If a "creationist" is also a Bible believer, he will know that after the
Flood of Noah's day, there was only one family on the earth. From them all
other families were derived. Earth was a very changed place when they
stepped out of the Ark, which rested upon the mountains of Ararat, which is not
in Africa.
Personally, I dislike homo sapiens applied to humans, who are NOT animals.
Humans were created in the image of God. Animals were not. I fear some
folks would have us take our theoretical Tree back to a point where we were
swinging from trees ! ! If it ever gets to that point, then the rest of us
can be sure that it was "science falsely so called."
Actually, I think we're diverging too far from the purpose of this
discussion group. This has little to do with true, by-the-books (record books,
that is) genealogy. We don't need to be dabbling into such highly
controversial topics, as where people originated. DNA research is so new that it is not
yet solid ground to stand on, for family history studies, and we'd better
proceed cautiously.
Carole
In a message dated 6/1/2012 3:16:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Dear Carole,
Easily enough, although I make no claims to being an expert, this is my
understanding. I don't believe that this particular science creates major
conflicts with even "creationist" theories of life.
All of us have within us two distinct forms of DNA (deoxyribonucleic
acid). One is contained in the cell nucleus, the other is contained within a
separate organelle called the mitochondria. Now that DNA, especially nucleic
yDNA, is in such general use in serious genealogy, it seems improbable
that anyone on the list is unfamiliar with the subject. Mitochondrial DNA, an
analysis of which is now available from all the major genealogical testing
groups, is distinct in that it traces directly back only through female
parents. In other words, it will match to your mother, her mother, her
mother -- on and on.
Two threads come together in Africa. First, each form of DNA is subject
to mutation over time, mitochondrial DNA, in particular is subject to a
relatively uniform rate of mutation. Overall, today's African native
population exhibits the most "mature" on earth, i.e. exhibits the largest number of
these relatively regular mutations. That indicates, in general terms,
that that the African community constitutes the oldest continuous line of our
genus, homo sapiens, on earth. Similarly, all of our collective
mitochondrial DNA coalesces around a single source, a source whose antiquity,
measured by mitochondria's regular rate of mutation would place her as a close
contemporary of the oldest remains of homo sapiens ever found -- all in
Africa. This is but a summary. If you would like further information on the
subject you can make a preliminary start with online resources like Wikipedia
and continue your research from there.
It's probably worth pointing out that the theory behind the original word
"mulatto" is also "laughable" on a common sense basis. With thousands upon
thousands of viable mixed race children appearing over the years, the
notion that the union would be sterile was disproven virtually from the moment
it was conceived.
Jack Fallin
"
On May 31, 2012, at 9:00 PM, VA-ROOTS automatic digest system wrote:
> There is 1 message totaling 266 lines in this issue.
> s
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. Mixed race slave children
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:10:33 -0400
> From: "Carole D. Bryant" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Mixed race slave children
>
> Could you quality how we now "know" (item 2) that "all currently
identified
> human populations came out of Africa" ?
>
>
> In a message dated 5/30/2012 3:38:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> Dear List,
>
> I've just had a similar issue come up in a different context.
>
> 1. The rule followed throughout the slave-holding states was that
slavery
> status followed the race of the mother. A number of the most famous of
> the fugitive slaves (Frederick Douglass, William Wells Brown, etc.)
were the
> children of slave mothers and white fathers. Any freedom granted to
such a
> mixed race child came as a matter of grace from its owner; in common
with
> other slaves it had no right whatever to determine its own fate.
> Technically, the children of an African-american father and a white
mother, should
> have been born free. However, that event seems to have been so rare
(or so
> severely repressed) as to have left little record.
>
> 2. The term "mulatto" came from a Spanish word meaning mule, the
subtext
> being that white and black were to be considered as different as horses
and
> mules, so that their offspring would be sterile. The theory was
disproven
> nearly daily, but the unfortunate label stuck. Now that we know that
all
> currently identified human populations came out of Africa the "theory"
> behind the label is simply laughable. In keeping with it's irrational
> beginnings, there likely were times when bi-racial children with white
and American
> Indian parents might well have been called mulatto. But it and it's
> related terms; "quadroon,"octoroon,etc." were just examples of the
> "hypoethnicity" that continuously denied that half, or three-quarters,
seven-eighths or
> more of a child's ancestry was white. All of this helps explain why
the
> seemingly mulatto has become so offensive and less terms like
bi-racial or
> multi-racial have become the general rule for what has always been, in
fact,
> a middle race, blending the inheritance of both father and mother.
>
> 3. The observation that the 1870 census can give no indication as to
> slavery status prior to emancipation is exactly right. The community
of "free
> persons of color" that had grown to considerable size in a number of
cities
> prior to the Civil War, was, at least officially, submerged in the far
> larger class of all free black persons in 1870. However an obsession
with
> color was to continue in that census and many that followed. The
instructions
> given to those charged with taking the 1870 census included this: "
Color.
> -- It must not be assumed that, where nothing is written in this
column,
> "White" is to be understood. The column is always to be filled. Be
> particularly careful in reporting the class Mulatto. The word is here
generic,
> and includes quadroons, octoroons, and all persons having any
perceptible
> trace of African blood. Important scientific results depend upon the
correct
> determination of this class in Schedules 1 ["Inhabitants"] and 2
> ["Mortality"]." (Ninth Census, United States, 1870, Instructions to
Assistant
> Marshalls, p. 10.) The instructions, of course, had far more to do
with the
> racial prejudice that immediately supplanted outright slavery than with
any
> "scientific" effort. Those same instructions were repeated for the
1880
> census, but the use of sub-categories reached its apogee in the
Instructions for
> the "lost" [because virtually all of the original results were burned
up]
> 1890 census:
>
> Write white, black, mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, Chinese, Japanese, or
> Indian according to the color or race of the persons enumerated. Be
> particularly careful to distinguish between blacks, mulattoes,
quadroons and
> octoroons. The word "black" should be used to describe those persons
who have
> from three-fourths or more black blood; "mulatto," those persons who
have from
> three-eights to five-eights black blood; "quadroon," those persons who
> have one-fourth black blood; and "octoroon," those persons who have
one-eighth
> or any trace of black blood.
> Eleventh Census of the United States, "Instructions to Enumerators,"
Under
> the Provisions of the Act of Congress Approved March 1, 1889, p.23.
> Emphasis added.
>
> By 1890 the federal bureaucracy appeared committed to providing the
> statistics necessary to support the "Jim Crow" and anti-miscegenation
laws
> centered in, but not confined to, the South and the racial covenants
that
> increasingly controlled land development throughout the country.
>
> The "mulatto" category and its various subcategories disappeared for
the
> 1900 census, you were Black or White. But Black included anyone "of
negro
> descent" leaving the census takers free to lump anyone with any
> African-American ancestry as Black. (Twelfth Census of the United
States, 1900,
> Instructions to Enumerators, p. 29.). Mulatto reappeared in 1910 (and
again in
> 1920) as a catch-all specifically intended to capture even the
smallest
> proportion of "negro blood."
>
> 108. Column 6. Color or race.--Write "W" for white; "B" for black; "Mu"
> for mulatto; "Ch" for Chinese; "Jp" for Japanese; "In" for Indian. For
all
> other persons not falling within one of these classes, write "Ot" (for
> other). and write on the left-hand margin of the schedule the race of
the person
> so indicated.
> 109. For census purposes, the term "black" (B) includes all persons who
> are evidently full-blooded negroes, while the term "mulatto" (Mu)
includes
> all other persons having some proportion or perceptible trace of negro
blood."
> Thirteenth Census of the United States, April 15, 1910, Instructions to
> Enumerators, p. 28. Emphasis added.
>
> In 1930 the instructions did away with the formal mulatto category and
> simultaneously created the clearest of paths for applying all race
related
> laws and covenants to those with even the remotest of African-American
> ancestry:
>
> 151. Negroes.--A person of mixed white and Negro blood should be
returned
> as a Negro no matter how small the percentage of Negro blood. Both
black
> and mulatto persons are to be returned as Negroes, without
distinction. ...
> Fifteenth Census (1930), Instructions to Enumerators, p.26. Emphasis
added.
>
> On the brink of the Second World War, with the "New Deal" firmly in
place,
> the 1940 census continued to officially support the same "any drop"
> definition that had been continuously enforced since slavery. It now
seemed to
> stop at the first generation by stating that "457. Mixed Races.--Any
mixture
> of white and nonwhite should be reported according to the nonwhite
> parent." But it was a distinction without a difference for those with
any
> African-American ancestry, by repeating the 1930 definition of a
"non-white"
> Negro:
>
> 455. Negroes.--A person of mixed white and Negro blood should be
returned
> as a Negro, no matter how small the percentage of Negro blood. ...
> Sixteenth Census, Instructions to Enumerators, p. 43. Emphasis added.
>
> This last section turned out a bit long, but it seems important to note
> just how quickly and thoroughly the United States reemployed words like
> "mulatto" in moving from slavery to sanctioned prejudice after the
Civil War.
> To this day,
> it remains difficult for a bi-racial individual to find a category that
> does anything other than suppress his or her actual status by requiring
a
> choice between Black and White on a the great majority of official and
> quasi-official forms.
>
> Jack Fallin
> Walnut Creek, CA
>
>
>
>
>> There are 3 messages totaling 93 lines in this issue.
>>
>> Topics of the day:
>>
>> 1. status of children born of slave mothers in 1858 (3)
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions at
>> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:43:45 -0700
>> From: "R. C. Solomon" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: status of children born of slave mothers in 1858
>>
>> I always thought that a child of a slave belonged to the slave owner -
> even if the child was father by a white man other than the owner. In
> researching my great great grandmother Easter Nelson, I found that her
first
> child, my great grandmother Edmonia was fathered by a relative of her
owner's
> wife - Lewis Dulin. I know amything is possible - but can it be that a
> child fathered by a white man in 1858 would be raised as a free child
by
> relatives of the mother? I have found a census record for a child named
Edmonia
> Nelson born in 1858 living with free mulatto Nelsons in the same county
in
> 1870. Of course I have no evidence that this Edmonia Nelson is the same
> Edmonia that Easter Nelson bore, but is it possible?
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions at
>> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 15:57:23 -0400
>> From: "Carole D. Bryant" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: status of children born of slave mothers in 1858
>>
>> can't "free mulatto" mean Indian ? or white-Indian mix ?
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 5/29/2012 3:55:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> [log in to unmask] writes:
>>
>> I always thought that a child of a slave belonged to the slave owner
-
>> even if the child was father by a white man other than the owner. In
>> researching my great great grandmother Easter Nelson, I found that
> her first
>> child, my great grandmother Edmonia was fathered by a relative of her
> owner's
>> wife - Lewis Dulin. I know amything is possible - but can it be that
a
> child
>> fathered by a white man in 1858 would be raised as a free child by
>> relatives of the mother? I have found a census record for a child
named
> Edmonia
>> Nelson born in 1858 living with free mulatto Nelsons in the same
county
> in
>> 1870. Of course I have no evidence that this Edmonia Nelson is the
same
>> Edmonia that Easter Nelson bore, but is it possible?
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions
>> at
>> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions at
>> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:07:13 -0400
>> From: Elaine McHale <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: status of children born of slave mothers in 1858
>>
>> In 1870, everyone was free. It would not surprise me at all to find a
>> former female slave's child living with her mother's family.
>>
>> --
>> Elaine McHale
>> Librarian
>> Fairfax County (VA) Public Library
>>
>>
>> On 5/29/12, R. C. Solomon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> I always thought that a child of a slave belonged to the slave owner
-
> even
>>> if the child was father by a white man other than the owner. In
> researching
>>> my great great grandmother Easter Nelson, I found that her first
child,
> my
>>> great grandmother Edmonia was fathered by a relative of her owner's
> wife -
>>> Lewis Dulin. I know amything is possible - but can it be that a
child
>>> fathered by a white man in 1858 would be raised as a free child by
> relatives
>>> of the mother? I have found a census record for a child named Edmonia
> Nelson
>>> born in 1858 living with free mulatto Nelsons in the same county in
> 1870. Of
>>> course I have no evidence that this Edmonia Nelson is the same
Edmonia
> that
>>> Easter Nelson bore, but is it possible?
>>>
>>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions
>>> at
>>> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>>>
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions at
>> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of VA-ROOTS Digest - 27 May 2012 to 29 May 2012 (#2012-75)
>> **************************************************************
>
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of VA-ROOTS Digest - 30 May 2012 to 31 May 2012 (#2012-77)
> **************************************************************
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
|
