Melungeon-L Archives

Archiver > Melungeon > 2000-12 > 0975894626

From: "Roger" <>
Subject: Re: [Melungeon] What can we agree on?
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:50:26 -0500
References: <001301c05d60$a38945e0$e72a8fd1@kbd>

I agree with Karlton. It's like having a basic church doctrine. "This is
what we generally believe." It is not limited to just that, but has room
for change. It is a general concensus of the group. Sure, theory and
opinion is welcome but should be submitted in a friendly manner for
consideration and friendly discussion. I don't think anyone has cornered
the market on being "The Melungeon Expert." It would be interesting to know
how the term "Melungeon" came about, but why beat it into the ground. It
seems as if it is almost an obsession for some people to try to prove where
and how the name "Melungeon" originated. We'll find out the fact someday.
I think we should concentrate on researching our own genealogy and share it
with the list in order to make comparisons from family to family. It is
interesting to see the common denominators that show up demographically. And
I don't mean endless posts about "Chocolate Gravy" or the meaning of
"Cairne". It gives us something to pass on to our new list researchers as
to what we basically believe in. Like Karlton suggests, let's agree on a
basic platform and use it as a basis for our being on this research list.


----- Original Message -----
From: "karlton douglas" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 2:38 PM
Subject: [Melungeon] What can we agree on?

> I have been thinking about the multitude of different theories out there.
> What I am wondering is--can we agree on certain foundational truths about
> Melungeons to the point of possibly forming an overview, or general
> statement. In other words, can we agree enough on a foundation statement
> Melungeons so we have some place to start?
> If we can actually get a consensus as a group for some unity, then it
> seems we could build upon that base. But when we keep debating the
> foundation, how do we really ever get anywhere?
> Below is my own humble attempt to at least make a try at a general
> statement. There are those on the lists that can do it better, and can
> it out better.
> Why don't we try at seeing where we all can agree--it seems that would
> move us miles forward, and would eliminate this idea that we can't agree
> anything.
> Sincerely, Karlton
> Melungeons in general are White, Black, and Red. They are not "only"
> White, Black, or Indian. But a mix of two or more of those racial groups.
> They can be considered Tri-Racial to the degree that they are from at
> least the three "races" above, or some combination of the three, but may
> be limited to just those three "races".
> Melungeons were not from only one region, but from communities that
> produced a people of color, that was not always easy to define, and that
> a tendency to intermarry within that community. Often the communities were
> stable enough for a time to intermarry within families in that area,
> establishing a unique ethnic, or "racial" group.
> Because of racial laws that were oppressive, often Melungeon ancestors are
> much more difficult to trace as these ancestors tried to hide their ethnic
> makeup, or were pushed into areas where records were poorly kept. This
> difficulty on seeking out Melungeon ancestors should be considered, as
> as the following:
> 1. A family story-tradition of Indian, or Dark Ancestry.
> 2. Features that show up in one or more sides of the family that look
> "Indian" or "African".
> 3. Genealogical searches that show an ancestor/ancestors in known
> areas.
> 4. Surname, or names, that are known to be Melungeon.
> 5. Mediterranean Illnesses, or physical traits.
> Karlton Douglas
> ==== Melungeon Mailing List ====
> Melungeon Health Information
> Check it out!!!!

This thread: