrying a Native woman would not inherit any land.
Also, the reason for Euro man and Native woman being more prevalent is because the first settlers were men. Not many Euro women around in the early colonies.
You are right on both accounts (NA's not believing on land ownership and settlers being mostly men), but there was a loose concept of boundaries. Like, "The 'X' tribe is on this side of the river; we are on the other." While there was no "owning" in the sense of legal papers, there was an understanding about who took care of a specific portion of the land. The Europeans acknowledged the sovereignty of the Native Americans, but as they hungered for more land, they found ways to acquire it. So if the women were responsible for the land, it makes sense to cozy up to a woman so you can scheme on ways to have a say over the land.
ETA: The Choctaw elders actually walked away from the negotiations for the final treaty (Dancing Rabbit Creek) because the women did not support it. It appears the ones who finally signed off on the treaty were the mixed-race children of Europeans. Two of the original negotiators mysteriously died before the signing of the treaty...
Free POC were most likely Indian. We evaluate these terms "mulatto" and "colored" according to how they're used today when their origins are different.
That being said, many Europeans mated with Indians as a means to take hold of the land. I'm not saying that was the primary reason, but Choctaws, for example, are matrilineal. Property passed through the women. This is why you'll probably find more "European man/Indian woman" pairings than "European woman/Indian man". Because the "United States" is patrilineal, once the man marries into the family, he can control the land when the territory becomes a state.
More white men married native women because there were so few white women in the early colonies compared to the number of men.
Moderator cut: deleted off topic remark that will just serve to start a fight.
Last edited by in_newengland; 01-14-2019 at 11:05 PM..
Free POC were most likely Indian. We evaluate these terms "mulatto" and "colored" according to how they're used today when their origins are different.
That being said, many Europeans mated with Indians as a means to take hold of the land. I'm not saying that was the primary reason, but Choctaws, for example, are matrilineal. Property passed through the women. This is why you'll probably find more "European man/Indian woman" pairings than "European woman/Indian man". Because the "United States" is patrilineal, once the man marries into the family, he can control the land when the territory becomes a state.
Mullatto, colored, and negro/black were used interchangeably for many black people in the past with no indigenous ancestry.
We shouldn't believe these YouTube videos that make claims such as these.
My mother's maternal line (I spoke above about her father) they were also FPOC. They were primarily black/white and were often listed as mullattoes because they were of known "mixed" ancestry and part "negro." They were not native Americans at all. Just black/white (primarily African, German, or Irish).
On land, I agree in part with suzy in that native communities often didn't have an idea of property ownership. However, when Europeans arrived, I think it is important to note that they did as all native communities were not impacted by colonization or European presence at the same time - oftentimes people are stereotyping natives as being like those in the SW when we speak of "Indians." My grandfather's maternal ancestors owned land for many generations prior to them leaving NC for instance, at least since the early 1700s. Many distant cousins/uncles got land grants due to serving in the Revolutionary War in the late 1700s and early 1800s.
In the Southeast, indigenous communities were heavily impacted by European colonialism really since the 1600s and reservations were allotted for them even in the 1600s and early 1700s that after that time period began to be "owned" by individuals in a Eurocentric sort of way, as many of these Indians were "Christianized."
Not sure if this is the case in MS, but will note that many of my distant cousins in the Bass family in particular, moved to MS. Other FPOC from the Carolinas and Virginia also moved to MS and they did so because of the availability of land. They also, like my own direct ancestors, practiced endogamy and married into families that were oftentimes from those that traveled with them from NC/VA to MS.
Note, I have a cousin who believes he is a Choctaw descendant from MS because this is a story on his father's side of the family (his mother is my dad's sister so he is a first cousin). However, my dad has some NA ancestry markers as well. Dad (and my aunt's) family were from VA and dad in particular has some cousin matches via surnames associated with FPOC in VA. We also have a great grandmother whose paper trail shows that she was connected to VA indigenous communities (she is a Viney/Venie/Vina descendant and her family is documented on Paul Heinegg's site of "free African Americans"). So he may not have any MS/Choctaw ancestry. He doesn't have any via h is papertrail and I've communicated with one of his paternal cousins who is "into" genealogy and she has the same stories he has, but there is nothing in her research that indicates that they have Choctaw ancestry. He is 1% NA. Due to him having an X chromosome from his mom and me seeing that there is a bit of NA ancestry on my dad's maternal line from VA, I believe this NA ancestry of his is from our family and not his father's. Of course, there may be some MS Choctaw but from what I've reviewed, it doesn't look like it (note, his mom got VERY angry at me about this lol so I don't mention it to them anymore and just let them think that their great uncles "long hair" and "high cheekbones" were due to him being part NA).
I'm not listening to YouTube. I'm going off what's in my own family record. You are free to believe you don't have Native American ancestry. My contributions are targeted toward people who've hit a brick wall and need answers. Everything we've been taught isn't always correct. The US has a vested interest in so-called "African-Americans" not knowing their heritage. Treaties are still in effect.
ETA: I haven't yet found anything pointing to my ancestors coming from Africa. That's not to say it isn't there. It can show up later. But the USA documents everything. If your ancestors came from Africa, there is going to be documented proof. And if you are somehow unable to find that proof, you should question why. These were business transactions. Anyone who is legitimately a descendant of an African will have documentation supporting it. It's the Native Americans who didn't keep written records.
I also want to add, on the subject of people from NC and other tribes on the eastern coast: of course they would go into MS and further west. They would seek refuge with tribes who were still in their homelands. Choctaw had a large amount of land, and Chickasaws were their "sibling" tribe. As the US took the land of these smaller east coast tribes, they would get absorbed into others. Choctaws were really the first immigrants in a way.
I am not trying to get you to believe anything other than what you want to believe. I am offering a different perspective to people who are stuck. As I said before, I have death certificates for ancestors who had their race changed. I've seen records where a prominent "colored" professional did not have their race listed and it was assumed he was white. A lot of these people have initials on their graves instead of full names. To me, that is not a coincidence. If you had enough money to have a large headstone, surely they could have put your FULL NAME on your headstone. Why wouldn't the family want people to know who they are? Well, if they were "colored" you might not...because colored people were supposed to be slaves/poor and not professionals with substantial estates in the 1800s.
I'm not listening to YouTube. I'm going off what's in my own family record. You are free to believe you don't have Native American ancestry. My contributions are targeted toward people who've hit a brick wall and need answers. Everything we've been taught isn't always correct. The US has a vested interest in so-called "African-Americans" not knowing their heritage. Treaties are still in effect.
ETA: I haven't yet found anything pointing to my ancestors coming from Africa. That's not to say it isn't there. It can show up later. But the USA documents everything. If your ancestors came from Africa, there is going to be documented proof. And if you are somehow unable to find that proof, you should question why. These were business transactions. Anyone who is legitimately a descendant of an African will have documentation supporting it. It's the Native Americans who didn't keep written records.
No, the USA does not document "everything". Some, but not all, with African ancestry may be able to find a paper trail. Courthouse fires were common. Records got lost or destroyed. These days DNA is the way to document descent from African ancestors. DNA cannot tell you when those ancestors came to the US or who they were, but it can tell you they existed.
"Blood quantum" was something created to keep certain people out of tribal enrollment and bar them from land allotments. Native Americans believe the land belongs to the people. The whole concept of "owning" land is a European construct, which "blood quantum" levels justify. In real life, being "full-blooded" Native American meant you were born into and adhered to the culture. It didn't matter if you were dark, light, red, white, or blue. If you practiced the culture you were a member of the tribe. Unfortunately, modern-day Native Americans have accepted this whole "blood quantum" thing. The vast majority of people recognized as Native American today are the descendants of some person who has European heritage. Many tribes acknowledge that they can change the rules for membership at any time. Tribal recognition is a political tool to keep land in the hands of people who probably shouldn't have it. When this "blood quantum" stuff came out, they were not testing anyone's blood. They didn't have the technology to do that back then. It was based on how you looked.
I don't think Cherokee care about blood quantum. Many Cherokee happily married Europeans, AND Blacks, and, if you married into the family...you were Cherokee. Simple as that. Which is also one of the reasons Europeans were eager to marry Cherokee women. They got the benefits of being in the tribe...which did include land rights. Cherokee were more agricultural...than say a Navahoe tribe or a Sioux tribe. And since most Cherokee started in the east...we assimilated faster and better than tribes further west.
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.
