Paul,
Are you saying that the Native woman, had no cultural traditions that she 
passed on to her children? So when she married she just became a Negro? If 
you are stating that, then you are making a similar statement to those in 
Colonial Virginia, who passed the one drop rule.  However, you are stating 
that one culture absorbed another one, and the weaker culture disappeared.  
Although my family were not connected to a tribe, they had traditions that 
were passed down.  Just because someone is not connected to a tribe, does 
not mean they leave their culture behind.

Please clarify your statement.

Anita


>From: Paul Heinegg <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history         
>      <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Indian servants/slaves
>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:10:50 -0500
>
>Thanks Katherine. Very interesting study.
>
>But I wonder why scholars feel the need to quote someone from the Bass 
>family? Professor Rountree started this nonsense. John Bass married a 
>Nansemond Indian woman in 1638. There is no evidence that their descendants 
>had anything to do with the Nansemond tribe or that there was ever another 
>Indian in their ancestry. There is proof that John's grandson William Bass 
>married Sarah Lovina, the "Molatto" daughter of a "Negro" woman slave of 
>Captain John Nicholls in 1729 and that they were the ancestors of those 
>members of the family who remained in Norfolk County. The present-day 
>chiefs of the Bass family would be considered white anywhere outside 
>Norfolk County and surely have more African than Indian ancestry. Most of 
>their descendants spread to various counties in North Carolina and married 
>free African Americans.
>http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/bailey-berry.htm
>Paul

_________________________________________________________________
Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN 
http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm