Monday, January 25, 2016

THE REINVENTION OF MELUNGEON ETHNICITY

Note: Please bear in mind this paper was written well before the autosomal DNA tests had any practical purpose in genealogy or population studies. Dr. Brodwin's remarks concern only Y chromosome and mtDNA.

THE REINVENTION OF MELUNGEON ETHNICITY 
by Dr. Paul Brodwin

The conflict between the agendas of scientific genetics and popular movements for recognition and sovereignty does not always implicate chiefly differences in power.
Geneticists, of course, do not always end up as the enemies of people providing DNA. In the case described below, members of a small, once-isolated group requested DNA analysis to validate their claims of collective ancestry.
They were happy to find a geneticist willing to take on their project, but he eventually had serious misgivings about the entire enterprise.
People asked him to provide evidence about cultural identity and descent, but he knows his science is irrelevant to their most pressing questions.

The rest of this article examines the use of DNA evidence to assert identity claims among the Melungeons, a multiracial group from southern Appalachia.

Their demand for and reception of genetic studies have generated several conflicts, but not along the familiar fault-lines. This case featured few political disagreements about whether research should proceed.
Obtaining cheek swabs and hair roots, extracting the DNA, and growing cell lines did not provoke a popular outcry about imperialism or formal ethical self-scrutiny. Melungeons’’ demand for collective recognition proved incommensurable not with the politics of genetic research, but instead with the limits that researchers themselves place on,


160 P. BRODWIN interpretation of their findings. This case turned on the conceptual vulnerability of human population genetics: the mismatch between scientific and popular views about the ability of genetics evidence to establish collective origins and identity.

A formal protocol such as the MEP, meant to adjudicate between acceptable and unacceptable research practices, cannot particularly help geneticists who face a conflict not with potential DNA donors, but instead with their own
professional and intellectual commitments.
The geneticist who worked with the Melungeons was thus pushed into an even murkier ethical terrain than the HGDP
defenders. He found it impossible to resolve the relevant conflicts without abandoning his fundamental dedication to his scientific craft.

For over 100 years, journalists, social scientists, and folklorists have written about the Melungeons of northeastern Tennessee and neighboring regions of Virginia and Kentucky. In a journalistic idiom, the Melungeons are a "lost tribe," Virginia’s mystery race," an "almost exinct," or "dwindling hill clan," to cite titles of popular magazine articles over the years.
However, attempts at a more accurate description quickly get caught up in the same identity politics that divide the group itself and that drive its current interest in genetic research. Until recently, most academic accounts classified Melungeons as an enclaved community of mixed black, white, and American Indian ancestry, one of several such groups living in the eastern and southern United States.

The anthropologist Gilbert (1946) included Melungeons in his detailed list of "mixed-blood racial islands"——groups that are considered racially distinct by their white, black, and Native American neighbors——along with the Brass Ankles and Croatans of the Carolinas, the Red Bones of Louisiana, the Guineas of West Virginia and Maryland, and the Jackson Whites of New Jersey.6 Gilbert characterized all these groups as backward minorities, suffering from illiteracy and poverty, difficult to classify racially, and needing assimilation to improve their condition.

Other social scientists forgo the paternalism, but offer similar accounts of Melungeon origins. Price (1951) traces the Melungeons to a fluid mixed-race society living in the 18th century in Virgina and the Carolinas. For Beale (1957),

they are a "tri-racial isolate," one of 27 such groups found throughout
the South. Such groups contain "intermingled Indian, white, and Negro ancestry," and
they persist as singular, bounded communities because of their geographical
isolation and the legal or customary restrictions on marriage with both whites and
blacks (see also Berry 1963). Most recently, DeMarce (1992, 1993)——a professional

historian and genealogist——has documented Indian––white, black––white, and
black––Indian amalgamations among the historic source populations of Melungeons.
She also traces the likely migration of major Melungeon families from west central Virginia into the core area of northeast Tennessee where most people who now call themselves Melungeon trace their lineage.



BIOETHICS IN ACTION 161 Until the early 1990s, these scholarly representations remained unchallenged by Melungeons themselves, simply because few people actually admitted to being one. Berry’’s informants told him only that he would find Melungeons
"across the creek" or "in the next hollow" (Berry 1963: 17). Price learned how to
identify typical Melungeon surnames and physical traits from individuals who specifically disclaimed the identity. Beale noted that in the 1950 Tennessee census,
individuals locally known as Melungeon were most often marked by census workers as
white, less often as Negro, and occasionally as Indian. He emphasizes that the designation
of tri-racial comes from the outside investigator, not the groups themselves. In fact,

"the mixed-blood individual will usually insist——with vehemence, if
necessary——that there is no Negro ancestry in his family . . . but that he is partly
Indian"

(Beale 1957: 188). Cavender (1981) found the same situation during fieldwork
in Hancock County, Tennessee, in 1979 and 1980. People identified by others
as Melungeon usually denied the very existence of the group. Most whites,
moreover, used the term simply as an epithet for anyone who was poor or had a
suspected black ancestor. People interviewed by the above researchers presumably did
not self-identify as Melungeon for several reasons: to escape the term’’s lower
class connotations (shiftless, backwards, thieving); to avoid the danger to one’’s
rights and status from acknowledging black ancestry (seeDeMarce 1992: 6––7); or
simply because the term no longer existed as a meaningful ethnic marker.

"Melungeon" during this period was an exonym, a term that outsiders used
to identify the group, but that no one used to label themselves (see Puckett,
2001). The word reinforced the class hierarchy and racial boundaries of southern
Appalachia.

However, the meaning and uses of the term began to change in the 1960s. In
1966, two economists, professors from Jefferson City, Tennessee, conducted a
regional economic study of Hancock County, at that time among the ten poorest
counties in the nation. They recommended the development of tourism and, in
particular, suggested "a drama featuring the mystery of the Melungeon settlement in the
county . . . [t]he natural spin-off from the drama would be an outlet for handicraft
items" as well as food and lodging services for tourists (quoted in Ivey 1977:

102). The play Walk Towards the Sunset: The Melungeon Story——a sentimental
narrative about two centuries of anti-Melungeon prejudice——opened in 1969 in
the Hancock County town of Sneedville (Beale 1990).

The play produced a short-lived tourism boom, but it also inaugurated a
deeper change in the value and significance of Melungeon identity. In 1973,
Sneedville residents began for the first time to identify themselves as Melungeon or to 


acknowledge Melungeon ancestry (Ivey 1977). Only a few years later, a self-labeled
insider to the group complained to Cavender that some of the people "coming out
of the closet" as Melungeons were actually imposters (Cavender 1981: 32).
The next phase in this process of ethnic reinvention began two decades later
with the publication of The Melungeons: The Resurrection of a Proud People (Kennedy



162 P. BRODWIN 1997, first edition published in 1994). In his book, N. Brent Kennedy, PhD, the vice-chancellor of development at Clinch Valley College, Virginia, describes
how his struggle with Sarcoidosis, a chronic inflammatory disease, led him to
reconstruct his family genealogy, embrace his Melungeon heritage, and explore the
origin and racial makeup of the group. Now in its second edition, the book serves
as the first contact for many people entering Melungeon circles. Kennedy
also enlisted academic support to find the Melungeon Research Committee (now the
Melungeon Heritage Association [MHA]), and he organized the growing interest
in Melungeon identity into a series of yearly meetings. The "First Union,"
held in 1997 at ClinchValley College with over 500 attendees, featured talks on
genealogy and grantsmanship, along with Appalachian music and storytelling.
7 Subsequent meetings have been held yearly in Kentucky and Tennessee. People who
consider themselves Melungeon regularly attend these meetings, and they also
participate in a vast web presence of family associations and competing home pages that
assert different origin theories or explore connections with African-American and
Native American groups.

In the 1990s, therefore, thousands of people began to claim Melungeon
identity or descent. The exonym became an autonym. Individuals who once shunned
the label (or did not even know it existed) now claim it publicly and use it
as an entr ´ee into new face-to-face as well as virtual communities. As with
many emerging identity movements, conflicts over authenticity and the prerogative
to define the group’’s essence and boundaries divide today’’s Melungeons.
8 First of all, people living in the Appalachians who have personally suffered from
the stigma of poverty and suspected black ancestry have different reasons to
proclaim themselves Melungeon than do those whose ancestors left the region three or
four generations ago and securely enjoy white status. Even locally, the
better-educated individuals who organize the yearly gatherings inadvertently separate
themselves from the poorer majority, who often cannot afford the registration fees and
the time off from work. In fact, the majority of people attending the Fourth
Union held in 2002 were retirees, often from out of state, with a sprinkling of
white-collar professionals. Finally, certain Melungeons privilege their Indian descent
and seek legal recognition as a tribe,
9 thereby alienating themselves from theMHA, which explicitly does not seek tribal status. The revitalization of Melungeon identity also participates in broader social
changes. According to Darlene Wilson, a historian and long-time MHA board
member, the Melungeon movement aims to reverse the economic and racial caste
system of the United States (Wilson 1998). She believes Melungeon ethnic activities hasten the long-term retreat of American racism, a viewpoint echoed on the MHAweb page:"

"We firmly believe in the dignity of all such mixed ancestry groups of southern Appalachia and commit to preserving their rich heritage of racial harmony and diversity."10 Kennedy’s book, a touchstone for many present-day



BIOETHICS IN ACTION 163 Melungeons, adopts the common formulae of late 20th century identity politics:

The restrictive choices of either quietly accepting our "stigma"[as
Melungeon] or sweeping it under the rug in the pitiful self-delusion of "being like everyone else"were unacceptable.

To me there seemed to be a third, admittedly blasphemous option: to embrace
our heritage——whatever it might be——and wear it like a banner . . . . My mother, at first uneasy over my decision to come out of theMelungeon closet, quickly came to understand. (Kennedy 1997:
7)Intentionally or not, Kennedy’’s self-description recalls the shame of trying to pass as white or to normalize a physical disability, as well as the ordeal of acknowledging one’’s homosexuality to family members. As the Melungeons’’most well-known spokesman, Kennedy demands recognition in terms similar to those employed by many other groups in the national political scene. His calls to overcome internalized stigma, to make authentic contact with oneself, and to honor group distinctiveness in the face of pressures to assimilate are all standard ingredients in contemporary politics of difference (Taylor 1992: 38 and passim).

For many Melungeons, the right to establish their own origin story is the
most public demand for recognition. Of all the speculations about origins that
circulated in popular accounts, the claim of Portuguese descent has the oldest
published history, dating to at least 1848.11 Academic and popular writers have
long reported that individuals classified as Melungeon (when that term was still
an exonym) would call themselves Portuguese, often pronounced
"Porty-ghee."

Kennedy (1997) supports the Portuguese theory and adds to it ancestry claims
about Turks and Moors who settled in the colonial southeastern United
States.

His complicated account comes wrapped in a demand to respect his Melungeon
ancestors who, he says, were telling the truth when they described themselves as
Portuguese. The "tri-racial isolate" theory, he writes, traces white ancestry exclusively
to the British Isles. It is not only incorrect, it is also politically damaging, for it denies people "the God-given right to claim their national or specific ethnic heritages"

" (Kennedy 1997: 100). For Kennedy and his supporters,12 establishing an authoritative origin story is an a priori right of the Melungeon community. This collectivity, like all
others, deserves recognition in terms of its own choosing, even (or especially) in
the face of outsider experts. Many Melungeons fiercely support Kennedy’’s ideas about
Portuguese origins. They reject the standard scholarly opinion that the
group arose from an amalgam of northern Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans.

They claim that calling Melungeons a "tri-racial isolate" connotes
inbreeding, inferiority, and hence reproduces the elitist stereotype of Appalachian
residents.

Claims of Portuguese descent generate polemics for a second and even more
highly charged reason. Scholarly opinion holds that Melungeons (and other
mixed-race groups) historically called themselves Portuguese to deflect suspicion


164 P. BRODWIN of African ancestry. DeMarce (1993) and Henige (1998) both cite an 1872 Tennessee Supreme Court decision that classified a Melungeon woman as a descendant of ancient Carthagenians who long resided in Portugal, and hence not Negro.
The ruling legalized her marriage to a white man and enabled her child to
inherit the father’’s estate (DeMarce 1993: 33). In general, many people insecure about
their racial identity in the antebellum and Jim Crow South tried to pass as white
by claiming Portuguese or other southern European ancestry (Everett 1999: 370).

According to Henige (1984), the label Portuguese is a contrived defense
mechanism that reinforces one’’s endangered white status. Henige (1998: 280) applied
this perspective to Kennedy’’s book, which he faults for its studied ambivalence
about acknowledging black ancestry. Henige’’s critique as well as the long history
of claims about Portuguese descent made by groups in the South raises the
stakes considerably.
For Brent Kennedy, proving the Portuguese origin story would not only vindicate the right of Melungeons to author their own history. It would also exonerate him and the Melungeons from charges of crypto-racism and of disguising the truth about group origins: serious matters in the current climate of identity politics.

IDENTITY CLAIMS AND POPULATION GENETICS

To convince others to accept his theory of Melungeon origins, Kennedy turned
to population genetics:The call for DNA really came from outside the community, not within.
It really came from scholars who took offense at our writings, who criticized these
outlandish claims that differed from the standard tri-racial accounts. They said that these
claims cannot be substantiated, given the historical records that we have here in Virginia,
where we think the core Melungeon population originated. They said that the only way you can prove these theories of Mediterranean, Turkish, Portuguese, or Jewish origin, or the possible source for the illnesses that people have, is through DNA (Brent Kennedy).13

In the early 1990s, Kennedy had consulted several academic geneticists who
told him that a proper population study——with DNA samples from both
Melungeons and comparison populations in Portugal and Turkey——would cost over a
million dollars. In the following years, however, advances in mapping the
human genome brought the price down considerably. Thanks to PCR technology and
new databases of regionally and ethnically labeled DNA, geneticists can now
take DNA samples locally and make probabilistic statements about population
history without collecting new samples from distant parts of the world (see Bradman
and Thomas 1998, and for a popular account, Sykes 2001).

In 1998, Kennedy presented his ideas for genetics research to Kevin Jones——a
British molecular biologist and newly arrived assistant professor at the University


BIOETHICS IN ACTION 165 of Virginia College at Wise (the re-named ClinchValley College).Although he had never heard of the Melungeons, Jones took on the project because he was intrigued by the patterns of unusual diseases (e.g., thalassemia and Familial Mediterranean Fever) typically associated with southern European ancestry that also occur among white, presumably Scotch––Irish, Appalachians. Brent Kennedy, however, wanted the genetics research to authenticate certain ancestry claims, not to
reconstruct disease patterns, and he essentially steered the research in his direction. Kennedy oversaw the collection of DNA samples from descendants of the historic core
Melungeon population, and Jones genotyped the population (by calculating the
frequency of particular makers on the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the
non recombineng portion of the Y chromosome), and compared Melungeon frequencies
to those recorded for various world populations. (Jones has not yet published the Melungeon data, but he says his approach parallels the work by Weale et al. 2002
and Wilson et al. 2001.)

The cultural politics of self-ascribed Melungeons interacted with the
technical demands of population genetics to produce the "rough edges" of Jones’’s
research: the zones of conflict between professional and lay expectations (see Bosk
1992).

To begin with, this sort of research requires a clearly identified core
population for sampling. However, the inclusion criteria for this group are essentially
contested.

People who now call themselves Melungeon live both in southern Appalachia
and across the United States show a range of complexions and physical types, and
bear a number of surnames. Conversely, many people with the same residence,
appearance, and surnames do not identify as Melungeons. By necessity, Jones
relied entirely on Brent Kennedy to delineate the core Melungeon group.

I decided whom to sample. I think I know who are the original Melungeons,
those who lived between 1725 and 1790. I asked myself, can we locate the descendants of  those people?

Hence, we chose seven or eight people on the Virginia side and ten on the
Vardy, Tennessee, side.We began with these people who everyone agrees are the original
Melungeons. It was very easy to find their descendants. We all know who was related to whom; we just had to  find the right cousin (Brent Kennedy).
14 At this stage, Kevin Jones’’s role was to ensure that enough samples were
collected, that they came from independent lineages and that the descent was
traced exclusively through the female or male line, a requirement for
research with mtDNA and Y chromosome markers.

In contrast to the HGDP, the process of collecting Melungeon DNA did not
raise any questions about group sovereignty or informed consent. Kennedy presented
his plan for sampling to the Vardy Historical Society, a local community board of self-identified Melungeons. They immediately endorsed it, as did the people
approached in Virginia. In fact, Melungeons began to request DNA testing in
numbers that far exceeded the needs of research and the technical capacity in

(To be continued)



Enter your email address to start receiving this blog in your inbox


Enter your email address:  
Delivered by FeedBurner

Sunday, December 20, 2015

Don’t be fooled by the "Faux" Ancestry DNA test!!!


That “by” word

Don’t be fooled
Judging from the inbox of The Legal Genealogist (and of every genetic genealogist I know), it happens all too often.
And it’s just happened again.
Reader Theresa wrote in just yesterday: “I purchased AncestrybyDNA — a waste of money. Got a purple blob circle telling me I am European… I KNOW that. No breakdown of percents, Do not waste your money!”
Uh oh.

© History Chasers Click here to view all recent Historical Melungeons Blog posts Bookmark and Share

Enter your email address to start receiving this blog in your inbox


Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner

Thursday, December 17, 2015

FREE DNA Tests Thanks to Judy Russell

From the blog of Judy Russell, (a right jolly good elf) Free DNA tests… for three lucky readers
In case you hadn’t noticed, The Legal Genealogist is a DNA junkie. More money has gone out of this household in the last few years for DNA tests than for some entire categories of normal household budgets.
But that’s because I can afford it.
And not everybody can.
So many times, after I’ve written a post about how some brickwall was breached with DNA results, or some sale price was being offered, or some advance had been made, someone will quietly say, “I wish I could test, but I can’t afford it.”
presentAnd that always stops me in my tracks.
It makes me think how very lucky I am, that I have never had to choose between a keen genealogical tool I really want like a DNA test … and putting food on the table, or paying the electric or heating bill.
It happened again earlier this week, after last Sunday’s post about what DNA tests might be available at what budget levels,1 when more than one person quietly said, “I wish I could test, but I can’t afford it.”
I happened to be on Facebook when I read those words and, as I did, I noticed a name lit up on the right hand side showing a friend of mine was online.
And she happens to work for Family Tree DNA.
I put an idea to her, she took it up the line, and I am just thrilled to be able to say that, thanks to the generosity of Family Tree DNA, three lucky readers are going to have a happier holiday season.
Thanks to the generosity of Family Tree DNA, I’m going to be able to give away three DNA test kits — one YDNA 37-marker kit, and two Family Finder autosomal kits.

First, the rules:


Good luck!!!!

© History Chasers Click here to view all recent Historical Melungeons Blog posts Bookmark and Share

Enter your email address to start receiving this blog in your inbox


Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner

Friday, November 13, 2015

Blaine Bettinger's Shared cM Project – An Update



One of the greatest advantages of the DNA Testing Community is the participant's willingness to share. This article and chart are an example. I am pretty sure I sent in my donations to this project. In any case, I am surely glad all these other people did, enabling the author to compile actual data for comparisons.

The Shared cM Project – An Update

As you might recall, a few months ago I sent out a call (“Collecting Sharing Information for Known Relationships“) for information about the amount of DNA shared by people having a known genealogical relationship. I was hoping to get a better picture of the ranges of the amount of DNA shared by people in these relationships (through about the third cousin range). The incredibly generous genetic genealogy community responded by submitting data bout more than 6,000 relationships!
I posted information a few weeks ago (“Collecting Sharing Information for Known Relationships – Part II“), but today I have an update.
This data is shared under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike CC license. You are free to share and use the information for non-commercial purposes, as long as you give proper attribution and release anything you create under the same license.
Continued here:

http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2015/05/25/the-shared-cm-project-an-update/

© History Chasers Click here to view all recent Historical Melungeons Blog posts Bookmark and Share

Enter your email address to start receiving this blog in your inbox


Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Big Changes Coming to 23andMe!!!


The 23andMe Transition – First Step November 11th



If you tested through 23andMe, certainly by now you know they are undergoing a rather dramatic facelift and change of how their webpage, tools and matching works.
What’s Changing?
After November 11th, many changes will occur and many matches will no longer be available to you, especially if they are anonymous or use a nickname.  Here is a complete list of what will and will not be available.
The genetic genealogy community is struggling to understand exactly what this means to us, in terms of matches and functionality – both lost and gained.  Suffice it to say that a lot of confusion remains, so be on the safe side and download both your individual match list and your COA (Countries of Ancestry) matches if you utilize those.
Cont. here:

http://dna-explained.com/2015/11/05/the-23andme-transition-first-step-november-11th/?blogsub=pending#subscribe-blog


© History Chasers Click here to view all recent Historical Melungeons Blog posts Bookmark and Share

Enter your email address to start receiving this blog in your inbox


Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Embracing the Appalachian Accent






I spent the first 18 years of my life being molded by the mountains. I have explored every twist and turn on the back of a four wheeler. I know exactly how the Appalachian hills reflect each season with a beauty that only God himself could have crafted. When I left for college, a mere three hours away, I did not know how different I would seem to some of my peers because of where I call home. My accent was always the first topic of conversation, most out of genuine curiosity but some just condescension. The follow up question typically involved “...but what do you do there?” and ended with a causal “I couldnever live there.” It was confusing and sometimes hurtful how easily people could dismiss the place I loved. As college continued, though, I grew and made connections beyond that of my hometown. My accent still remained a tell-tale reminder of where I was from, though. I continued to get questions about it or be asked to repeat words because of the way I said them. I will not lie and say that I was never embarrassed, because I was, but I also knew that hiding my voice would be an injustice to my home.
Cont. here:
This is wonderful that this "child of Appalachia" recognises how precious and valuable her accent is. JEC

© History Chasers Click here to view all recent Historical Melungeons Blog posts Bookmark and Share

Enter your email address to start receiving this blog in your inbox


Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Whoever Heard of Irish Slaves?



Have you ever heard of Irish Slaves? Maybe you think this is a myth. Read more here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxCKKqZ2iKU

Related:
http://ambnotes.blogspot.com/2015/10/out-of-ireland-story-of-irish.html


© History Chasers Click here to view all recent Historical Melungeons Blog posts Bookmark and Share

Enter your email address to start receiving this blog in your inbox


Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner

Monday, October 19, 2015

How Blacks have Irish Last Names

Ever wonder how a lot of African Americans have Irish last names? It is not because of Irish slave owners, no erase that foolishness……don’t think Gone With The Wind and the O’Hara plantation. What a lot of people don’t know is that Irish were slaves too, hundreds of thousands were sent to work in the West Indies and they blended with the black slaves thus we have Irish names like McFadden, McDonalds, etc.



Irish descendantsThey came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.
Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.
We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? We know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade.

But, are we talking about African slavery? King James II and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.

The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Cont. here:
http://trianglebelowcanalstreet.com/2015/02/04/how-blacks-have-irish-last-names/

Related: This phenomena has been noted for the Welsh as well. And few of the Welsh were slave owner. I don't think it is far fetched to extrapolate this explanation to include the Welsh, because the English were notoriously cruel to the Welsh. JEC

Supplemental reading about Irish slaves:




http://historical-melungeons.blogspot.com/2008/07/persons-of-mean-and-vile-condition-pt-2.html








© History Chasers Click here to view all recent Historical Melungeons Blog posts Bookmark and Share

Enter your email address to start receiving this blog in your inbox


Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner

Monday, October 12, 2015

Indian Slavery in Colonial Times Within the Present Limits of the United States Pt. 2

Lauber, Almon Wheeler
PART II

THE INSTITUTION AS PRACTICED BY THE ENGLISH
104 105
CHAPTER IV

THE NUMBER OF INDIAN SLAVES

To arrive at any knowledge of the exact number of Indian slaves in any of the English colonies is impossible. Census reports and other vital statistics are infrequent or lacking, especially in the early colonial period; and often in such statistics as are extant Indian slaves either receive no mention, or are classed with negro slaves without distinction. From existing records, however, one is able to obtain a knowledge of the comparative numbers in the different groups of colonies, and to some extent in the individual colonies, during the colonial period. New England and the southern colonies were the sections that employed Indian slave labor most extensively, the south taking precedence, for climatic conditions there were more favorable, and economic conditions made necessary a larger quantity of servile labor than was required in the north.1 Yet New England made use of the natives as slaves as long as they lasted,2 and drew further supplies from Maine,3 the Carolinas,4 and other districts.5

Among the English colonies, the Carolinas stood first
1 Doyle, English Colonies in America, The Puritan Colonies, ii, p. 506.
2 I. e., until after the Pequot and King Philip Wars.
3 Freeman, The History of Cape Cod, p. 72.
4 Connecticut Colonial Records, 1715, p. 516.
5 Coffin, A Sketch of the History of Newbury, etc., p. 337; Essex Institute Historical Collections, vii, p. 73; Connecticut Colonial Records, 1711, p. 233.

106

in the use of Indians as slaves. Such use began with the founding of the colony. The need for laborers was great; the source of supply was near at hand and the colonists availed themselves of their opportunity. Probably captives of the Stono War became the Indian slaves mentioned in the inventory of Captain Valentine Byrd, “one of the grandees of the time.”1 In a report on conditions in the colony, made to the proprietors, September 17, 1708, by Governor Nathaniel Johnson and his council, the number of Indian men slaves was given as 500, Indian women slaves, as 600, Indian children slaves, as 300, a total of 1400 Indian slaves. The number of negroes at the same time was stated as 4100, of indentured servants, 120, and of free whites, 3960. The governor gave the cause of the rapid increase in the number of the Indian slaves during the five preceding years, as “our late conquest over the French and Spanish, and the success of our forces against the Appalaskys and in other Indian engagements.”2

Only a small portion of the whole number of Indians enslaved were kept in the colony.3 Yet, in 1708, it was estimated that the native population furnished one-fourth of the whole number of slaves in South Carolina.4 The public records of that colony contain a list of ninety-eight Indian slaves with their owners’ names, taken by the Spaniards and their allies in 1715, during the Indian
1 Hawks, History of North Carolina, etc., second edition, ii, p. 577.
2 Bancroft Papers Relating to Carolina, in New York City Public Library, MSS. vol. i, 1662-1769; Rivers, A Sketch of the History of South Carolina to the Close of the Proprietary Government, etc., p. 232; South Carolina Historical Society Collections, ii, p. 217; Thomas, The Indians of North America, etc., p. 95; Schaper, Sectionalism in South Carolina, p. 263.
3 Logan, A History of the Upper Country of South Carolina, i, p. 189.
4 Rivers, A Sketch of the History of South Carolina to the Close of Proprietary Government, etc., p. 231.

107

war, and carried to St. Augustine. The number of these slaves belonging to individual persons varied from one to ten.1 A report of 1723 mentions the number of slaves in South Carolina and Georgia as ranging from 16,000 to 20,000, “chiefly negroes and a few Indians.”2 Another report of the following year estimates the number of slaves as 32,000, “mostly negroes”,3 In 1728, the population of St. Thomas’ parish, South Carolina, consisted of 565 whites, 950 negro slaves, and 60 Indian slaves.4 From
1 Public Records of South Carolina, 1711-1716, vi, p. 276; British Public Record Office, Am. N. I., vol. 620.
2 Hewat, An Historical Account of the Rise of the Colonies of South Carolina and Georgia, i, p. 309.
3 Glenn, A Description of South Carolina, etc., p. 81; Charleston Year Book, 1883, p. 407. (A quotation from a pamphlet entitled, “The Importance of the British Plantations in America to this Kingdom,” London, 1731).
4 Dalcho, An Historical Account of the Protestant Episcopal Church in South Carolina, p. 287; Humphreys, An Historical Account of the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, etc., edition of 1730, pp. 103-105.
As the result of the intermingling of negroes and Indians, which came about when the coast tribes dwindled and the small number of remaining members moved inland, associated and intermarried with the negroes until they finally lost their identity and were classed with that race, a considerable portion of the blood of the southern negroes is unquestionably Indian. Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1897-1898, p. 233. It was these mixed bloods, as well as the pure blood Indians, to which the statutes referred by the terms “Indian slaves” and “mustee,” or “mestee,” slaves. Occasional mention is made in the colonial newspapers of slaves of the mixed red and black races. American Weekly Mercury, October 24, 1734. The opinion has even been advanced that, in certain of the colonies, there never were any pure blood Indian slaves. Mr. W. B. Melius of Albany, New York, asserts; “I do not believe the pure Indian was sold as a slave (in New York), I believe the Indian who was the slave was not without mixture.” New York State Library Bulletin, History, No. 4, May, 1900. One instance of the mixture of the Indians and negroes in New York is found in a complaint made in 1717, that negro slaves ran away, and were secreted by the Minisink with whose women they intermarried. Ibid., No. 4, May, 1900.

108

these statistics, it will be seen that the number of Indian slaves was much smaller than the number of negroes, and that it was growing smaller toward the middle of the eighteenth century, while that of negroes was constantly increasing.

The early history of Indian slavery in Georgia is so bound up with that of Carolina, the Indian wars, and the difficulties with the Spaniards of Florida, as to require but little especial attention. After the settlement of Georgia as a separate colony, occasional mention is made of Indian slaves.1 In 1759, as the basis for a tax bill, the number of slaves was placed at 2500, but a committee of the legislature declared the number to have been underestimated. How many of this number were Indians is not known. The colony was settled at a time when Indian slavery was passing out of existence. So it is safe to state that the number of such slaves was small.

The number of Indian slaves in Virginia, also, was small, owing largely to the number of indentured servants, and to the early introduction and fitness of the negroes for the labor of the colony. In 1671, Berkeley reported the whole population of the colony as 40,000, the number of indentured servants as 6000, and that of slaves as 2000. But no division of slaves according to color was made. In certain sections but few slaves were used. The Scotch-Irish and the Germans preferred their own labor to that of slaves. Some Indians were taken in war, but they were inconsiderable when compared with the number captured in the Carolinas. Occasional mention of Indian slaves is found well into the eighteenth century.

Indian slavery in Massachusetts began early. Following
1 Colonial Records of the State of Georgia, vi, p. 259, mentions an Indian slave in 1749.
2 Howe, Historical Collections of Virginia, etc., p. 134.

109

the Pequot War, 1637, forty-eight captives were retained as slaves in the colony,1 After King Philip’s War, 1675, also, certain of the captives were made slaves,2 but no record exists of the exact number. The various records and histories of the Massachusetts towns show a general distribution of Indian slaves throughout the colony during the colonial period, such as existed following the two Indian wars above noted. Mere mention may be made of some of these: Plymouth,3 Boston,4 Roxbury,5 Ipswich,6 Quincy,7 Charleston,8 Malden,9 Haverhill,10 Milton.11 None of the official reports on the condition of New England makes mention of Indian slaves.12 But statistics show the number of slaves in Massachusetts in 1720 to have been 2000, including a few Indians.13 In 1790, according to the
1 Winthrop, Journal History of New England, i, p. 225, in Original Narratives of Early American History.
2 See Chapter V.
3 “It seems probable that there were no Indian slaves in Plymouth before the division of land in 1623.” Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, series 4, iii, p. 114.
4 Boston News Letter and other newspapers.
5 Ellis, The History of Roxbury Town, p. 136.
6 Felt, The History of Ipswich, pp. 306, 320; Boston Weekly Mercury, October 2, 1735.
7 Wilson, Where American Independence Began, p. 154.
8 Corey, The History of Malden, p. 416.
9 Ibid.
10 Chase, The History of Haverhill, pp. 239, 248.
11 Earle, Customs and Fashions in Old New England, p. 84.
12 Doyle, English Colonies in America, The Puritan Colonies, ii, p. 68. In 1708, Governor Dudley made a report on slaves and the slave trade to the Board of Trade, in which he stated that there were 400 negro slaves in Massachusetts. No mention was made of Indians. Historical Magazine, x, p. 52.
13 American Antiquarian Society Proceedings, 1885-1887, new series, iv, p. 216.

110

United States census report, the number of slaves in the state was 6,001, which number included about 200 half breed Indians.1 Since Massachusetts took the lead in the two Indian wars of New England, it seems likely that the number of Indian slaves in that colony exceeded that in either Connecticut or Rhode Island.2

The Rhode Island laws from 1636 to 1704 make no mention of Indian slaves. Yet they were held in the colony before 1704. The records of Block Island show them there in sufficient numbers, in 1675, to warrant the town council regulating their action. Captives taken in King Philip’s War were retained in the colony temporarily as slaves. The Boston newspapers occasionally mention runaway Indian slaves of Block Island.3 Both negro and Indian slavery reached a development in colonial Narragansett unusual in the northern colonies.4 In 1730, South Kingston had a population of 935 whites, 333 negroes and 223 Indian slaves. Eighteen years later, the proportion of races was nearly the same: 1405 whites, 380 negroes, and 193 Indians.5 As late as 1778, the laws of Rhode Island mentioned Indian slaves.6

Indian slavery in Connecticut began almost with the founding of the colony, and came about as a result of the Pequot War (1636). The captives taken in the war were
1 American Statistical Association Collections, i, pp. 208-214; Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, series 1, iv, p. 199.
2 Livermore, A History of Block Island, etc., p. 60.
3 New England Courant, June 17, 1723—A Spanish Indian runaway from Newport; Boston Gazette, October 28, 1728—An Indian runaway slave from Warwick, Rhode Island.



© History Chasers Click here to view all recent Historical Melungeons Blog posts Bookmark and Share

Enter your email address to start receiving this blog in your inbox


Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Indian Slavery in Colonial Times Within the Present Limits of the United States Pt. 1

New York: Columbia University, 1913

Lauber, Almon Wheeler


OF the processes in vogue among the English for the acquisition of Indian slaves, the most productive was that of warfare.1 With the exception of the Pequot War and King Philip’s War in New England, the Indian wars in the English colonies were confined to the south, and there the greatest number of Indian war captives were enslaved.


After the Indian massacre of 1622 in Virginia, there was published in London, in the same year, a tract entitled “The Relation of the Barbarous Massacre in Time of Peace and League, treacherously executed by the native infidels upon the English, the Twenty-second of March, 1622, published by Authority.” The general trend of the tract is to show the good that might result to the plantation from this disaster. Number five of the possible results reads: “Because the Indians, who before were used as friends, may now most justly be compelled to servitude in mines, and the like, of whom some may be sent for the use of the Summer Islands.”2


The policy advocated by the tract was carried out in succeeding Indian wars in Virginia. The accounts of a certain Thomas Smallcomb, lieutenant at Fort Royal on Pamunkey, who was probably killed in the war with Opechancanough, show him possessed at the time of his death, 1646, of several Indian slaves.1 It seems probable that these slaves were captives in war. After his rebellion, 1676, Bacon sold some of his Indian prisoners.2 The rest were disposed of by Governor Berkeley.3


From the beginning of the colony, the settlers of Carolina were in trouble with the Indians. In September, 1671, war was declared against the Kussoe, a tribe on the southern frontier who posed as allies of the Spaniards, and who vexed the Carolina settlers with petty depredations. The Kussoe were quickly defeated, and the prisoners sent to be sold out of the colony, unless ransomed by their country men.4 During the war with the Stono Indians in 1680, the captive Indians were brought to Charleston and sold by Governor West to the traders in the colony to be carried to the West Indies as slaves.5


The breaking out of the war of the Spanish Succession in 1701 gave Governor Moore a chance to attack the Spanish Indians, capture and sell them under the excuse of the rules of war. Therefore, in 1702, he led a force of militia and Indians against St. Augustine, burned the city, and carried off, as slaves, whatever Indians he could obtain from the Spanish Indian villages along the way.1 A second attack on St. Augustine was made by Moore in 1704, with the purpose of destroying missions and carrying off slaves.2 An advance into the territories of the Apalachee resulted in the destruction of several missions, and the capture of more than a thousand Indians, some free, some slave.3 Nearly all the Apalachee were distributed as slaves among the Carolina settlers.4 The enslavement of Indians, indeed, was carried on wholesale. A letter to the proprietors, July 10, 1708, states that “the garrison of St. Augustine is by this war reduced to the bare walls, their cattle and Indian towns all consumed, either by us in our invasion of that place, or by our Indian subjects . . . they have driven the Floridians to the islands of the cape, have brought in and sold many hundred of them, and maybe now continue that trade, so that in some five years, they’ll reduce the barbarians to a fearless number.”5 In 1708, Colonel Barnwell of South Carolina made an expedition to the Appalachian province of Florida. It is thought that this was the time when Captain Nairn of South Carolina, with a party of Yamasee Indians, advanced to the vicinity of Lake Okechobee and brought back a number of captive Indians as slaves.6 A similar expedition of Colonel Palmer in 1727 against the Yamasee resulted in the destruction of many Indian towns, the slaughter of many natives, and the carrying off of great numbers to Charleston as slaves.1


As the result of the three expeditions sent by South Carolina from 1702 to 1708 against the Yamasee, Apalachee, and Timucua of northern Florida, there was carried back to Charleston, for sale as slaves, almost the entire population of seven towns, in all, some 1400 persons.2 The captives taken in 1715 when the Yamasee and Creek Indians made a foray upon the South Carolina frontier, were sold as slaves. Mr. Johnston, a South Carolina missionary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, in his letter to the Society, December 19, 1715, states: “It is certain many of the Yammousees and Creek Indians were against the war all along. But our military men were so bent upon revenge, and so desirous to enrich themselves by making all the Indians slaves that fall into yr hands . . . . that it is in vain to represent the cruelty and injustice of such a procedure”.3


Throughout the Tuscarora War in North Carolina, Indian captives were retained or sold as slaves.4 At the beginning of military operations, following the Indian massacre of 1711, the friendly Indians agreed to help the English against their enemy upon promise of a reward of six blankets for each man killed by them, and the usual price of slaves for each woman and child delivered as captives.1 During the course of the war several hundred Indian allies were used by the English,2 and these allies took advantage of the opportunity to obtain large number of Indian captives to sell to the slave traders of the time.


In an attack on an Indian fort in 1711, thirty-nine women and children were captured and disposed of in the settlements as slaves.3 The two chief expeditions during the war were those of Colonel Barnwell, who was sent by South Carolina in January, 1712, and of Colonel Moore in January and February, 1713. Colonel Barnwell’s expedition took two hundred Indian women and children prisoners.4 The expedition of Colonel Moore virtually ended the war by capturing the fort in which the Tuscarora had taken refuge.5 Nine hundred men, women and children were killed or taken prisoners.6 In both expeditions the allied Indians secured as many as possible of the captured Indians whom they took along with them to sell as slaves in Charleston,7 and they still further increased their supply of slaves by attacking the peaceful Indians along the route of their return to South Carolina.8 During the course of the war more than seven hundred Indians were sold into slavery.


Related article:
https://books.google.com/books?id=6aLAeB5QiHAC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=indian+slaves+eastern+seaboard&source=bl&ots=Aa6Au_uT17&sig=aDOev21-5f39OkwkJDiCeS6vtoE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAmoVChMI3ISb6qC7yAIVBKKACh0xnwqu#v=onepage&q=indian%20slaves%20eastern%20seaboard&f=false


© History Chasers Click here to view all recent Historical Melungeons Blog posts Bookmark and Share

Enter your email address to start receiving this blog in your inbox


Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner

Friday, October 2, 2015

Native Americans Targeted for Turkish Alliance


The Armenian Reporter March 15, 2008

Turks are saying they were the first Americans

Real Native Americans say they speak with forked tongue

by Anoush Ter Taulian

''Last month, I reported about a January 26 panel discussion on
Turkic and Native American connections, held at the Turkish Center in
New York (see the story in the Community section of the Feb. 9
Reporter) in which the Turks presented their theory that their
ancestors crossed the Bering Strait into the Americas and thus are
the ancestors of some of the present day Native Americans. Since
then, I've been asking Native Americans and what they think of this
theory and I've found they do not welcome these Turkish
claims...............................

............However, the presenters also put forward a claim of
Turkish-Native American relatedness from a much more recent time. It
involves a group of Turks who claim to be related to
the "Melungeons": a population of mixed Indian, white, and black
ancestry, whose members say they are the descendants of the 200
Moors, West Africans, Portuguese soldiers, South American Indians,
and Ottoman Turkish galley slaves that Sir Francis Drake brought to
Roanoke Island, Virginia, in 1586.* There is no record of the number
and origin of the rescued prisoners who made up the diverse
ancestors of today's Melungeons (the group designated "Ottoman
slaves" could have included Bulgarians, Circassians, Abkhazians,
Arabs, Berbers, Greeks – evenArmenians). Nevertheless, there are now
Melungeon societies in the Appalachians; and the town of Wise,
Virginia, and Cesme in Turkey have become "sister cities" and plan to
engage in economic trade – all on the basis of this claim of a
Turkish-Melungeon connection. But according to Anton Edwards, a mixed
Native and African American, "The claims of these Turks are
preposterous." Edwards familiarized himself with some of the
materials used by the Turkish-Melungeon advocates, but came away
unconvinced..........

Continued here
http://www.reporter.am/pdfs/A0315.pdf

* This assertion has no basis in fact. It has not been proven that Sir Francis Drake left any people in North America or if he did, that any survived. And the leap to identifying them as ancestors of the Melungeons is a very long leap, indeed. Additionally, it is a matter of historical record that Drake returned the Turks to their homeland. See David Beers Quinn.


© History Chasers Click here to view all recent Historical Melungeons Blog posts Bookmark and Share

Enter your email address to start receiving this blog in your inbox


Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner