- This topic has 13 voices and 35 replies.
-
Posts
-
I love this web site and the opportunity provided by this web site. I love the discussions.
But I feel a need to exercize “caution” when throwing surnames out as belonging to one tribe or another. It is important to know that probably 98% of English surnames belong to Englishmen, period. Ninety percent or more maybe of European surnames belong to descendents of Europeans, period.
Even if our ancestors had surnames of known Indian people in the right geographic area and time-frame during which Indians live there of that tribe. That’s how the surnames because “Indian” usually, a White man or woman married an Indian man or woman. So usually 5 or 6 White siblings lived near the one who married the Indian. So all we have shown from this exhaustive study is that we might have a 20 or 25 percent (derived from one sibling out of 4 or 5) chance of being descended from the sibling that married across race.
Please consider this as a challenge get better documentation rather than a threat to ones ancestry. In many cases it is difficult to trace, I know it is very difficult for us. It is easy to get carried away “hopoing” we can find an ancestor and grasp at “any” evidence. I am just urging caution.
vance
We definitely can’t grab onto a surname and a location and feel like that proves a connection. The vast majority of us will likely never find simple, direct proof. It just doesn’t exist. It’s the piling of circumstantials that is something we can look for and hope for, and SHOULD look for before we run off hog wild. I think by banding together we help that happen.
I know that’s what’s been happening with the Blackfoot ID. I’ve probably heard from several hundred families by now, enough to have a reasonable sample of data, but too much to be able to deal with readily. I decided to concentrate on just the past month and summarize that. I would think that would be an acceptable piece of “factual” data.
I know just from a quick tally that the majority of people I’ve heard from in that period who had the Blackfoot ID, had surnames found among Saponi-descended families in the southeast. Any one by itself wouldn’t mean that much, but taken together, that’s way beyond statistical probability. They may be very common English surnames, but the assembly of those names taken together is very unique. It’s impossible that Group A and Group B tied to the same geographical area, with similar oral histories of native ancestry, would both have a preponderance of those surnames purely by coincidence.
There’s a qualifer that, of course, these people are contacting me because they found the website, read the “Other Blackfoot” article and it fit with their family history, so the results are skewed by that a bit. BUT, the coincidence with the names on “the list” is still way too big to be explained in any way other than to just say that there’s a relationship.
But there are other factors beyond the realm of “factual proof.” For one thing, the first thing you’re taught in the Philosophy of Science is that there are no such things as scientific facts, proofs or truths. All there are are theories, and all theories are skewed by our expectations — our beliefs if you will. The main difference between religions “beliefs” and scientific “beliefs” is that in science we expect to be convinced of a theory by evidence and sound reasoning and ‘not by faith alone.’
The problem here is that what we’re doing isn’t just a matter of scientific beliefs. By tracking down ancestors I believe that we are heading into the realm of religion. The dominant Judeo-Christian heritage doesn’t admit of that, but worldwide throughout history, a lot of people have sensed a spiritual or religious quality to a connection with one’s ancestors. This brings me to another area of “evidence.”
Not only is there way too big a coincidence of Eastern Blackfoot ID’d surnames and Eastern Siouan surnames to be dismissed, there are way too many coincidences in general whenever I come near this investigation. I am compelled to feel that there is something, or I should say, someone out there, on the other side, active in this.
I spent over a year, when I first became interested in tracking down this side of the family, following a lead that it might be Tuscaroran. Nothing much happened in that time, but as soon as I started investigating this possibility, it was like walking through a jungle and getting pelted by coconuts on the head every turn I took. Okay, I’m in a jungle and coconuts will fall, but I was in one earlier, with just as many coconut trees in season and nothing touched me. To me, what’s believable is that there’s somebody up there in those trees having themselves a good time.
Dear Vance,
I agree with you, as it is very important to document your research. By that I mean original records, not just information you have seen on ancestry.com, etc., even though this can be used as a tool. Take for instance the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, if someone submits their family tree, the church doesn’t check to see if it’s correct. I do think that websites like this one, are very helpful. As we come into contact with others that we would have never met any other way, & we find that some of us are searching for the same families. That my friend is help.
In some instances documentation is difficult, do the Eugenics’ Movement. However, I have found that the ego’s of the racists have left behind a wealth of information regarding American Indian ancestry. They targeted certain families in my state of Virginia, because of their American Indian & or American Indian/European intermarriages. Not all of the information on Eugenics is available. There is one man that holds the original records of the “family trait studies” that were done. He refuses to make them public. I have spoke to him via phone, & sent him emails. The Morman church has copies of these records, but they have restricted them. So, unless you go to Salt Lake City, you can’t see them.
Another problem we face in Virginia is the fact that the Birth certificates are now done via computer. So any information that was on the back of someone’s birth certificate will never see the light of day. The first registrar of Vital Statistics, W.A. Plecker, did genealogy research with the aid of his assistant, of all families known or claiming to be of Indian ancestry. He then wrote on the back of their birth certifiticates, if they tried to pass as white. Plecker is also the man that came up with a “List of Those People Claiming to be Indian”. As Plecker thought all Indians were African American. He targeted the families that were of Indian & European Marriages, also he targeted those that were on Reservations. The families that gave him the most trouble came from Rockbridge & Amherst County, Virginia. This is where my Cash ancestors are from, as they were on his “Hit List”.
I completely agree with you ,regarding documenting your sources when doing work on your ancestors. However I felt the need to share with you why it is sometimes so difficult to find the truth. I personally feel lucky, as my mother has found a Marriage Bond that states the words “Intermarriage” at the top. This marriage was between a Cash & a Patterson,my great-great-great grandparents. Also I’m happy that Plecker’s list survived over the years, as it is proof of American Indian ancestry, even though I wish the list had never existed to begin with. I am glad that my dear grandmother was willing to tell me that we are Indian.
Sincerely,
Coheeslady 🙂
I agree whole heartedly about following the paper trail. I have lists of names given to me by relatives and internet contacts that trace some of my lines back as far as the 1400’s, but on paper I can’t get my family out of Kentucky!
It’s so sad that VA has computerized to the point where all that valuable information is missing. I recently requested records of both marriages between my G-Grandmother & G-Grandfather from Kentucky.
They sent photocopies, but due to the size of the original book only their names and the marriage date were visible. To the right side of the page you could see another column and more writing but the clerk didn’t bother to copy that for me. Had he or she simply turned the book the other way on the machine I would have probably gotten other information. I MIGHT have even gotten the bride’s parents names. I need to retire so I can go do some “face-to-face” genealogy. (and perhaps show somebody how to use a copy machine)
It’s very frustrating, especially since this GG’mother is one of my most mysterious ancestors. Her name was Polly Ann Hoskins and she seems to have simply materialized out of thin air the day GG’pa married her. They were married twice, she had two children, and then she died–all in a matter of 4 years.
Thanks Vance, for your comments. I wholeheartedly agree. The actual list of known Saponi Names from the time when the Saponi were still being identified tribally in Virginia/NC is very, VERY small (less than 10) These “lists of known Saponi names” that I see floating around that sometimes contain dozens and dozens of names are based on some pretty thin evidence, in most cases.
Bear in mind, some folks have just accepted as fact the idea that every person in early records enumerated as “Fpc”, “free colored”, “mulatto”, etc was really an Indian. Sometimes they were, sometimes they were not.
Take for example the surname “Lawrence”, found among individuals in Southside Virginia in the early to mid 1700’s. (and later) Some of the individuals with this surname are identified as Indian in mid-1700’s records in Brunswick county. Others are identified as free negros, others are not specified as to race (and so may be white) Colonial records indicate that the Saponi were still being counted as a Tribal group in South side Virginia as late as 1775, and were living near the Nottoway in 1760. So the Lawrence family members identified as Indians in Brunswick in the mid 1700’s MAY be Saponi. Very likely were, in fact. But at no point are any of the Indian Lawrences identified by Tribal group. They may have been Saponi, Algonquin migrants from the Tidewater, or even Tuscarora/Meherrin migrants from ne NC. So to me, including that surname on a list of “known” Saponi names would be misleading. Some of the Lawrences in Brunswick may have had no Native blood whatsoever. Tucker, also from Brunswick, is a similar case.
I also should add that one of the nice things about this board is that no one really has to prove anything to anyone else. I prefer to deal in historical facts that I can search out of the archives, vaults and courthouse basements. But that does not mean that I don’t find family stories fascinating, and frequently accurate. And I would not even remotely consider disputing with someone whose basis for claiming Native ancestry was found in their heart rather than in a book. If that satisfies them, and makes them happy, I think that is wonderful, and hopefully perhaps my research may some day be able to supplement their belief.
One of the chief men of the Yaopim Tribe, interestingly enough, in the mid 1700’s, had the surname Hawkins.
To: Patty & Forest Hazel,
Patty, you should complain about the marriage record copies you received, as vital information was left out due to carelessness. Since you paid for the copies, it’s only fair that you get all of the information, not just part of it.
Forest,
All I can say regarding your post is, Well said! 🙂
Sincerely,
Coheeslady
I also should add that one of the nice things about this board is that no one really has to prove anything to anyone else.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could use all the time and energy we use trying to “prove” what we really already know, into doing something constructive about it? Things like resurrecting the culture, the memory, the history, the values, etc. etc. of these ancestors? Isn’t that why they’re teasing us? Because they want us to reverse their “extinction?”
Ya know I brought up this topic because in my own case, I saw the records of the “Blackfoot” Church in Indiana. My ancestors had lived in a neighborning county. I thought “my God, this is proof!”
I went back to that web site and reread it a few days ago. It said someone around 1900 went around town asking the older population how the “Blackfoot Church” got its name. This church had its origin near the end of the 18th century, so 100 or more years had passed. Then I remembered an early argument against using the term “Blackfoot” was that it was introduced to the East at the end of the 19th century . . . that’s the time this placque and information was recorded. My heart sank. I thought “get your ducks in a row, and re-examine this.”
Yeah, it’s be nice if this were not necessary. And yeah, facts are hard to come by and circumstantial evidence is acceptable in a court room, if not a scientific laboratory. Archaelogists (sp?) take more time digging than the used to, trowel of dist after trowel of dust, so they won’t overlook anything, and so noone can question their results. Unfortunate, but necessary.
And I agree Linda & others, and want to say “well done” and thanks for this opportunity, and for your research here.
I think most of us are fairly professional researchers doin’ the best we know how to do. But “I” was gettin’ euphoric about the “Blackfoot ID” tag from that information about that Blackfoot Church in Indiana, and I realized I was losin my objectivity, and that is dangerous, as I could start “dreamin” all sorts of things that I can not prove, such as sayin or thinkin “my ancestors were with Tecumseh.” For all I know they may have been Indian Army scouts (since I am pretty sure they were Christian from an early time) who helped track him down — I have no proof. So I was cautioning myself, to remain objective, really, in starting this thread. I want myself to maintain an objectivity — that is hard when I am talkin’ about personal things.
vance hawkins
Where is this website? It doesn’t sound like you’ve ruled anything out, yet. There are at least two possibilities. The old people were remembering something significant, or they were fabricating something at the time trendy, which, when you think about it, doesn’t really sound like something old people are into. I still say it would be worthwhile to dig deeper, to try to find any earlier records for that church and surrounding community and see if they tell us anything.
Anybody live in western Indiana?
the web site was graciously provided by Bess in the thread she created called . . .prophetstown . . . something about Tutelo bein with Tecumseh.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~c1debbi/Mason/blackfootchurch2.htm
No I haven’t ruled anything out. I think you have a good idea — someone livin near there should go and visit that church. Perhaps old records of the county.
The placque says an old man said the church was named for the Blackfoot Indians who once lived in the area. He said a lady died and the local Blackfoot Indians told the settlers where they could bury her.
I had ancestors who were “fronteirsmen” as well as ancestors who were the Indians they met. I doubt those hearty folks would have to ask local Indians where to bury a dead woman. It is more likely these travelers just buried her and went on. One hundred years later the town story teller came up with this story on the placque.
Also why would they name the church “Blackfoot Church”, after a group of non-Christian heathens who lived in the area, but didn’t attend? If there was a church named “Apache Church” in Apache country I’d expect to see the origin of the name related to those who attended. The same 200 years ago. I believe Blackfoot Indians not only “lived nearby”, but they attended that church.
I think it more likely that those early settlers WERE Blackfoot mixed-blood Indian Christians, refugees from the slavers and scalpers, fleeing the East coast. They had converted to Christianity long before.
Later Tecumseh and his people came by and started mistrust between these mixed-bloods and both the Whites and Indians, and they feared retaliation from both sides, to the Whites they tried to became as White and to the nonChristian Indians they became as Indian. They had probably already lost much of their culture. Soon Tecumseh’s people were defeated and running, leaving these Blackfot — latecomer Indians but the earliest of settlers — to Indiana — talking about their ancestors as being “Indians who once lived here” and removed themselves from being their descendents for fear of retribution. These early settlers of Indiana then moved on to where Indians still were living (Oklahoma or Six Nations), or they intermaried into White families and told their grandkids they were “descended from Blackfoot Indians”. The grandkids of those grandkids are today tryin to find out who their ancestors were. This is what I think.
But I can not prove any of it and I don’t know how to prove it — there is evidence only I think. I can say I believe the earth is flat and that doesn’t make it so. I can provide evidence that it is flat, too by the way.
I must differentiate between what I know — the Church and placque DO exist — and the rest, what I can imagine might be the REAL story behind the origin of the church. That’s all.
vance
Did your family carry the Blackfoot ID? I can’t remember if you said it did or not.
One of the first things I investigated was Path Valley in Pennsylvania, where some of my people were. I found out Path Valley was short for Tuscarora Path Valley. When I looked into it further I found a history book that said the valley was named for Tuscarora Indians on their way north who stopped there overnight. That sounded pretty lame, so I kept digging and found a hundred year old article that talked about the Tuscarora (and likely others) living there for a good 50 years, from 1713 when they lost the war in NC, to mention of some there as late as 1760s. At one point, the colonial government even kicked all the white settlers out of the valley in order to keep peace. Didn’t last long, of course, and before long they all came streaming back in. Anyway, it’s an example of how the historical significance of a place name can be thoroughly minimized. That was a long “overnight.”
The cool thing about us not finding proof is that it keeps us digging. If tomorrow I find some scrap of evidence that “proves” everything I might feel like that’s that, and I can go on to something else. Maybe that’s not what we’re supposed to do. There are some of us who believe that most of what we are to find out about this will not come out of dusty old books, but from spirit.
To Vance & anyone else that wants to respond,
I have a simple question, regarding proof. Do you consider it proof, when my family finds documents of intermarriage? So far we have found two, one being a marriage bond for my great-great-great grandparents. Another was listed in a will of the same family. Also our surname was on Pleckers “hit list”. Recently my mother has found one of our relatives listed as Mulatto with Mulatto children. My grandmother told me we were Indian, her maiden name is the same one that is on Pleckers list.
Sincerely,
Coheeslady
I’ve wondered if the term intermarriage was ever used to indicate a marriage between cousins. I think the thing to do is ask a genealogist from that area who’s familiar with the terminology used in the time and place.
The evidence you have is good common sense evidence, and is good enough for me. I’m sure it doesn’t fit the bureaucratic, legalistic standards for proof, but who do you want to be “recognized” by, them or us?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
