GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-06 > 1056939629


From: Steve Williamson <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] mixed Creek
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <194.1b7e72df.2c30e877@aol.com>


Grant,
Well, I stand by what I wrote. I think you just took it in a different way that I meant it. My first paragraph was about books & articles that discussed mixing in the early US. By "early US" I meant the 13 Colonies, nothing else. The references I listed mainly refer to Virginia, Maryland, & the Carolinas.

The next paragraph was a summary of some of the conclusions of the authors of the works I listed, as well as info found in encyclopedias, American History textbooks, etc. I thought that what I was writing was mostly common knowledge. It is considered a truism by most historians that the British Colonies and the Spanish & French Colonies (to include Florida & Louisiana) differed in that way - in the amount of mixing.

If you are looking at it from the point of view of the Indian tribes of the Southeast, that's something different. In British America, the mixing had a direction. That is, more white genes were added into Indian populations than the reverse. That is my understanding based on everything I've read. I think, again based on what I've read, that that was due to the fact that the children of unions between white traders and Indian women almost always stayed with the Indian tribe, not with the white father's relatives. So a large "mestizo" population emerged among Indian tribes (like the Cherokee), often becoming chiefs, etc, but an equivalent group didn't emerge in the numerically superior white society (which is what I was referring to).

If the above is what you're saying, I do agree.

Steve W.





wrote:
In a message dated 6/29/03 5:50:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
writes:

> What is your evidence for this? If it's DNA Print results, that's just
> circular reasoning, isn't it?
>

Steve,

I was probably one of the first people on this list to say the DNA Print was
useless. I think you and I are in agreement on that. I've never had one done
even though I spent thousands of dollars on DNA testing on all four on my major
lines. My knowledge of the intermarriage comes from reading about contact
between Europeans and the indigenous tribes in the Southeast.

I actually started this research years ago because my great-grandmother was
named Dorah Francisco Middleton, born in AL, 1867.

Do you ever wonder why people think they are part Cherokee but rarely think
they are part Mohawk or part Cree? It is because the colonial English did not
intermarry as often as the early Scot traders.

Maybe the English in the colonies brought their wives. The tribes in the
Southeast adopted blacks and whites. They took on English names. By the time of
the Trail of Tears the chief of the Cherokee nation was 3/4 Scot. I just take
exception to your blanket statement that there was not much intermarriage in the
US.


Grant Johnston



==============================
To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to:
http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

This thread: