Melungeon-L Archives

Archiver > Melungeon > 2005-12 > 1134713690


From: "friend9nine9" <>
Subject: Spanish, Portuguese, Turkish, Sephardic and other meaningful, non-Indian exotic cultural Presence in NORTH America before 1619
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:17:01 -0800
References: <20051214231715.11216.qmail@web31206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <003d01c60182$4d4d0fb0$acc58641@hopestar> <003201c601a3$d6c157d0$6401a8c0@charlie1> <012b01c601c8$a3a45260$0a00a8c0@pennylaptop>


You know that I am hard to convince about these "other possibilities" . . .
NOT because there weren't Spanish sailors and outposts, forts, and lost
squadrons of men; NOT because there weren't fledgling false-start colonies,
abandoned forts, and Spanish missionary and mercantile interests that might
have ventured toward the interior; NOT because there was no Ponce de Leon,
and no missing expedition of Conquistadors; NOT because there couldn't have
been ships blown off course, captured and marooned pirates from Turkey and
elsewhere in the Eastern Med; NOT because Portuguese sailors might not have
signed on to sail with anyone, including the Spanish, French, Dutch, and
British; NOT because slave ships didn't really sail to North America with a
full crew, and back with a skeleton crew; NOT because the Indians of the
Southeast could not have captured Spanish, Portuguese and French explorers
and trappers . . . eventually absorbing them and their DNA into tribal NOT
because Toltec statues and carvings don't look African; Not because the
Dominican edict demanding that Jews convert or die didn't happen in 1492;
NOT because the British didn't really bring foreign tailors and
artisans--whose names were not listed on passenger manifests--to Virginia to
work; NOT because Laplanders, Vikings, and Caucasian Europeans could not
have trekked over the frozen north and mingled with the Indians, creating
new tribes with some White characteristics; and not because it is impossible
that there is no truth at all to the old Welsh stories of Prince Madoc's
fleet . . . or that the Welsh can't have any exotic origins stories of their
own; and NOT because a hundred other old-wives' tales don't have a grain of
truth in them . . . They probably ALL have some element of truth at the
root.

I am hard to convince because the stuff we KNOW from the family and
community records is sufficient to explain what happened to the descendants
of the people who married in with those first Africans who were stolen from
the Portuguese and bartered to land-owners along the mouth of the James
River in 1619. I know they all spent their first 10 or so years here as
Indentured Servants. I know that some of them either married or had kids
with White Indentured servants and that some of them or some of their
half-White children married in with the local Indians, and that they were
then considered to be Indians by some. I know that some branches stayed
with the Indians and forgot about the African ancestor, and that some others
married White and that their features changed with each successive
generation until most could eventually pass for White. I know that many
stopped passing along the family secret and began "passing" as white and
pretended they were Portuguese--probably because of the Angolan-Portuguese
connection until they finally migrated along with everyone else in the
Westward expansion . . . to places where people stopped asking why their
kids had curly hair and dark looks. I'm hard to convince because I don't
need to try to move the little rare and unusual connections to other
groups--which are interesting the way a random gnat is interesting near a
honey comb when I'm watching out for bees--to the forefront just because I'm
not satisfied with who my ancestors REALLY were.

That's why I'm hard to convince, and I think that's why my close cousin,
Don, is so hard to convince, too. What puzzles us is why so many of our
more distant cousins are so EASY to convince of every passing fancy and
wishfully thought up wonderment, perchancity, and whatifenality that happens
to blow past their noses with just a hint of a trace of a faintly telltale
reminiscence of "Hmmmm? Why not?"

But as far as Spanish, Portuguese, and Jewish traces . . . and to a lesser
degree, Turkish and other Ottoman influences . . . it would be nice if
someone credible uynbiased person . . . a skeptic who would unflinchingly
follow all leads and report it all, come-what-may . . . someone like Tim .
. . if someone like him--a professional or highly skilled and competent
amateur historical researcher--would take on the task . . . someone not
already known to be a looney-toon where this topic of exotic co-founders of
Melungeonism is concerned . . . who would do an unbiased investigation into
the real stories that seem to get exaggerated into positions of more
significance than they really merit (at least in terms of any seriously
pervasive Melungeon connections) . . . THEN I would not be so hard to
convince. I mean if anything beyond idle speculation actually turned up in
the process.

As far as this current thread about the Spanish forts and abandoned outposts
. . . well, of COURSE they existed. And probably some of the Spanish who
were separated from their people, lost, or marooned DID survive their
encounters with Indians--probably as captives who were firstslaves, then
absorbed into the tribes. But the survivors among them would have been few
and far between, and sepatated by tribal boundaries, so as NOT to have
become anything resembling a separate force that could have lived on for 100
years. Naw! Get real. Vikings, maybe. Because they would have been here
as a group, prepared to fight, looking for something, and organized in ways
that they could have survived Indian encounters . . . and then LEFT. But
random Spanish settlers? Think about what happened at Roanoke and almost
happened at Jamestown: Starvation and predation. They didn't leave,
preferring to wait for rescue or supplies . . . a strategy that apparently
led to the demise of Roanoke (though I believe as many of you do that some
married in with some local Indians), and ultimately to the success of
Jamestown.

If some remote, tiny settlement of Spanish people on the South Carolina
coast (for example) were not killed off by Indian attacks, starved to death
waiting for crops or supplies to come in, decimated by diseases they brought
with them, or ultimately rescued by a promised return voyage . . . then the
few alive when they finally gave up, gave in, or got captured would have
been weak, disorganized, and ready to BECOME Indians if the Indians would
feed them and keep them warm through winter. In the Spring, some would have
been traded away, some would have already died in captivity, and some would
have proven useful and would have been slated for evcentual adoption through
marriage. In two generations, their Spanish origins would have become the
stuff of local legend and lore among the little band in which that strange
one spent his (and much less likely, her) last years. And those legends
would have wound their way to nothing before the descendants got friendly
enough with British settlers to actually be able to "discuss" anything at
all.

Sure, it is possible that some Indian girl with a trace of European ancestry
might have caught the eye of the son of a half-Angolan girl and a Paddy,
Jock, or Taffy, out of prison and off the boat. Why not. But that is not
an organized occurrence. It is happenstance and probably impossible to
prove. Single, isolated cases don't make and barely influence the formation
of anything like an "ethnicity" or a group on interrelated families that are
known to outsiders as a kind of off-shoot band of some tribe--as some
Melungeon groups were known.

Unless you can think of some instance?? I'm open to being open-minded . .
. as long as my mind doesn;t slam shut when your details get a little flakey
around the edges.

Curtis

This thread: