Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

American Indian admixture in White Americans

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Well, I don't want to become embroiled in a debate in the la-la land of political correctness, but the complex history of the various Amerindian groups vis a vis Europeans, the U.S. Government, and the Canadian Government cannot be summarized adequately with the simple formula, "Red man good, white man bad."

    The Indians were not a single, monolithic people. They were divided into multifarious clans, tribes, incipient nations, and confederacies. They warred among themselves, sometimes in alliance with and sometimes against the various Europeans, European colonial governments, and European-derived successor governments.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Pleroma
      Thanks Gregory. Your post sent me on a search and I found this book that looks interesting:


      Suspect Relations: Sex, Race, and Resistance in Colonial North Carolina by Kirsten Fischer

      This is an on-line review:

      http://www.wm.edu/oieahc/wmq/Jan03/godbeerJan03.pdf


      Also, here is an brief article on the topic of race, Natives and the American south:

      "Mixed Blood" Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South"

      http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...10/ai_n9434183
      Nice reference, I will check if the school's library has it.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Stevo
        Well, I don't want to become embroiled in a debate in the la-la land of political correctness, but the complex history of the various Amerindian groups vis a vis Europeans, the U.S. Government, and the Canadian Government cannot be summarized adequately with the simple formula, "Red man good, white man bad."

        The Indians were not a single, monolithic people. They were divided into multifarious clans, tribes, incipient nations, and confederacies. They warred among themselves, sometimes in alliance with and sometimes against the various Europeans, European colonial governments, and European-derived successor governments.
        I had heard that some Indians acted as 'police' on behalf of the white people and were capturing other Indians.

        I rented a movie on dvd called Windwalker. It's beautiful. It's in Cheyenne with English subtitles. Many years ago I saw this movie. So far my favorite tribes are Cheyenne and Sioux. I found out that there were Sioux living in New Jersey in 1910
        http://www.accessgeneology.com/native/siouxcensus/

        What if my fathers mother is part Sioux? I met her when I was 21. She is from New Jersey. She told me she is from English, Dutch, French, & German ancestry. I felt very srongly that there was something she wasn't telling me. I could be wrong. Maybe it is only my moms side. Waiting for my mom to get her autosomal results.
        Last edited by rainbow; 1 October 2006, 04:13 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by N4321
          No, the Indians were forced out because the whites wanted their land, and with your white family going back that far in the Eastern US, you also need to take into account intermarriage among the whites. Like many of us, you are probably descended from the same couple via more than one of their children, so your 11 gggggrandparents could actually be only 2 or 3 whose children or grandchildren kept marrying one another. For instance, I'm descended from Johan Philip Serfas four different ways, maybe five.
          I'm descended from some European families several ways, so I know what you meant. I'm descended from Longshanks 3 times, that I know of. From 2 kids from his first wife (Spain), and one kid from his second wife (France). Their descendants married each other.

          I still feel there was A LOT of intermarriage going on, maybe not in the legal semse, but in the sense of there being A LOT of mixed children. Maybe the white guys were jealous that their women preferred Indian men? Maybe the wives of the white politicians put pressure on them to 'remove' the Indians because they were jealous of the Indian women?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by rainbow
            I still feel there was A LOT of intermarriage going on, maybe not in the legal semse, but in the sense of there being A LOT of mixed children. Maybe the white guys were jealous that their women preferred Indian men? Maybe the wives of the white politicians put pressure on them to 'remove' the Indians because they were jealous of the Indian women?
            A lot of the early male settlers in the remote regions married the Indian Maidens. We can not use the “S----“ word as that is a suggestive word in French, which I cannot/won’t repeat here.
            Let face it, those Indian Women were beautiful and completely trustworthy. They were good mothers and very protective of their family. They could also play rough if they had to. The “Bucks” did not seem to mind. I think there were more females than males in those days. I can’t remember if the marriage was done by the Chief of the tribe. I do not think (female) were comfortable in “White Man Court” or a Preacher. Maybe they just gave personal vows. I do know if they get a divorce, the males go with the father.

            darroll

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Stevo
              Well, I don't want to become embroiled in a debate in the la-la land of political correctness, but the complex history of the various Amerindian groups vis a vis Europeans, the U.S. Government, and the Canadian Government cannot be summarized adequately with the simple formula, "Red man good, white man bad."...
              Cultural relativism is its own brand of politically-correct dogma invoked to support or defend the stakes held by certain classes vis-a-vis others.

              Tom

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by tomcat
                Cultural relativism is its own brand of politically-correct dogma invoked to support or defend the stakes held by certain classes vis-a-vis others.

                Tom
                It is hardly "cultural relativism" to point out that the history of North America is complex and cannot be reduced to moronic formulae like, "Red man good, white man bad."

                Who said anything about "classes"?

                The difference between the early European immigrants to North America and Amerindians was not a matter of class.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Stevo
                  Who said anything about "classes"?

                  The difference between the early European immigrants to North America and Amerindians was not a matter of class.
                  The Europeans arrived with a very powerful notion of class, most intensely held by the English immigrants. Class is a perception not a reality---but the things that come of it are very real. The moment the European ancestors placed their feet on this land, they brought classism. It was part of who they were and deeply influenced their relationship with the North Americans.

                  You are right that this was a very complex relationship, as all human relationships are---however it is a productive thing to be able to indentify where our ancestors were foolish or short-sighted or just plain wicked. Main stream American lives in the psychological fall-out of those who took power not those who were rendered powerless, and if there is any desire in us to be better than all of those who came before, then we must examine and criticize honestly and without fear.

                  No statement can be taken out of the context of our time or removed from the person who speaks it. We see the end result of political policy in the current suffering of the Native American people. What we don't see so clearly, is what horrible things it did to the rest of us.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Pleroma
                    The Europeans arrived with a very powerful notion of class . . .
                    Read tomcat's post just above mine.

                    The English had a very powerful notion of classes in English society, but their relations with the Amerindians had nothing to do with that.

                    The Indians they viewed as outside of Christian society and thus outside its class system.

                    So tomcat's post about the stake certain "classes" had vis a vis others was not really relevant.

                    And the remark about "cultural relativism" was just gas.

                    But if you can find some primary source material in which a Pilgrim or one of the Jamestown settlers discusses to what "class" the Indians belonged, then by all means share it with us.

                    BTW, part of what made the North American experience unique is that very soon a very powerful notion of levelling and of equality replaced the Old World class system, but it still had little to do with relations with the Indians.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Pleroma

                      You are right that this was a very complex relationship, as all human relationships are---however it is a productive thing to be able to indentify where our ancestors were foolish or short-sighted or just plain wicked. Main stream American lives in the psychological fall-out of those who took power not those who were rendered powerless, and if there is any desire in us to be better than all of those who came before, then we must examine and criticize honestly and without fear.
                      Foolishness and wickedness do not characterize all white people or only white people. There was plenty of cruelty and evil to go around, and the multifarious Amerindian groups took part in their share of it.

                      So, if we are going to identify the shortcomings of our ancestors, let's be sure we see clearly.

                      Originally posted by Pleroma
                      No statement can be taken out of the context of our time or removed from the person who speaks it. We see the end result of political policy in the current suffering of the Native American people. What we don't see so clearly, is what horrible things it did to the rest of us.
                      Yes, I wept bitterly when I saw those poor "Native Americans" suffering at the last Indian-owned-and operated casino I visited.

                      When I think of all those trips to the bank they have to make!

                      It must be just awful!

                      Last edited by Stevo; 4 October 2006, 03:59 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        The Indians that stayed on the reservations (today) are mostly doing fine. They sent their children to colleges. Now they have their Casinos (See Stevo's earlier comment) and legal council and excellent management and good paying jobs..
                        The Indians that live on the reservations have their own police, courts and they do not like any outside intervention as to their affairs. Federal Marshals can only set foot on a reservation if they are invited.
                        I wish we would end the usage of politically correct terms. If a dog is brown, we have a brown dog. If someone has an “ugly” nose, better keep quiet.
                        All of the words ending in “ISM” should be suspect also.

                        darroll

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Thank you for your replies gentlemen. I rest my case.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            still don't know what all I am

                            October 8, 2006

                            I stumbled onto this interesting thread and topic just now, after months of not looking at this website. As I got very little help from my divorced parents as to what my ancestry was, I've been dabbling at it over the years now. What's interesting to me is my mother's lineage. That is, what I can manage to eek out about it. My mtDNA is U5 and therefore European. BUT, this is ultimately along a French settler line stemming back from St.Louis and thenn to Wisconsin. Before that I can only guess where the French female origin came from; Quebec?, New Orleans? Or perhaps an English colonial woman captured by Indians and ransomed to the French? (That happened as French policy during the French and Indian War.)

                            From what I've read, Frenchmen settlers in the Kaskaskia, Illinois area had Indian "wives" and had offspring before some of them managed to marry a European wife for carrying on their French family line. Anyway, that's the way I understood it. But there are various ways to acquire Native American DNA into one's lineage, and I'm fairly certain that I have a bit of that DNA somewhere in my autosomal genes myself. But I'm not through investigating.

                            Isn't all this fun!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              My mom got her results showing zero Native American, but 5% East Asian. I think I heard/read somewhere that some Native Americans test as East Asian.
                              Mine was 17% Native American, zero East Asian. I now assume that my Indian ancestry all comes down to me from one grandparent, my fathers mother. Her family has been in New Jersey since it was a Province. My fathers fathers parents were immigrants from Europe. Some interesting things I've found on my immigrant great grandfather(my fathers fathers father). He came here from Bremen, Germany as a 'non-immigrant' in 1906, and his listed destination was 'Fordville'. Faintly above it it looks like someone pencilled 'William', so it may be a 'Fort William'. On his naturalization forms, he first tried to say he was from Canada! He listed that he came into the USA from "Port Arthur"?, Canada to Duluth , Minnesota. Why on earth would he be in Canada and Minnesota? I'm left wondering if he was one of those Europeans with Indian ancestry and had searched for his Indian roots. Some white settlers left the USA and went back to Europe, right?
                              Anyway, the most likely explanation for my 17% NA is that it came from one grandparent, my paternal grandmother. I had found that there were Sioux living near to where her family is from. maybe I'm part Sioux? Or maybe nearly all of her direct male ancestors had mostly-Indian wives? That is most likely. I think that maybe most women in rural New Jersey in the 1700s & 1800s were of American Indian descent.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                confused by test results

                                October 16, 2006

                                Since I turned out having European mtDNA and Y-DNA, and not Native American in part, I had an autosomal test done. I just received my results showing that I''m 100% European. Actually, I'm disappointted. I thought I had at least a little Native Ameriican in me.

                                Since this autosomal test just looks at specific markers, maybe they missed something. After all, any Native Ammerican would have first entered into my maternal line in the 1700's, or even earlier if it had happened in Nouvelle-France (Quebec).

                                Now I'm thinking maybe my family tree is not what I thought it was.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X