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.
Short darker skinned and kinda heavy, and wore her hair in a bun? Now that seals the deal! End of conversation.
Did I say that alone should seal the deal? There's a LOT more to the story than that, but I'm not going to take the time to type my entire family history on an internet forum.
It doesn't really matter to me anyways... I look white, consider myself to be white, and everyone else considers me white. Now that's the end of the story.
People of longstanding European background whose African ancestry is tens of thousands of years old and who would be called "white" manifest fair colored eyes and skin for different reasons than those we might call "black or African American."
Light skin and eyes occurs in all the darker races in some individuals. That is not necessarily an indication of European blood. Albinism is fairly common in humans and in animals.
I don't know about that. I am African-American. My youngest sister (half sister actually) is the mother of four biracial children. All of the children look white with lt.brown or blonde hair and blue eyes. Her grandchildren (3/4 white) look completely Nordic with white blonde hair and pale blue eyes. My paternal grandfather was a Jamaican of almost complete African ancestry. My paternal grandmother a blue-eyed blonde (Irish father) who passed as white in her younger years.
Among many Louisiana Creoles there are fairskinned blacks (many blonde) who are not that far removed from maternal African ancestry. I grew up in a segregated Midwestern community although some of the residents looked completely white with blonde or red hair and light-colored eyes and sharp features. Many of them looked whiter than the Italians and Greeks in the white community. There were entire towns in the Deep South in which all of the black residents looked like they were from Norway and probably many of them passed into the white race. When I was a little girl it was still fairly common to see black women in the Deep South (many of them darkskinned) with white looking children so I don't think that blonde/blue-eyed genes are as recessive as people have historically believed them to be. I think that the father's racial makeup sometimes has a greater influence on the child than the mother's genes.
My case in point. I think many white people have a delusion about how other racial features, be it African, Indian, or any darker colored traits "show up" in later generations. And they are unfamiliar how much genetic mixture of races has already occurred in 300 years American history. There are probably many "whites" with American Indian ancestry that have no clue about it. albeit not enough to be compiled into tribal rolls.
My case in point. I think many white people have a delusion about how other racial features, be it African, Indian, or any darker colored traits "show up" in later generations. And they are unfamiliar how much genetic mixture of races has already occurred in 300 years American history. There are probably many "whites" with American Indian ancestry that have no clue about it. albeit not enough to be compiled into tribal rolls.
Yes. And various tribes interacted with whites on a totally different basis and time line.
From OUR perspective (I am Kiowa), my people made a regular practice of going on war parties and bringing home captives from other tribes and the whites.
It is documented that my tribe made this a common practice, some of the white captives were traded and some families took the captive in if they lost a child to war or disease.
Some of these captives refused to go back to their world when they became adults. If they were taken as a small child, they spoke the language fluently and loved their tribal ways even though some were cognizant of their anglo heritage.
I am only speaking of my tribe on the southern plains, the other tribes may have differed. But there would be no genealogy searches for me. I think the first attempted census was 1880? I know in 1890 there was a tribal roll made for my tribe.
Anyway, good discussion~most of the time, don't get bogged down calling each other names, etc.
Yes. And various tribes interacted with whites on a totally different basis and time line.
From OUR perspective (I am Kiowa), my people made a regular practice of going on war parties and bringing home captives from other tribes and the whites.
It is documented that my tribe made this a common practice, some of the white captives were traded and some families took the captive in if they lost a child to war or disease.
Some of these captives refused to go back to their world when they became adults. If they were taken as a small child, they spoke the language fluently and loved their tribal ways even though some were cognizant of their anglo heritage.
I am only speaking of my tribe on the southern plains, the other tribes may have differed. But there would be no genealogy searches for me. I think the first attempted census was 1880? I know in 1890 there was a tribal roll made for my tribe.
Anyway, good discussion~most of the time, don't get bogged down calling each other names, etc.
Good post, Redbird. The captive-becoming-adoptee phenomenon was noted here in the east, too. Many southern New England tribes had only the option of looking outside their community for spouses become their numbers had been decimated by war, disease and attrition. Many Mashpee, Narragansett, and others look indistinguishable from the local community members surrounding them. The key is a consistent, generational connection to the tribal community.
I bet you have many oral historians that could at least lend a personalized history for you if not a formal genealogy. My searches dead-ended at 1860, between slave and local tribal heritages.
Not to further muddy the waters, so to speak, but a friend from a CA tribe said some people (Pomo & Mono tribes) changed their status to mexican as a way to survive. I wonder how those types of deals would affect a geneology. And of course, I know of one person who said his grandmother said some would not admit to having Native blood in the early 1900's even if they did.
Not to further muddy the waters, so to speak, but a friend from a CA tribe said some people (Pomo & Mono tribes) changed their status to mexican as a way to survive. I wonder how those types of deals would affect a geneology. And of course, I know of one person who said his grandmother said some would not admit to having Native blood in the early 1900's even if they did.
That's a very sad commentary on this country's history.
That's a very sad commentary on this country's history.
I read a biography long ago that chronicled the history of a prominent black woman (I so wish I could remember her name now) whose family also had American Indian ancestry. One particular set of grandparents, one was black and other American Indian, actually chose to raise their children as black because they would suffer less bigotry being black at that time than they would being American Indian. This was also in the late 19th/early 20th century.
A sad commentary indeed.
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.
