U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-22-2011, 12:49 PM
 
799 posts, read 1,031,905 times
Reputation: 308

Advertisements

Okay I've been thinking on this for about a few months now and it really pertains to the South and the Southeast in particular in the US. Okay so while the slave trade was going on Native Americans were going through their own sorrows, struggles and persecution by the same oppressor as the Africans in the slave trade. When the Africans came over its documented they were befriended with the Natives and some of the Natives even owned the slaves and treated with better treatment overall, plus they would compliment and help each other and their relationship was steady for quite awhile before the Trail of Tears and the near eradication of the Native population.

So here's the theory: I believe everything happens for a reason. The Native Americans and the Africans as a collective, in the spiritual sense decided to come together and create another race (bare with me ) which was African Americans [of course other races play apart in it, but the two main ones were the people from the natives of the Africa and the natives of the North America]

These two groups both share similar histories of oppression with the same group and both are nearly gone from this country (not African immigrants but the Africans who came with the Atlantic Slave Trade i.e. The Gullah People in the Lowcountry)

I say the southeast in particular because that's where Natives and Africans would seemingly flourish as far as interaction goes. For example the Black Seminoles in Florida is pretty common so I assume that the Southeast would be a hotbed area and also in Georgia I notice African Americans with a red tint, me included. I know that my great grandmother on my dad side was pure blood Native but I don't know what tribe and my great grandmother's mother on my mama side was pure blood. So I know I'm an example of this theory.

Any Thoughts?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-23-2011, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Columbus
222 posts, read 548,128 times
Reputation: 88
You very well may be right going by the history we know for a fact they bare the same scars and it just that one of the group lands were completely tooken over and turned into another nation and the other lands were colonized.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2011, 01:06 AM
 
Location: West Jordan, UT
973 posts, read 2,030,865 times
Reputation: 589
Interesting take. I am from the midwest. I have family (on hubby's side) from the SE (they are in rural Ark) . It is so backwards there. We visited & they have a 'monument' that has names of 'whites' who served in wars, then, 'coloreds'. I was, as well as hubby, honestly offended, by this. I still am to this day, since I mention it. =( &, we are, 'white'.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2011, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Little Rock AR USA
2,457 posts, read 6,907,227 times
Reputation: 1893
But there is an important point missed here. There were slaves on this continent before the blacks or whites came. The Indians had slaves of other groups ("tribes" name was an Anglo invention) as did other peoples of other parts of the world. Even the black Africans had black slaves long before the "slave trade". So, so many people are getting on the south U.S. slave band-wagon they forget it is not unique.

Having written that I must say I think slavery was a bad thing for all concerned making no difference in which part of the world or time it happened.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2011, 08:02 AM
 
799 posts, read 1,031,905 times
Reputation: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArkansasSlim View Post
But there is an important point missed here. There were slaves on this continent before the blacks or whites came. The Indians had slaves of other groups ("tribes" name was an Anglo invention) as did other peoples of other parts of the world. Even the black Africans had black slaves long before the "slave trade". So, so many people are getting on the south U.S. slave band-wagon they forget it is not unique.

Having written that I must say I think slavery was a bad thing for all concerned making no difference in which part of the world or time it happened.
With that said I feel like the slave era of humanity took its apex with the AST and its immediate consequences. So the fact that slaves existed throughout that time before then only further admits this statement "...[of course other races play apart in it, but the two main ones were the people from the natives of the Africa and the natives of the North America]"
and creates the African American culture, even some of the staple foods of the African American culture came finds its origins in the Native American i.e. Cornbread, chitlins, grits etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by City Boy Columbus View Post
You very well may be right going by the history we know for a fact they bare the same scars and it just that one of the group lands were completely tooken over and turned into another nation and the other lands were colonized.
Just like with South America
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2011, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
6,413 posts, read 11,414,069 times
Reputation: 5844
Interestingly enough, when the American slaves were freed as a result of the Civil War, the slaves owned by the native tribes (or groups) in the Indian Territory were not. It took another year, and some treaty signings before they were freed.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Center of the universe
24,657 posts, read 36,842,279 times
Reputation: 11780
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoodsofATL View Post
With that said I feel like the slave era of humanity took its apex with the AST and its immediate consequences. So the fact that slaves existed throughout that time before then only further admits this statement "...[of course other races play apart in it, but the two main ones were the people from the natives of the Africa and the natives of the North America]"
and creates the African American culture, even some of the staple foods of the African American culture came finds its origins in the Native American i.e. Cornbread, chitlins, grits etc.
While grits seem to be of Native American origin, I am not sure about cornbread and chitlins, both of which surface in South America in areas where there wasn't a lot of combining between Africans and Native Americans. Cornbread is a staple of Afro-Brazilian cooking in Bahia, and chitlins are a known Afro-Argentine delicacy.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 09:03 AM
 
22,769 posts, read 28,969,777 times
Reputation: 14665
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoodsofATL View Post
So here's the theory: I believe everything happens for a reason. The Native Americans and the Africans as a collective, in the spiritual sense decided to come together and create another race (bare with me ) which was African Americans [of course other races play apart in it, but the two main ones were the people from the natives of the Africa and the natives of the North America]

These two groups both share similar histories of oppression with the same group and both are nearly gone from this country (not African immigrants but the Africans who came with the Atlantic Slave Trade i.e. The Gullah People in the Lowcountry)
i'm sure there's some truth to what you're saying, but the part where you describe Africans and Native Americans "coming together to form African Americans", in particular sounds like a fantasy that is not based on facts. Just because something sounds good doesn't make it true.


What you describe is more likely to have occured in South America or the Carribean, I think. In the continental US, I'd expect that "African Americans" probably have more English and European blood than they do native American. People just want to feel like they are exotic and different.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 08:21 AM
 
799 posts, read 1,031,905 times
Reputation: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario View Post
While grits seem to be of Native American origin, I am not sure about cornbread and chitlins, both of which surface in South America in areas where there wasn't a lot of combining between Africans and Native Americans. Cornbread is a staple of Afro-Brazilian cooking in Bahia, and chitlins are a known Afro-Argentine delicacy.
Corn was a staple for food and crops for most-to-all indigenous throughout America, and they also used every part of the animal that they had hunted so chit'lins could have been introduced by the Natives to the Africans/African Americans

Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
i'm sure there's some truth to what you're saying, but the part where you describe Africans and Native Americans "coming together to form African Americans", in particular sounds like a fantasy that is not based on facts. Just because something sounds good doesn't make it true.


What you describe is more likely to have occured in South America or the Carribean, I think. In the continental US, I'd expect that "African Americans" probably have more English and European blood than they do native American. People just want to feel like they are exotic and different.
History is written by the victor. With that said I believe that the interaction and relationship of Africans and the Natives was ignored, undocumented, and/or received no attention whatsoever. But from what I've read so far, my family history, and (my) logic has all pointed to just that. And BTW you're right about the Carribean about Africans and the Native Americans of North America did have a quasi-unison. But based on your logic on South America, the descendants of their ancestry should have more Spaniard blood rather than Native and that's not the case, in particular

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnricoV View Post
Interestingly enough, when the American slaves were freed as a result of the Civil War, the slaves owned by the native tribes (or groups) in the Indian Territory were not. It took another year, and some treaty signings before they were freed.
mmm, sho nuff!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 10:20 AM
 
22,769 posts, read 28,969,777 times
Reputation: 14665
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoodsofATL View Post
History is written by the victor.
Your personal genetic makeup is a matter of science, not a matter of historical record.

Quote:
With that said I believe that the interaction and relationship of Africans and the Natives was ignored, undocumented, and/or received no attention whatsoever.
The same thing can be said for the interaction and relationship of Africans and white Europeans.

Quote:
But from what I've read so far, my family history, and (my) logic has all pointed to just that. And BTW you're right about the Carribean about Africans and the Native Americans of North America did have a quasi-unison.
I would get a DNA test done before I went around claiming I was significantly Native American.

I say this because if you're an African American, your family has probably been in this country just as long as mine has, and I know that after a good bit of research I still have no possible way of determining via historical documents that I do or do not have Native American or African blood from the 1500-1800. All I really have are assumptions based on what I know about history, and "probably" isn't good enough for me.

Quote:
But based on your logic on South America, the descendants of their ancestry should have more Spaniard blood rather than Native and that's not the case, in particular
Well I didn't explain my logic, but my logic is that Native Americans and Africans lived side-by-side as slaves in the early colonial days of Latin America.

As I understand it, africans in the southeastern U.S. had far less contact with native Americans than Africans in South America.

As far as "that not being the case in South America", in your claim, I'm going to have to call your B.S. on this one. "South America" is not one big racial monolith, their racial characteristics are closely tied to nationality. Some areas of South America are heavily European, some are heavily African, and some are heavily Native American. Racially they were a "melting pot" moreso than the southeastern US.

Last edited by le roi; 06-29-2011 at 10:29 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top