GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-09 > 1001190603


From: Arthur Murata <>
Subject: Re: WAYYY OT Indian Ancestors for Jennie Jerome
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 13:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3BACEC8C.6000709@dcn.davis.ca.us>


Thank you for the interesting lead to the Churchill book. I
found the chapter on "Urban Myth" enjoyable. However, I did
not feel that it proved anything nor, apparently, did the
author feel that she was supplying proof. It would be
interesting to do DNA tests on known living descendants of
the people in question; there are markers that are nearly
always present among Native Americans and others that are
nearly always absent. You can almost do a blood test now to
determine if you are Indian - not foolproof by any means,
but astonishingly accurate when it has been applied to
populations whose ancestry is not in question.

While improbable in most peoples' eyes, the practice of
claiming a bastard child as one's own (on the part of the
husband of the mother) is fairly prevalent. It certainly
puts off those who might suspect that the man had been
cuckolded. When there is a question of race mixture
involved and the surrounding community is largely English
(therefore unduly impressed with their own presumed racial
purity), it becomes political advisable for any prominent
white man to publicly claim his wife's children as his own.
Both my mother and my father, for instance, were married
when I was conceived - but not to one another. Therefore I
have always borne the surname, but not the genes, of my
mother's husband and I am officially recorded as his
daughter. I knew my biological father quite well and he
acknowledged me privately. If I was famous for some reason
and anyone wanted to research my ancestry after I was gone,
they would not find out that I am 5/7 American Indian, but
rather only 3/7. Is the research then the "truth" because
it is likelier for a child to be the product of a legal
marriage? Or is the genetic evidence the truth along with
the family "secret"? If Anna was, indeed, unusually dark in
her appearance and there was anecdotal evidence that she
was part-Indian, I would find no particular reason to doubt
her Indian blood. I would, of course, also want to get some
kind of notion about what her closest relatives looked like
- maybe the whole family is relatively dark for English
people (there goes that Spanish Armada again) or maybe she
stood out by being considerably darker than the rest.
Taking the anecdotal evidence alongside her appearance, is
she melanistic (the opposite of albino) or is she Indian?
Best Bronwen




--- "Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr." <>
wrote:
> URBAN MYTHS: INDIAN FOREBEARS
> http://www.winstonchurchill.org/fh104snell.htm
> PART OF: Articles: FAMILY/GENEALOGY
> The Armorial Bearings of Sir Winston Churchill
> <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/fh102arms.htm>;
> Chartwell Childhood
> <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/ffhemma.htm>;
> The Churchills: Pioneers and Politicians
> <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/p94snell.htm>;
> Churchill's American
> Heritage <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/fh104us.htm>;
> Churchill's Marriage 56-Year Triumph
> <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/wclementine.htm>;
> Churchill's Spencer
> Ancestry <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/wancestry.htm>;
> Chartwell Revisited with Celia Sandys
> <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/ffhkings.htm>; Let Us
> Command the Moment
> to Remain <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/ffhsoam2.htm>;
> Life With My Parents
> <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/ffhsoame.htm>;
> Lord Soames on Sir Winston
> <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/ffhlords.htm>;
> Sir Winston and His Mother Shared Suffragettes' Heckling
> <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/wjenniejerome.htm>; The
> North American
> Churchills <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/ffhsnell.htm>;
> Urban Myths: Indian Forebears
> <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/fh104snell.htm>; Winston
> and Clementine
> <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/ffhsoame.htm>;
> The Young Churchill
> <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/p94sandys.htm>;
> -------------------------------------------------
> Arthur Murata wrote:
>
> >Actually, it's probably me to blame for the OT thing.
> >Churchill's ancestry was an offhand anecdotal remark
> that
> >one of our posters decided to obsess about. You're quite
> >right about Micmac and Iroquois territory. Here I know
> what
> >I am talking about; I have been teaching American Indian
> >Studies, including American Indian History, for over 20
> >years in such places as University of California,
> Berkeley,
> >and more recently in Fresno, Calif. The Micmac, as part
> of
> >the Wabanaki Confederacy, would probably not have taken
> >kindly in those days to having a member of the
> >Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy among them,
> although
> >if that person was a woman married to a local person,
> they
> >might have let it pass.
> >
> >It is, however, also true that the Iroquois were in
> nearly
> >total control of the St. Lawrence Seaway and River for
> >quite some time - that being why the English were so
> >anxious to form an alliance with them. The other reason,
> of
> >course, is that the Wabanaki Alliance was cozy with the
> >French.
> >
> >All of the postings about the specific ancestors of
> >Churchill have one thing in common and that is the lack
> of
> >proof, in either direction, about whether or not she was
> >part-Indian. One possibility is that she was Indian, but
> no
> >from one of the 5 or 6 (after 1720) Iroquois Nations.
> >Another is that she was from one of the Iroquois groups
> >that were known as the "Younger Brothers" within the
> >Longhouse and often politically opposed the others
> during
> >such important events as the American War of
> Independence.
> >Still another possibility is that, as with many American
> >families, a rumor about Indian ancestry somehow floated
> in
> >on a cloud and in fact was not true. Finally, the names
> of
> >married folks on a piece of paper do not necessarily
> tell
> >the whole story - as our friend Spencer seems to know
> quite
> >well, given his obsession about bastards. It was never
> my
> >intent to open quite this much of a Pandora's box by a
> >posting that simply took a different political position
> >than that expressed by Spencer about current events. I
> am
> >trying to keep quieter - I really don't want to keep
> >running an OT thread, although if we really got into the
> >possibility of Indian ancestors for the Churchill
> family,
> >we may end up on topic after all (in terms of timeline).
> >Best, Bronwen Edwards (and her amused husband, Arthur
> >Murata)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--- Bernard Schulmann <>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>Subject: OT Indian Ancestors for Jennie Jerome
> >>>Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:15:29 +0800
> >>>From: "Leo van de Pas" <>
> >>>To:
> >>>
> >>>>"Churchill had an American mother who was
> >>>>
> >>part-Indian;..."
> >>
> >>>>["Bronwen Edwards", who posts as "Arthur Murata" ----
> >>>>
> >>we'd best have the
> >>
> >>>>FBI pay him a visit too.]
> >>>>---------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>Balderdash and codswallop.
> >>>>
> >>>>There is no truth to that canard about Jennie Jerome.
> >>>>
> >> Show us the
> >>
> >>>>genealogical evidence.
> >>>>
> >>>>Stand and Deliver.
> >>>>
> >>>>Better do your homework next time.
> >>>>
> >>>Anna Baker, a half Iroqois (is that how you spell it?)
> >>>
> >>half white girl. born
> >>
> >>>27 May 1761 Nova Scotia, died 28 December 1813
> >>>married circa 1787
> >>>David Willcox,
> >>>their daughter
> >>>Clarissa Willcox
> >>>born 10 September 1796 Palmyra New York
> >>>Died July 1827 Palmyra
> >>>married 24 December 1817 Palmyra
> >>>Ambrose Hall
> >>>their daughter
> >>>Clarissa/Clara Hall is the mother of Jennie Jerome
> >>>
> >>>Source
> >>>Gens Nostra, 1965, pages 82/83
> >>>
> >>>Best wishes
> >>>Leo van de Pas
> >>>
> >>I find the above odd in so far as the Iroqouis Nation
> is
> >>significantly west of Nova Scotia. I
> >>can not see the Micmac allowing some Iroquis
> interlopper
> >>that far into their territory.
> >>
> >>If Anna Baker was born somewhere in up colony New York,
> >>then it would seem more plausible, but the
> >>NS thing rings wrong. Are there any documents to back
> >>this up?
> >>
> >>Oh and by the way, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima
> culpa
> >>for straying over 300 years outside of our
> >>timeframe.
> >>
> >>Bernard
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging
> with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com


This thread: