Melungeon-L Archives

Archiver > Melungeon > 2003-01 > 1041551331


From: "Penny Ferguson" <>
Subject: Fw: [Melungeon] Re: Melungeon-D Digest V02 #1034
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:48:51 -0500


Dennis when I hurried and answered your email this morning, you had said
that your intuition told you that there were more Melungeons that I was
stating. That is why I asked for some proof, meaning not your intuition.
cuz Penny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Maggard" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Melungeon] Re: Melungeon-D Digest V02 #1034


> From: "Brent Kennedy" <>
>
> > Jack, Dennis, and Penny,
> > I know I'm not a part of this particular discussion thread, but it seems
> to me that the three of you are actually in agreement. When I read what
> each of you said in your original posts, then add them together, it pretty
> much reflects what you've all agreed to in the past (i.e., an original
core
> group with kinship to others).
>
> That's my feeling as well. To which I will add that where you draw the
line
> as to who is and is not considered to have been a Melungeon is entirely a
> matter of definition. We have different ideas as to where that line
should
> be drawn, meaning different ideas to which definition makes the most sense
> and is the most useful, but definitions are not right or wrong or subject
to
> proof or disproof. In the long run, useful definitions are kept while
less
> useful definitions tend to fall by the wayside; however; most words in the
> English language have multiple definitions and so may it prove to be with
> the word Melungeon in the long run. That's not a problem -- and it's
> certainly nothing to get worked up over -- so long as we all know what
> definition is being used in a given context and know that the differences
in
> usage are merely a matter of using different definitions.
>
>
> Dennis
>
>
> ==== Melungeon Mailing List ====
> The Melungeon Registry
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Flats/5649/melunreg.htm
>

This thread: