Melungeon-L Archives

Archiver > Melungeon > 2002-12 > 1040940654


From: Brent Kennedy <>
Subject: Re: [Melungeon] I think I got it
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 14:10:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <000d01c2ad1c$3938aba0$643e1cce@computer>


Penny,

Yes, indeed, these are interesting times in which to
be digging. And I suspect the digging will never be
completed (at least not in our lifetimes <G>).

Re: the below, though, I would still consider the
childen and relatives of these folks originally termed
Melungeon to be "Melungeon descendants" and "Melungeon
related," regardless of the passage of time or where
these descendants might have moved. And that's really
how I see the Cherokee as an analogous situation. But
I also agree with your point that the progenitors of
the Melungeons were likely not called Melungeons, at
least as an ethnic term, and this does make their
situation different from the Cherokee.


Thanks, Penny.

Brent







--- Penny Ferguson <> wrote:
> I don't think that the Cherokee situation can be
> compared to the Melungeon
> situation. The people who were the progenitors of
> the Melungeons were never
> called Melungeon, from my research. If a man
> lived on New River, and had,
> say, three daughters, and two moved to the location
> when people referred to
> them as Melungeon, and the third daughter moved to
> Alabama, then his third
> daughter would never have been referred to as
> Melungeon. This word was
> thrust upon them at a certain place and at a certain
> time, from what I can
> "dig" out. Could we live in, and be from a place
> that is more interesting
> to research? And confusing? I'm still "digging."
>




Penny
> Brent said:
> For example, are those Cherokees who went to
> Oklahoma still Cherokees? Or
> more correctly, since those that went to Oklahoma
> were the officially
> recognized and removed Cherokees, are those who
> stayed behind and hid in the
> mountains (and later formed the Eastern Band) truly
> Cherokee? To me, both
> populations are "Cherokee," but simply dispersed
> over time and place.
> Remember, "Cherokee" was a descriptive term in the
> Cherokee language and not
> a racial designation, just as !
> with the term "Melungeon." The "Cherokee" actually
> called themselves the
> "Ani-yun-Wiya," and not Cherokee. Be that as it
> may, based on Jack's
> interpretation, it would seem that only one group or
> the other would
> qualify, since migration from the original site took
> place. This may or may
> not be a correct interpretation of what you were
> saying, Jack, but it was my
> first gut reaction and apparently it struck Roger in
> a similar way. Again,
> I'm not saying that Jack is wrong, but simply that
> it would seem to be one
> of the more restrictive definitions.
> Re: Joanne's comments below, I couldn't agree more.
> This is why we have so
> much debate and discussion. Each family's admixture
> and history is
> different. And I agree strongly that, within reason
> <G>, everybody is right
> and nobody is wrong. The only ones that I consider
> "wrong" are those that
> consider no one but themselves to be right <G>. As
> Joanne points out in her
> last sentence, we need to remember all is subject to
> change as more evidence
> is to be found. Thanks Joanne, Roger, and Jack!
> Brent
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ourmelungeons/front.html
>
>
>
>
> ==== Melungeon Mailing List ====
> The Melungeon Registry
>
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Flats/5649/melunreg.htm
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

This thread: