Joseph Newman-Misc postings of interest

In a message dated 12/8/2008 4:21:15 A.M. Central Standard Time, manahoac_saponi@yahoo.com writes:
I came across something in the Saponi records about one of the chief's dying.....well what he died of is what struck me as very interesting.Ok well we all know about Brent Kennedy.Well this document talked about "Pleursy"....which is something I have also along with Tachycardia (doctors do not know what causes my Pleursy)....but any way.....I'll copy and past what the document says....and then I'll show you something about Pleursy."The daughter of the Tetero (that is Tutelo) king went away with the Sapponies, but being the last of her nation, and fearing she should not be treated according to her rank, poisoned herself, like an old Roman, with the root of the trumpet plant. Her father died two years before, who was the most intrepid Indian we have been acquainted with. He had made himself terrible to all other Indians by his exploits, and had escaped so many dangers that he was esteemed invulnerable. But at last he died of a pleurisy, the last man of his race and nation, leaving only that unhappy daughter behind him, who would not long survive him."Here is most of the page that came from and the source info:Page 89The Westover Manuscripts: Containing the History of the Dividing Line Betwixt Virginia and North Carolina; A Journey to the Land of Eden, A. D. 1733; and A Progress to the Mines. Written from 1728 to 1736, and Now First Published: Byrd, William, 1674-1744And in earnest they would have served well enough for that purpose, if the white people in the neighbourhood had not debauched their morals, and ruined their health with rum, which was the cause of many disorders, and ended at last in a barbarous murder committed by one of these Indians when he was drunk, for which the poor wretch was executed when he was sober. It was matter of great concern to them, however, that one of their grandees should be put to so ignominious a death. All Indians have as great an aversion to hanging as the Muscovites, though perhaps not for the same cleanly reason: these last believing that the soul of one that dies in this manner, being forced to sally out of the body at the postern, must needs be defiled. The Sapponies took this execution so much to heart, that they soon after quitted their settlement and removed in a body to the Catawbas. The daughter of the Tetero king went away with the Sapponies, but being the last of her nation, and fearing she should not be treated according to her rank, poisoned herself, like an old Roman, with the root of the trumpet plant. Her father died two years before, who was the most intrepid Indian we have been acquainted with. He had made himself terrible to all other Indians by his exploits, and had escaped so many dangers that he was esteemed invulnerable. But at last he died of a pleurisy, the last man of his race and nation, leaving only that unhappy daughter behind him, who would not long survive him.The most uncommon circumstance in this Indian visit was, that they all came on horse-back, which was certainly intended for a piece of state, because the distance was but three miles, and it is likely they had walked on foot twice as far to catch their horses. The men rode more awkwardly than any Dutch sailor, and the ladies bestrode their palfreys a la mode de France, but were so bashful about it, that there was no persuading them to mount till they were quite out of our sight. The French women used to ride a-straddle, not so much to make them sit firmer in the saddle, as from the hopes the same thing might peradventure befall them that once happened to the nun of Orleans, who, escaping out of a nunnery, took post en cavalier, and in ten miles' hard riding had the good fortune to have all the tokens of a man break out upon her. This piece of history ought to be the more credible, because it leans upon much the same degree of proof as the tale of bishop Burnet's two Italian nuns, who, according to his lordship's account, underwent the same happy metamorphosis, probablyby some other violent exercise.Ok now let's get into the Brent kennedy thing. Below is from Medicalnet.comWhat is sarcoidosis?Sarcoidosis is a disease that results from a specific type of inflammation of tissues of the body. It can appear in almost any body organ, but it starts most often in the lungs or lymph nodes.(Note:....most often in the Lungs...keep that in mind).Ok on the the next thing:Familial Mediterranean fever aka FMT:From Wikipedia (not a fully reliabale sources..but anyway).Familial Mediterranean Fever (FMF) is a hereditary inflammatory disorder that affects groups of people originating from around the Mediterranean Sea (hence its name). It is prominently present in the Armenian people, Sephardi Jews (and, to a much lesser extent, Ashkenazi Jews), people from Turkey, and the Arab countries.Signs and symptoms: (Take note of number 3)There are seven types of attacks. 90% of all patients have their first attacks before they are 20 years old. All develop over 2-4 hours and last anytime between 6 hours and 4 days. Most attacks involve fever:[1]1.Abdominal attacks, featuring abdominal pain affecting the whole abdomen with all signs of acute abdomen (e.g. appendicitis). They occur in 95% of all patients and may lead to unnecessary laparotomy. Incomplete attacks, with local tenderness and normal blood tests, have been reported. 2.Joint attacks, occurring in large joints, mainly of the legs. Usually, only one joint is affected. 75% of all FMF patientsexperience Joint attacks. 3.Chest attacks with pleuritis (inflammation of the pleural lining) and pericarditis (inflammation of the pericardium). Pleuritis occurs in 40%, but pericarditis is rare. 4.Scrotal attacks due to inflammation of the tunica vaginalis. This occurs in up to 5% and may be mistaken for acute scrotum (i.e. testicular torsion) 5.Myalgia (rare in isolation) 6.Erysipeloid (a skin reaction on the legs, rare in isolation) 7.Fever without any symptoms (25%) So now I'll quote from WebMD (Now my doctor told me I can't die from Pleursy...my doctor always just gives me some kind of inflamatory medicine....but apprently the Tutelo Chief died from it) but anyway on with WebMD.Understanding Pleurisy - the BasicsWhat Is Pleurisy?Pleurisy, also called pleuritis, is an inflammation of the pleura, which is the moist, double-layered membrane that surrounds the lungs and lines the rib cage. The condition can make breathing extremely painful. Sometimes it is associated with another condition called pleural effusion, where excess fluid fills the area between the membrane's layers.The double-layered pleura protects and lubricates the surface of the lungs as they inflate and deflate within the rib cage. Normally, a thin, fluid-filled gap -- the pleural space -- allows the two layers of the pleural membrane to slide gently past each other. But when these layers become inflamed, with every breath, sneeze, or cough their roughened surfaces rub painfully together like two pieces of sandpaper.In some cases of pleurisy, excess fluid seeps into the pleural space, resulting in pleural effusion. This fluid buildup usually has a lubricating effect, relieving the pain associated with pleurisy as it reduces friction between the membrane's layers. But at the same time, the added fluid puts pressure on the lungs, reducing their ability to move freely. A large amount of fluid may cause shortness of breath. In some cases of pleural effusion, this excess liquid can become infected.What Causes It?Viral infection is probably the most common cause of pleurisy. Other causes include the following:Lung infections, such as pneumonia and tuberculosis Other diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus), rheumatoid arthritis, cancer, liver and pulmonary embolism Chest injuries Drug reactions Pleurisy and pleural effusion are generally only as serious as the underlying disease causing it. If you have either of these conditions, you may already be undergoing treatment for the underlying disease; if not, seek medical attention immediately.A pleural effusion can occur without pleurisy Kidney disease, heart failure, and liver disease can cause pleural effusion without inflammation or pain.So....it's a interesting thing....I wish there was more about what caused the Tutelo Chief's Pleursy......If it was TB then why did William Bird not say TB....if it was Pneumonia why did he not say that? Why did he just say "A Plesury"? If it was TB then I'm sure it would have spread to the rest of the tribe which the Saponi/tutelo did not suffer a TB Epidemic....what deaths they had usually came from wars...they was almost always fighting. He did not say the Chief died of Disease......he did not say if the Chief died in winter, spring, Summer, etc either which makes it hard to tell if the Chief may have goten Pneumonia. but anyway I figured I woudl share this information.The location this Chief was at was Brunswick, Virginia at the Saponi Reservation.

Tennessee Melungeons

In a message dated 12/8/2008 6:16:46 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, manahoac_saponi@yahoo.com writes:
Thing with that is.....the louisa county records...look at the date....them are not the oldest records.

John Collins, (c1690 - 1752)
The birth year of John Collins is again an estimate based on a 1716 deed in Bertie County, NC.
John Collins wrote his will on 27 December 1749 in Bertie County, NC.

thats older than any of the other Virginia records...the hyde county records are

----------------------------

But none of these can be connected to Thomas Collins Sr., Thomas Collins Jr., Samuel Collins, Thomas Gibson and his sons Charles, Reuben, Major etc., --- they can be easily traced from Virginia to North Carolina to Tennessee. The Bertie County Collins, IIRC are R1b -- Vardy's is R1a and Valentine's is E3a..... Joanne

Joanne Wrote:
In a message dated 12/8/2008 8:37:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, manahoac_saponi@yahoo.com writes:
So....do we have Newman's ridge links to Bertie county, nc? yes we have that......Bunch and collins....We even know that Valentine Collins' dna matches perfect with the Bertie county, nc's DNA....His dna matches Henry Bunch....who it just so happens....henry's daughter married into the Collins family of Bertie.....Bertie being close to the Machapunga tribe where the Vandermullen, collins, Gibbs, and Austin are in the late 1600-early 1700's....oldest records.

I think I can say, with a fair degree of certainty, that these Gibsons who were called 'Tennessee Melungeons' can be traced back to Louisa Co., Virginia along with the Bunch, Collins, Goins, Goodmans, and others. The DNA match of Valentine Collins to the Bunch line could be from a union in 1747 in Virginia-- assuming Henry Bunch probably comes from the Louisa County line ;

1745 May 28 Louisa Co. VA "Ordered that William Hall, Samuel Collins, Thomas Collins, William Collins, Samuel Bunch, George Gibson, Benjamin Branham, Thomas Gibson, and William Donathan be summoned to appear at the next Court to answer the presentment of the Grand jury this day made against them for concealing tithables within twelve months past."
1747 Louisa Co VA: Thomas Collins sold 186 acres on Turkey Creek on the south side of the Southanna River to John Powell..the land lies near Gilbert Gibson, Thomas Gibson and Sam Bunch land.

The above Gilbert Gibson is no doubt the son of 'Gibby Gibson' who died in 1726 and left a Charles City County will. He is buried in the Lightfoot cemetery at Sandy Point with Francis, likely his wife, named in the will, and his father, Thomas Gibson. These Gibson lines were in Virginia in the early 1600s and I have found no connection to the Gibbs/Gibbes families you mention.

I have been in contact with researchers from the Bertie County Collins who assure me the DNA of those Collins do not match any of the 'Melungeon' Collins lines -- to my knowledge there is no proven link from the Bertie County families to the Hancock County,Tennessee Melungeons.

The Collins left Louisa County with the Bunch, Gibsons etc., and are found 1750 in Granville;

The 1750 tax list of Granville County, NC list the following:
Gideon Bunch 2 tithes (Micajer and William)
Thomas Collins Sr. 1 tithe, Samuel Collins 1 tithe, John Collins 1 tithe
Thomas Gibson with tithes Charles and George Gibson.

These are the families of the Newman's Ridge Melungeons. The 'other Melungeons' the ones in Hamilton County, Wilson Co, etc., by 1850 were from Bertie Co., North Carolina and Marion County, South Carolina. Why their kinfolks were called Lumbee, Smiling, Redbones, Carmel Indians etc., I don't know. Maybe as Dragging Canoe said in 1775;

"Whole Indian Nations have melted away like snowballs in the sun before the white man's advance. They leave scarcely a name of our people except those wrongly recorded by their destroyers." Joanne
Joseoph Newman wrote:

Well..the collins started out as Machapungs in Hyde county, NC. There was also VanderMullen with them and alot of Native people named Gibbs. This was a time when the Saponi was in the Bertie county, NC area.

Also....when the English first came to america....not the spainsih but the english.....their first stop was Hatteras island....they found a ship wrecked to pieced and it was partially burned.....the Hatteras tribe (the real name of the Croatoan) had the ship's flag in their village and there was mixed kids in the tribe already from the people of the Wreckage. The French and spainish was both on Hatteras before the English. The english got their in 1585.

The first english even had Portuguese men on their crew...one named Fernando.

Now if you google the meaning of gibson...you'll find several websites that says thats a proven variation of gibbs and gibbes.


Another surname found with the Saponi which originated from the Machapunga and Hatteras was Austin.

It was also proven that some (not all) Hatteras had moved in with the Mattamuskeet.

Handbook of American Indians, 1906
Hatteras. An Algonquian tribe living in 1701 on the sand banks of Cape Hatteras, N. C. east of Pamlico sound, and frequenting Roanoke Island. Their single village, Sandbanks, had them only about 80 inhabitants. They showed traces of white blood and claimed that some of their ancestors were white. They may have been identical with the Croatan Indians with whom Raleigh's colonists at Roanoke Island are supposed to have taken refuge.

Now we also know some of the Saponi at the brunswick reservation did in fact speak Algonkian.

The Hatteras when visited in the 1600's had blue and grey eyes...could read from books.....said their ancestors came from a book called Raleigh.....they showed signs of mixed ancestry...etc etc.

In fact there was several portugesse the english brought to Hatteras island on each trip. a few examples are,
Enrique Lopez, Portuguese merchantDiego Menendez de Valdes (He may be spainish)
Alonzo Cornieles, Captain of the Santa Maria of San Vicente (spainish or Portugesse)
Edward GorgesMaster BremigeMaster VincentCaptain John Copeltope(I'm sure at least one of them 4 was portugesse)
Simon Fernandez, chief pilot (Portugesse man)
Iohn Gostigo (Probally spainish or portugesse)


But anyway....that who the English brought to Hatteras island in the 1580's.....this does not even count the spainish and French who came to Hatteras before 1585.


But on to the colony of 1587...here is some names.

John Cheven
John GibbesThomas HarrisRichard Darige
William NicholesThomas ScotThomas ColmanGeorge Martyn

Now Simon Fernando the portugesse....he came on pretty much every trip from 1585-1587.....he was a proven portugesse..and I'm sure he had some mixed children by the women in his off and on 2 years with the Hatteras.

Now Sir Francis Drake was the person who picked up the first "Colony"....the first colony was not the first English trip....there was actually 6 trips....the first colony was more like the 3rd trip. lost colony was the 5th trip. Sir Francis drake was the 4th trip. Anyway.....Traveling with Drake was John Hawkins and william collins.....those two got left behind at Veracruz....they knew drake was going to Hattera to drop off supplies. This is proven..not a theory. ok so there was problems with the spianish in Verazcruz blah blah....so Hawkins and Collins knew there was a french colony in florida....so they went there...found the colony fisnihed off by the spainish.....so this crew started following the Native American paths up the East coast....Logic would say they would have went for Hatteras since they knew there was a Enlgish colony there and Drake was there.....little by little people from their crew started just staying with various tribes....Hawkins and Collins and their crew was staying a few days with each tribe that would take them in....probally spent a few weeks with some tribes.....anyway they probally got to Hateras and found out the First colony was not there...because the first colony had gotten the other tribes angry and the colony rode off to england with drake (Hatteras was still friendly to the english)....ok so they continue north and enter canada....end of a 11 month jounry and they finnally make it back....only some of the crew made it back though.....Only person I know who made it back was john Hawkins....I have not seen William collins listed as making it back to England. This is all proven.

Ok on to the next stuff.....

Newman's ridge stories....shipwrecked....burned portuguese ships....took native women as wifes....nc coast....all that stuff can be proven as stuff that really did happen on Hatteras island even before the First english came.......We also have proof of the Newman's ridge surnames found among the Hatteras and Machapunga before any other records and all the surnames related to native americans.....we even have the names "Captain John Goring 1586"(goring, Going, Goin) and" John Gostigo 1585-1586 "

We know the Saponi did often go live with the Catawba and cheraw.....we know the Lumbee are cheraw, Tuscarora, and Croatoan/Hatteras....their original name was Croatoan of roberson county.

Ok so let's see what the Saponi reocrds have.


1701:John Lawson finds Sapona indians along the banks of the Yadkin river (at that time was named Sapona river).Also in 1701 NC Davidson County. Trading Fort established on Sapona River (now called Ydkin River) at the Indian town of Sapona Town.

1701-1709:After John Lawson's visit to Sapona Village around Febuary 1701, the Saponi and Tutelo left their villages behind.The Siouan tribes had been getting attacked from the North and South Iroqious tribes.These 2 tribes moved Eastward and the Saponi creek near Nashville NC probally shows the path they took. Occaneechi and the other allied tribes followed. They was all moving toward the settler's settlements so Saponi village was no longer safe..They crossed the Roanoak river before the Tuskarora war of 1711.Their new Village was called Sapona townn. The Location was slightly East of roanoak river and about 15 miles westward from Windsor in Bertie county NC.So....do we have Newman's ridge links to Bertie county, nc? yes we have that......Bunch and collins....We even know that Valentine Collins' dna matches perfect with the Bertie county, nc's DNA....His dna matches Henry Bunch....who it just so happens....henry's daughter married into the Collins family of Bertie.....Bertie being close to the Machapunga tribe where the Vandermullen, collins, Gibbs, and Austin are in the late 1600-early 1700's....oldest records.

Hatteras island by the way is riddled with Shipwrecks.

So anyway....these Saponi move back to Virginia..

1733:Saponi not happy with their living with the Catawbas and returned to Virginia. These Saponi bring with them some Cheraws (Catawba). They were forced to petition Lt. Governor Gooch for permission to resettle in Virginia, which was granted (Merrell 1989:116). Note: This Cheraw/Saura town very near the settlement of the 'Rockingham County Indians' known as the Gibson and Goins.
Ok so we have the gibson and Goins name there...but anyway lets move along.

1723:The Stegaraki were located by Governor Spotswood of Virginia at Fort Christanna about 10 years earlier, and the Mepontsky, also placed there, may have been the Ontponea. We hear of the former as late as 1723, and there is good reason to believe that they united with the Tutelo and Saponi and followed their fortunes, and that under these two names were included all remnants of the Manahoac.Now let's see who these tribes was...

The Stegaraki, who were in Orange County along the Rapidan River
The Ontponea, who were located in Orange County

And of course we know Louisa county, VA was the first known location of the Saponi under the name Monasukapanough.......ok so the Saponi leave the reservation....etc etc.

In 1730, "William Bohannon came into court and made oath that about twenty-six of the Sapony Indians that inhabit Colonel Spotswood's land in Fox's neck go about and do a great deal of mischief by firing the woods; more especially on the 17th day of April last whereby several farrows of pigs were burnt in their beds, and that he verily believes that one of the Indians shot at him the same day, the bullet entering a tree within four feet of him; that he saw the Indian about one hundred yards from him, and no game of any sort between them; that the Indian after firing his gun stood in a stooping manner very studdy [steady] so that he could hardly discern him from a stump, that he has lost more of his pigs than usual since the coming of the said Indians; which is ordered to be certified to the General Assembly. " Orange county VA1742 ""Alexander Machartoon, John Bowling, Manicassa, Capt. Tom, Isaac, Harry, Blind Tom, Foolish Jack, Charles Griffin, John Collins, Little Jack. Indians being brought before the court by precept under the hands and seals of Wm Russell & Edward Spencer, Gent. for terrifying one Lawrence Strother and on suspicion of stealing hoggs........."" The above put up security individually. It was ordered that their guns be taken from them till they are ready to depart out of this county, "they having declared their intentions to the Court to depart this colony within a week" (Orange Co..VA Order Book 3 1741-1743. 309) Orange Co Va Microfilm Reel 31, Va "25 Jan 1745 Louisa County, Virginia Court: William Hall, Samuel Collins, William Collins, Samuel Bunch, George Gibson, Benjamin Brannum, Thomas Gibson, & William Donothan appear to answer an indictment for concealing tithables. Plead not guilty, Case continued."

1743-1747:Governor Clarence Gooch of Virginia reported to the Colonial Office that the "Saponies and other petty nations associated with them . . . are retired out of Virginia to the Cattawbas" (British Colonial Office 1743).

1749:3598 pg 384 WILLIAM MACKINTOSH 13 October 1749 200 acres in Johnston County on the S. side of the Neuse River on a place called Powells run near Sapony Camps, joining near the sd. run.

13 Oct 1749 Johnson Co. William Mackintosh 200 A on S side of Neuse on place called Powells run near Sapony Camps (975.6 R 2hm Colony of NC 1735-1764 V 1)

Now let's look real quick at another Person.....The Mattamuskeet's chief/King wasSquires..under him was the Mackey/Macay, etc family.....now we would want to see if for a fact there was anyone really important from the Mattamuskeet was traveling with these Saponi into virginia from Hyde county, nc area.

Which we do find that....Tonk Mack aka Tony Mackey.

27 Sept 1728 Sir: The 27th of September John Carter brought Negro Cofey to my house, as he says, by your orders, for me to examine concerning what the Saponys have told him about the white people, which I have done, and he tells me: that Great George told him that John Sauano and a fellow called Ben Harrison was gone to the Cotobers to fetch one hundred of them to come and see why their Indians was put in prison, and if Capt. Tom was hanged they would carry their wives and children over the Roanoke River and then they would drive the white people and negros as far as James River, and he says that Tony Mack told him that if Pyah was hanged he and the Cotobers would come and take revenge of the English, and he says that Sapony Tom told him if his son Harry Erwin was hanged they would kill you and three or four more Gentlemen and then go off, and he says that Dick told him that we had no business to come to the fort armed to concern ourselves about their killing one another, but we were like a sow that had lost her pigs would rally for a little time and then have done *, but when they began a war with the English they never would have done *. This from your humble servant to command, Thomas Avent The original document is held by the Virginia Historical Society, Richmond, VA and will give you a copy of the original. http://aventfamily.org/taveltr.htm
Now we already know about the Saponi recorded in Granville, nc and how the Collins, bunch, riddle etc was there at the same time....we know about the Newman's ridge records etc etc....we know about the Broad river records, etc etc.....so let's go back to Hyde county, NC where the oldest records are.


Children with surnames attributable to the Mattamuskeet were well represented among the apprentice bonds of this period. Twelve persons with the surname of Longtom, and twelve with the Mackey surname were apprenticed (see appendices 40 and 41). Other families of probable Indian descent are also represented in the records. The Collins family was represented by apprentice bonds on ten different individuals. One member of the Elks family was apprenticed. The Barber family, which had at least partial Indian descent, was represented by eleven individuals, and the Chance family was represented by a single bond. It is probable that other "free persons of color" families were descended from Indians, but no level of proof exists to prove that supposition.

The Mattamuskeets were, as indicated previously, joined by Indians from Roanoke and Hatteras Island by 1761. The names of these individuals were not identified on any of the extant deeds. This could mean the Indians from those areas moved to the Mattamuskeet area at a period later than that covered by the available records. Individuals with Mattamuskeet surnames do not occur in the Hyde County Records from 1761 to 1792. In fact, there is reference to only a single Indian during that time. This reference appeared in the Hyde County Court Minutes of 1765. It called for William Gibbs to show cause why an Indian woman named Cati Collins should not be set free. It is not clear from the reference whether William Gibbs was holding Cati Collins as an apprentice or a slave. The outcome of the show cause order could not be determined due to a break in the County Court Minutes from 1765 to 1767 (see appendix 35).

March 1765: Cate COLLINGS (COLLINS) , an "Indian Woman" servant of William GIBBS,Constable of Arrowmuskeet. March 1765 Hyde County Court Minutes andOrphans Book 2, on motion of Patrick Gordon ordered that Wm. GIBBS"shew" cause if he has any, why Cate COLLINGS (COLLINS) an Indianwoman, now in his service should not be set free.June Court 1765 - ordered that Wm. GIBBS have timely notice that heshow cause why Cate COLLINGS (COLLINS), an Indian woman be not set atliberty. 1820 Hyde county, NC Census shows the collins, Mackey, and Gibbs family living right next door to each other.


From Hyde County bastardry Bonds:AbijahAmanda (of colorE.S. HalaJamesJohnJohn (of color)Mahala/MahaliaRichardSaml. (of color)WellingtonFrom Hyde County Wills 1709-1775:BailyElizabethHannahHenryUriahFrom Hyde County Court Records 1736-1762:AnnBaileyHannahUriahFrom Hyde County Court Records 1762-1783:HenryAnd there's a mention of a Collins Creek in the following deed abstract:James Cleaves, blacksmith to Henry Tuley, ship carpenter, both of Hyde Co £70 in silver dollars @ 8s each 50 acres E side Matchapungo River, N side Slades Creek; beg Cleves corner pine in savannah, W170p with his line to black oak at head of Collins Creek, S110p along creek to Silvesters line, along his line N60° E200p to 1st.. 25 Aug 1780. James Cleaves. Wit: Ben Russel, Sam Davis. Proved at Aug Ct 1780. Test: Thos Smith, Dep Clk. Test: Joseph Hancock, Reg. Regd 26 Oct 1781.A few things about the above deed worth mentioning:

The Cleaves and Collins had been neighbors going back to at least 1737 time frame. In 1737, a Darby MackCartee deeded to his grandson Benjamin Cleaves several items and Uriah Collens was one of the witnesses. So that means there were already Collins in the Hyde County/Matchapungo/Mattamuskeet area prior to the 1740-1750 window you mention for Granville County.2) The Russell family name is one that is found amongst the Mattamuskeet Indians and shows up as such in the original records. Furthermore, the Collins were already in the region of Bath County (which at one time included Hyde Precinct) as far back as 1701 based on entries such as the Will and Testament of Richard Collins on 23 Sept 1701 with legatees listed as Edmon Parse/Pearce, Ann Nelson, John Bunting, Roger Montague (who was involved in land transactions for King Charles Town which was a Machapunga town in that area as well as land transactions with John Squires who may be the same John Squires who was later appointed "King" of the Mattamuskeet."Here are the individuals listed in Richard Collins estate inventory which was sworn on 22 Nov 1701 by the appraisers of his estate:Rodger MontagueCapt BlountMr LongNicholas DawAlex McFarlaneEdmund PearceArchibald MackarelJon WatsonEsther BrooksJoseph HolbrookMr DuckinfieldTho CooperMr DearhamEd Gantling (Gatlin)Indian Will (<-- not a slave, this was someone he owed money to)James WelshJohn Nelson(Note:.....We know the Blount name associated with the Tuscarora....Tuscarora had a reservation in Bertie county, nc.....we know the Collins and Bunch show up in Bertie county, nc....free peopl of color and mulattos...pell mell...etc etc...Let's see if we can fnd Saponi and Tuscarora connection.)

June 1733:The Sapony and Nottoway Indians met with the Governor and Council. The Sapo-nies were given permission to join the Tuscaroras if they wished, provided that neither Nation would hunt on any lands patented in Virginia, nor go among the inhabitants in groups of more than three. The Sapo-nies were permitted to stay at their town until their corn was gathered. If they decided not to join the Tuscaroras, they were to move to some place beyond the inhabitants between the Roanoke and Appomattox rivers."Soon after this they all left the Fort. Some joined the Catawbas, and some eventually joined the Five Nations of the Iroquois in New York."After the Indians left the region, all their former lands were taken up in grants. The site of the Fort became known as Fort Hill Plantation.

Anyway back to the Hyde county records.

According to a 1701 Lords Proprietors grant to Mr. William Barrow, a William Collins arrived into Bath County sometime prior to May of 1701, as William Collins was one of William Barrow's headrights.In 1707, a Lawrence Collins was witness to a court transaction in Bath County.In case there is any question as to whether or not the Collins of Hyde County and other known Mattamuskeet Indians were in the same place at the same time, it may be of interest that on the 3rd day of September of 1746 the following transactions took place in the courthouse:Land transactions between Samuel Selby to his son Samuel Selby, Jr.; George Squires (Mattamuskeet chief's son) to Saml. Selby, Jr. proved by James McIntosh (one of my ancestors); a deed from "Long Tom and Other Indians" to Cason Brinson for land "in Arrowmuskeet" proved by Saml. Selby; a deed of gift from Edwd and Ann Tison to Danll Tison on east side of Matchapungo River proved by Uriah Collins.On the 7th of June in 1748, Uriah Collens was in court on the same day as Henry Gibbs (either the father or brother of William Gibbs who was involved in Cate Collins servitude case) and "Charles Squires King of the Arromoskeet Indians"

Pretty hardcore evidence if you ask me. All the stuff above is fully proven...nothing above is theories....I'm just putting all the historical records (well I have lots more records besides this) on the table for everyone to see. Oh yea one more bit of info.....The collins of Bertie county, NC had a son named john collins who left Bertie county, nc and would of maybe been about the age of the john collins of orange county, Va's indian court records. check out Valentine collins' DNA result next to the bertie county, nc's Bunch family also :)

From: steven hill To: randsgroup@yahoogroups.comSent: Sunday, December 7, 2008 1:41:02 PMSubject: RE: [RandSgroup] Tennessee Melungeons
Your theory has one serious flaw...The Gibson, Mullins, Collins, Goins of Newman's ridge never resided in the PeeDee-Drowning Creek area. They migrated in from Virginia. A small group of Portuguese sailors were captured by the Dutch warship White Lion and sold to Virginia planters circa mid-1600's. These men soon bought their own freedom thoguh they had already taken wives from off the gingaskin Indian reserve and owned their own houses ('slavery' was quite different in early coloial Virginia). Some surnames of these mixed Indian-Portugeuse marriages were Francisco (anglicized to Francis, and Cisco), Rodriguss (anglicized to Driguss and Driggers), Harmon, and a few other surnames I can't remember just now. One other surname that sprung from this union is most likely Chavez (anglicized to Chavis) but it hasn't been conclusively proven - - the Chavis line originated the Gibson mixed-Indian line. Not only did Driggers, Francis, and Chavis appear in the founding families of the "mixt crew" on Drowning Creek (present day Robeson County - the Lumbee Indian tribe) but also did other Gingaksin reservation residents' surnames such as Jacobs, Clark, and others, and this may account for the "portugeuse" origin talked about by early historians. It is possible that the gibson and Goins lines among the early newman Ridge "melungeons" were conencted back to the Portugeuse-Indian mixed families around the gingaskin reserve as they came from an area of VA that was very close to Chesepeake Bay. yet the Portugeuse blodd would account for very little of their total blood quantum, and the majority was definatively Native.
To: RandSgroup@yahoogro ups.comFrom: KyRoots@aol. comDate: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:43:53 -0500Subject: Re: [RandSgroup] Tennessee Melungeons
This is just my opinion but for what it is worth:

In 1848 the 'Melungeons' told a journalist the 'legend' of the Melungeons. They said they were 'Portuguese Adventurers' who had mixed with the Indians. From my research I'd have to say these Portuguese were from the Pee Dee - Drowning Creek -- and mixed with the Indians in that area.

In 1754 it was reported to the governor there were 50 mixed families living there -- and *no Indians* -- these families who can be traced back to that geographical area, went to court for years in all parts of this country claiming to be Portuguese -- there were simply too many to be some sort of a 'cover up' -- in my opinion. Judges, juries, Senators, anthropologist, ethnologist, historians, sheriffs, tax collectors etc., all testified they believed these people were 'Portuguese. '

After residing in SC/NC border and mixing with the Indians they moved into the area of Newman's Ridge where they mixed with the Indians of that area, [being with the Bunch, Goins, Gibsons, Collins, etc, who had lived 'as Indians' in Virginia and North Carolina] -- the blacks and the whites as they told it in their 'legend' -- which formed the 'present race' -- in 1848.

They told this story in 1848 and included the Indian, black, white and Portuguese -- which was retold Dromgoole in 1890 --

Here are a few "Portuguese stories"
http://www.geocities.com/ourmelungeons/portuguese.html




In a message dated 12/7/2008 11:55:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ponyhill71@hotmail. com writes:
isn't it funny that the earliest historical references to the "Melungeons" of Newman's Ridge, Tenn. specifically stated they were Indians from Virginia and that the first Gibson, Mullins, Collins who came into Tenn. "were nearly full-blooded" Indian, and here we have "Melungeons" from that same place almost 100 years later (who had recently moved to Texas and Oklahoma and were trying to get land through the Dawes Commission) all claiming that their grand-parents were "Indian."??? ? http://www.geocities.com/ourmelungeons/cherokee1.html Where was all this "mysterious race" and "exotic origin" back then? It appears the people themselves were very well aware of their Native ancestry, that their grand-parents were Indians who had taken White spouses, yet the White "historians" consistently tried to create some fantastic migration story for them...Portugeuse pirates, lost Spanish explorers, lost colony of Roanoke, etc. Just like in scientific experiments. ..the simplest answer is usually the right one.

A River Worth Fighting For by Dennis Montgomery

Roiled by the spume of conflict, threatened by the stain of pollutants, the storied York yet flows free, guarding its great bounty
In the grand panorama of the historic York River, the diminutive marsh periwinkle is as nothing--and as everything. Time out of mind, the puny, ubiquitous snail has glided among the cordgrass and arrow alum of the river's tidal wetlands and never erected to its passing a monument more substantial than the fragile form of its white spiral shell. Yet in the sweep of the river's saga the periwinkle's place is as enduring as the granite Yorktown Victory column, its slippery, shiny trail as integral a part of York's storied landscape as the networks of battlefield trenches.
For more than 400 years historybook heroes have come to the York to perform their parts in the dramas of human dominion and political supremacy. The periwinkle has haunted this stage the better part of 40 centuries.
If most men took their bows and went marching into the wings, some paused long enough to notice that the York River valley is an amphitheater for the productions of life itself, a coliseum for performances in which the stars have been fiddler crabs and catfish, great blue herons and snapping turtles, and, yes, marsh periwinkles. Every croaker, mullet, and spade fish; every cattail, hibiscus, and marshmallow acts its pivotal part in the exquisitely scripted interplay of species that ecologists bill as the balance of a river's natural environment.
A walkon, man arrived about 4,000 years into the opening act, and, as they say, stole the show. Red, white, and black, man became with his impudence and his exploits the stuff of the York's facts and fables; his story became the river's history. Nevertheless, man's doings are but subplots, superfluities in a broader, essential epic.
Told out of the context of the York, isolated from the river environment, the chronicles of the river's massacres, battles, and wars are but facts without nuance. It was, after all, the river that was worth fighting for.
The York collects itself off the tip of modern West Point at the confluence of the Pamunkey and the Mattaponi to run 33 miles southeast. Between Guinea Neck and Tue Point it spills into the vast shallow protein soup of the Chesapeake Bay. An average of two miles wide and 20 feet deep, the river drains 2,661 square miles of a Virginia watershed that stretches west to the Blue Ridge. Rising and falling with the sea, the York is the silvery backbone of an intricately reticulated and extraordinarily delicate network of life.
Perhaps 6,000 years ago, the modern York began to water salt marshes and timber stands. Rich with oysters, sturgeons, and blue crabs, the river was a fat natural sideboard supporting a perpetual feast, a food chain.
Long before Europeans came, protoAlgonquians had taken their place in the estuary system. Mounds of oyster shell still betray their village sites. Oysters remained a primary resource, to become the foundation of York watermen's livelihoods, until disease wiped out most in the 1980s. Sturgeon, once abundant, vanished in the 19th century. Now threatened is the blue crab, pressured by overharvesting. Eel, prized in the Orient, has become a profitable alternative. The food chain is losing links.
By the time the first white settlers, a Spanish Jesuit missionary party of 10, reached the York in 1570, the valley was the preserve of mature kinship groups like the Pamunkey, the most powerful of the 28 tribes in what would become Tidewater's Powhatan empire. Living in proud, powerful bands, the Pamunkey had a culture as sophisticated as their circumstances required. Denominated savages by the meddlesome Jesuits, the Indians regarded the intruders as they did mayflies and, when priestcraft became too troublesome, swatted them with about as much compunction as they would any noisome pest.
Of the Spanish party, two youths survived the slaughter. One was a Spanish lad rescued the next year; the other an Indian Christian apostate baptized Don Luis, who grew up to be, some historians suppose, the implacable enemy of the English, the werowance--approximately "chief"--Opechancanough.
When in 1607 the English fetched ashore on the south side of the peninsula formed by the York and James, the chief of chiefs was Powhatan. Another Pamunkey, he was the sire of Pocahontas.
Captain John Smith said it was at the York River village of Werowocomoco on modern Purtan Bay that Pocahontas saved his brains from a Pamunkey headsman. Smith had two or three more adventures on the York, all as hair raising, including a challenge of Opechancanough to single combat on a York River island. As usual, Smith was scrapping over food.
The English had arrived with gold fever and suffered recurring fits of pointless prospecting. They never quite cured themselves, but their hunger demonstrated to them the greater value of Virginia's ready natural resources--most of which they were equally inept at gathering. Most of Smith's York trips were to buy, extort, or steal Indian maize, beans, meal, and meat--native commodities the tiny Jamestown band could or would not otherwise acquire in quantities sufficient to their bellies.
To this period dates the first map of Tidewater, and thus the York, the simple sketch Tindall's Draught. A prominent feature is Tindall's Point, now Gloucester Point opposite Yorktown, where the river narrows to a milewide natural anchorage. Inexplicably, a close copy of this sensitive document found its way to Spain, England's bitter enemy. There is a smell of espionage about the matter.
Some believe "Tindall" a misrendition of settler George Kendall's surname and credit him as the draftsman. Indeed, there is no better explanation for the map's title. As it happens, Kendall, soon shot for mutiny, had in England been an "intelligencer," a spy. Coincidentally, Tindall's Draught includes the 10,000acre tract of modern Camp Peary, a tightly guarded Central Intelligence Agency training base.
Until mid17th century, the north shore of the York was the Powhatan stronghold. By Smith's count, Opechancanough's village at Pamunkey Neck--modern West Point--numbered 300 bowmen. Through a bloody miscalculation, the Pamunkey began to lose their grip on their York domain in 1622. That year Opechancanough masterminded the massacre of more than 350 Virginia settlers, illustrating to the English their vulnerability.
Partly to protect its northern flank from further assaults, in 1630 the colony offered 50 free acres to every person who would settle at Chiskiack in the following year. A few miles above modern Yorktown, it was once an Indian village and very near the Jesuits' camp. Captains John West and John Utie got 600 acres each at the mouth of King's Creek for accepting care of the farmers who began to clear fields between King's and Felgate Creeks. Governor John Harvey opened York plantation, on which stands today's Moore House, and a few miles upstream, George Read patented the site of today's Yorktown. Captain Nicholas Martiau, an ancestor of George Washington's, also moved into the neighborhood.
Three years later the English built a palisade--a log fence--across the Peninsula between the head of Queen's Creek on the York and Archer's Hope Creek on the James. The idea was to protect lives and livestock from the depredations of marauding wolves and Indians. It was a remarkable, if simple, bit of early environmental engineering.
In 26 years of struggle, the colony had never got on its feet. The problem seems to have been the lack of a reliable source of palatable protein. The palisade contained cattle turned out to pasture and helped make Virginia a more attractive and survivable habitat for humans. To its construction is credited the establishment of the village of York, the peninsula's second town, and Middle Plantation--later Williamsburg--its second capital. Jamestown was its first.
The first English child born on the York, John West, Jr., arrived that year. He was 11 when Opechancanough rose again, killing perhaps 500 colonists, most on the York. This massacre backfired, too. In 1653, after the inevitable rounds of retaliation, the Pamunkey submitted to a treaty that forced them to a reservation on the tributary that bears their name. Today 50 or so mixedblood descendants remain, living on 1,200 somnambulant acres of farms and homes that were once the most sacred piece of Pamunkey property, the site of the religious center Uttamussackpamaunkee.
North, on the Mattaponi, is Virginia's other reservation, home to the remnant of the tribe that gave its name to the York's other source.
With the peace of 1653 came prosperity--of a sort. In the colony's first decade, a native plant, tobacco, had become Virginia's economic mainstay. A pricey sweetscented variety grew particularly well along the York, and the commerce its cultivation created long underwrote many a prominent Virginia family.
As its markets expanded, so did settlement. The Wests moved to Opechancanough's old lands in 1650--hence the name West Point. A fort was dug at Gloucester Point in 1667. A road inland opened. Plantations rose.
Tokens of gentry wealth--18thcentury Rosewell's ruins, wellpreserved Elsing Green, and a score more mansions of merit--dot the river valley.
If the farms enriched the planters, they impoverished the land's sandy soils. Tobacco exhausted the nutrients, and run off from plowing began to silt in creeks and streams--a colonial version of what environmentalists call nonpointsource pollution. In the course of 400 years, some shipdeep streams turned to brooks; others just disappeared. Habitat loss had begun.
Though slaves began to reach Virginia in 1619, most of the farm laborers in the 17th century were English indentured servants. They enjoyed some privileges of race, but their lot could be miserable, and to many the future looked worse. At the end of their indenture most males were turned out with few possessions and fewer prospects.
York County records preserve a coroner's jury's hardhearted memorial to one man's escape from voluntary servitude:
The 10th of June, 1661. The jury setting upon the body of Walter Catford, who, for want of Grace, tooke a Grindstone and a Roape, and tyed it about his middle and crosse his thighes, and most barbarously went and drowned himselfe contrary to ye law of the king and this country, whoe is found guilty of his own death . . . The said Walter Catford was servant to Mair Thomas Beale at ye time of his death.
Other members of Catford's class chose selfhelp over selfdestruction. The year of his suicide a handful of York County servants, angered by poor rations, plotted an uprising. In 1663, other insurrectionists tried to combine with servants from Middlesex and Gloucester Counties. Sporadically, the York's late 17thcentury farmers, most exservants, indulged in plantcutting riots intended to maintain tobacco prices by reducing supply.
The most spectacular revolt to sweep the servant's class was gentryled Bacon's Rebellion in 1676. Conceived as an Indianfighting force, gentleman Nathaniel Bacon's extralegal army threatened Governor William Berkeley's rule. Nowvanished Gloucester Town on the York's north shore became the fulcrum of the struggle for authority, and was in Bacon's hands when he died of flux, as dysentery was called.
Berkeley, thus sure of victory, recorded Bacon's death:
His usual oath which he swore at least a Thousand times a day was God damme my Blood and God so infected his blood that it bred Lice in an incredible number so that for twenty dayes he never washt his shirts but burned them. To this God added the Bloody flux and an honest Minister wrote this Epitaph on him:
Bacon is dead, I am sorry at my heart
that Lice and flux should take the hangman's part.
The hangman was not cheated of a crop of other necks, among them that of Thomas Hanford, reputed to be the first Virginiaborn victim of a Virginia gallows.
Rivers served for highroads of commerce in colonial Virginia, and settlement patterns followed them, a straggling manner of habitation that fostered riverbased trade and goaded government to a series of attempts to legislate towns into existence. Yorktown was the product of such an effort in 1691. Laid out as a 50acre seaport on Read's land, the town had 85 lots and a 5acre public waterfront.
Beside a protected harbor within sight of the bay, Yorktown's situation made it among the few colonial tidewater towns to thrive. It developed in two tiers--wharves and seamen's bars and brothels on the beach, merchants' homes on the bluff. In 1715 the Yorktown Customs House rose, and in 1722 came the fabled Swan Tavern, which met travelers' needs 20 years before Williamsburg's Raleigh. By the account of a visitor in 1742, the town was an oasis:
You perceive a great Air of Opulence amongst the Inhabitants, who have some of them Houses, equal in Magnificence to many of our superb ones at St. James's . . . .
The Taverns are many here, and much frequented, and an unbounded Licentiousness seems to taint the Morals of the young Gentlemen of this Place . . . There are some very pretty Garden Spots in the Town; and the Avenues leading to Williamsburgh, Norfolk, &c., are prodigiously agreeable.
The transportation advantages attracted General Charles, Earl Cornwallis to Yorktown in August 1781. The place seemed to him safer than Portsmouth, the port the British seized when they opened their Virginia campaign. General Washington and his French ally the Comte de Rochambeau saw in the decision a chance to trap Cornwallis, and they took it. They marched from New York--following a now wellmarked route that traverses some of Virginia's most picturesque byways--shipped the army down Chesapeake Bay, and linked up with a French fleet that had sailed from the West Indies.
When French menofwar appeared off the Virginia Capes on August 26, the British Navy faced a predicament. Unless a relief fleet dispatched by the English could spring it, Cornwallis's army was trapped in the York. The rescue flotilla arrived September 5, but could not drive off the French force. Cornwallis was doomed.
Bottled up in the river with him was a mixed assembly of 71 other English vessels. They were now almost useless, and he ordered about 40 of them scuttled to forestall any allied amphibious attempt. At least 29 are still on the bottom. Twentiethcentury reclamations of artifacts and information from them began in 1909 and have continued, periodically, under the guidance of archaeologists.
Washington marched on Yorktown September 28 and on October 9 began a bombardment described by American Surgeon James Thacher:
The bomb shells from the besiegers and the besieged are incessantly crossing each others' path in the air. They are clearly visible in the form of a black ball in the day, but in the night, they appear like fiery meteors with blazing tails, most beautifully brilliant, ascending majestically from the mortar . . . . I have more than once witnessed fragments of the mangled bodies and limbs of British soldiers thrown into the air by the bursting of our shells.
Cornwallis was insulted from within as well, for in his camp lurked a spy. The Marquis de Lafayette had accepted the offer of slave James Armistead to infiltrate Cornwallis's headquarters camp posing as a runaway. For weeks he smuggled out intelligence--for which he won freedom, a pension, and the indulgence of the general's last name.
On October 17 Cornwallis proposed to surrender his command--a quarter of the British army in America. Subordinates drafted the capitulation agreement, executed two days later, at the Moore House. The table tradition says they used has since been removed to Elsing Green, but there is a more poignant reminder of the battle in a small enclosure in the yard, a headstone inscribed:
In Memory John Turnerwho departed this lifeOctober the 13thin the year of our Lord 1781Aged 30 YearsAh cruel ball so sudden to disarmAnd tare my tender husbandfrom my ArmsHow can I grieve too muchWhat time shall endBy Mourning forSo good So kind a friend.
It wasn't apparent that Yorktown was the last major battle of the Revolution. Washington said the victory was "an interesting event that may be productive of much good if properly improved, but if it should be the means of relaxation and sink us into supineness and [false] security, it had better not have happened."
Some in Yorktown almost wished it hadn't. Nearly half its houses destroyed in the bombardment, occupied in turn by British, French, and Americans, the community was a shambles. Merchant David Jameson said:
As soon as it was known that preliminaries of Peace were agreed on the Soldiers then stationed at York became very licentious, and no vigilance or exertions of the officers could keep them within bounds, very few nights passed without Robbery or gross insult being committed by them.
As he left, Washington ordered the American earthworks destroyed to safeguard his garrison, and farmers obliterated most of the British defenses. The river wrecks decayed, and damaged homes were razed or repaired. The troops left; normalcy returned.
Fire destroyed much of the lower town, the seaport, in 1814, but handier anchorages were already capturing Yorktown's trade, and it was slipping into the dusty life of an ordinary Virginia village.
Lafayette returned in 1824 for the anniversary of the battle, and that was about the biggest affair along the York until 1862, when General George McClellan led the Union Army up the Peninsula in an illmanaged march on Richmond. The Rebels remodeled the last of Yorktown's British fortifications--erasing most of the remaining originals--and stalled the Yankee advance. The invaders dug in. Captain Henry Blake of Massachusetts wrote:
The redoubts and file pits of the Revolution, which had diminished until they were only 20 inches in height intersected those of the Union army at several points. A few metallic relics, corroded by the rust of eighty years, were brought forth from their hiding places in the earth.
After about a month, Confederate General Joe Johnston, perhaps remembering Cornwallis's dilemma, ordered a withdrawal. McClellan passed upriver, took West Point and established a supply port at White House on the Pamunkey, as he had at Yorktown. George and Martha Washington had honeymooned there, and a fine brick manor built on the foundations of the original house had descended in Martha's family. Living in it at the time were Mrs. Robert E. Lee and her daughter Mary. Before they left they tacked a note on the door:
Northern soldiers who profess to reverence the name of Washington, forbear to desecrate the home of his early married life, the property of his wife, and now the home of his descendants--A granddaughter of Mrs. Washington.
The soldiers reduced it to a pit of brick rubble. Another landmark, Yorktown's Swan Tavern, disappeared in the explosion of a Union ammunition dump, but something constructive seems to have come of the campaign, nevertheless.
In McClellan's ranks marched a Connecticut soldier, Elisha Benjamin Andrews, later president of Brown University. In 1893 John D. Rockefeller, Jr., entered the Rhode Island school, and Andrews became his mentor. It is not hard to imagine the veteran sharing with the young student stories of the Peninsula Campaign. Perhaps from Andrews he first heard about Yorktown and Williamsburg.
In 1881 Yorktown celebrated the centennial of Washington's victory. President Chester A. Arthur came for the dedication of the Victory Monument, and the sponsors christened a landscaped victory park, but most travelers recorded how shabby the town had become.
Railroads had steamed into Tidewater after Reconstruction, making going concerns of burgs like Walkerton, West Point, and Aylett, but bypassing Yorktown. Whatever prospects it had left as a entrepot seemed to be lost.
The Southern Railway made West Point its terminus, and a fullfledged town emerged. The Terminal Hotel--with 14 saloons roaring around it--became the most popular destination in the region. In 1913 the community also became the site of a Chesapeake Corporation pulp plant, still among the largest industries on the York, and a small shipyard.
West Point's bloom faded eventually, first with the removal of the railroad terminus to Newport News, then under the ravages of devastating fires in 1903 and 1926. By the time of the second blaze, World War I had changed everything, anyway.
The DuPont chemical company opened a naval explosives factory near Yorktown at Penniman, now the U. S. Naval Supply Center, Cheatham Annex. Workers reported in droves, military bases opened, and warships returned to the river. From Williamsburg, Mary Coleman wrote:
the old era vanished entirely. Rumors of rising land values as a result of the advent of munitions works, training camps, etc., battleships in the York River, soldiers' wives seeking board and lodging, all created a chaos that one can hardly believe now. Roads improved. There was frantic construction of every kind. Eating houses and bootlegging establishments sprang up everywhere.
Between the world wars came a revival of interest in the colonial era. Colonial Williamsburg, the Colonial National Historical Park, the Colonial Parkway, and scores of other historical preservation efforts began. In the 1930s, the National Park Service reconstructed American lines at Yorktown, and the city began to transform itself into a national museum.
The approach of World War II redoubled the pressures of slapdash development--a Navy Mine Warfare School opened at what is now the Coast Guard's Reserve Training Center, as did the Seabee training base that became Camp Peary, and the U.S. Naval Weapons Station, now a nuclear weapons depot, got its start. But much of the area's native beauty and many of its natural resources survived.
The York is among Virginia's cleaner rivers, thanks to the stewardship of industries, installations, and individuals on its shores. That is not to say that there are no threats. Nutrient runoff from farms and developments, wetland loss, petroleum washed from mall parking lots and suburban streets, dirt from construction sites are among the worries to be resolved. And they are being addressed.
Farmers using environmentally friendly "best management" practices are reducing fertilizer pollution that is to lifechoking algae as gasoline is to fire. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act is stopping wetland destruction and regulating development in sensitive areas. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, among others, is trying to see that as much mind is paid the river's natural history as its social and political history. "Save the Bay" is the slogan.
On the river a forest of masts shines whitely in the summer sun. The wind is washing off the bay, tossing lines of seaweed against children splashing in the waves at a Yorktown beach. A tall steel bridge arches above them to the left; to their right dashes a sailboat on a closehauled reach, turning up a filmy jellyfish in its roiled wake.
In the sweltering heat, an old man relaxes on a bench in the shade of a tree, watching his grandkids. Yards away, on the muddy bottom, sprawl the ribs of the wreck of H.M.S. Fowey, the ship that carried Dunmore and his stolen powder from Virginia, that led the British evacuation fleet out of Boston Harbor, that escorted Benedict Arnold into the Chesapeake.
Upstream, on the western horizon, a white plume rises from a paper factory stack. It towers above a mountain of pine logs that marks Opechancanough's old stronghold. Downstream, a bobbing line of crabpot floats leads the eye to the broad, broad bay. Captain Smith must have rounded the headland just there for his first glimpse of the York.
Colonial Williamsburg Journal Vol. 17 , No. 1 (Autumn 1994).

Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statisticsand Administrative Reporting (Sept 1997)

The Statistical Policy Division, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determines federal standards for the reporting of "racial" and "ethnic" statistics. In this capacity, OMB promulgated Directive 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting in May, 1977, to standardize the collection of racial and ethnic information among federal agencies and to include data on persons of Hispanic origins, as required by Congress. Directive 15 is used in the collection of information on "racial" and "ethnic" populations not only by federal agencies, but also, to be consistent with national information, by researchers, business, and industry as well.
Directive 15 described four races (i.e., American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and White) and two ethnic backgrounds (of Hispanic origin and not of Hispanic origin). The Directive's categories allowed collection of more detailed information as long as it could be aggregated to the specified categories.
Directive 15 was not clear regarding whether the race or origins of persons was to be determined by self-identification or by others, e.g., interviewers. Research has shown substantial differences of racial/ethnic identification by these two methods.
Directive 15 noted the absence of "scientific or anthropological" foundations in its formulation. Directive 15 did not explain what was meant by "race" or "origin," or what distinguished these concepts. However, the race and ethnicity categories of the Directive are used in scientific research and the interpretation of the research findings is based often on the "variables" of race and ethnicity.
Since Directive 15 was issued 20 years ago, the United States population has become increasingly diverse. Criticism that the federal race and ethnic categories do not reflect the Nation's diversity led to a review of Directive 15. Formal review began in 1993 with Congressional hearings, followed by a conference organized at the request of OMB by the National Academy of Sciences. OMB then instituted an Interagency Committee for the Review of Racial and Ethnic Standards, and appointed a Research Subcommittee to assess available research and conduct new research as a basis for possible revision of the Directive.
Among the guidelines for the review, OMB stated that ." . . the racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standard should be developed using appropriate scientific methodologies, including the social sciences." The guidelines noted, too, that "the racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standards should not be interpreted as being primarily biological or genetic in reference. Race and ethnicity may be thought of in terms of social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry." However, the distinction between the concepts of race and ethnicity was, again, not clarified.
The recommendations from the Interagency Committee were published by OMB in the Federal Register July 9, 1997 (Vol. 62, No. 131: 36847-36946), with a request for public comment by September 8, 1997. The recommendations included (1) maintaining the basic racial and ethnic categories from the 1977 Directive; and (2) collecting race and ethnicity data through two separate questions (p. 36943), with ethnicity collected first. The minimum designations for "race" were: "American Indian or Alaskan Native," "Asian or Pacific Islander,""Black or African-American," and "White." The minimum designations for "ethnicity" were: "Hispanic origin," or "not of Hispanic origin." To account for multiple races, OMB recommended that respondents be allowed to report "More than one race."
History and Problems with the Concept of "Race": A Biological Perspective
Anthropologically speaking, the concept of race is a relatively recent one. Historically, the term "race" was ascribed to groups of individuals who were categorized as biologically distinct. Rather than developing as a scientific concept, the current notion of "race" in the United States grew out of a European folk taxonomy or classification system sometime after Columbus sailed to the Americas. Increased exploration of far-away lands with people of different custom, language, and physical traits clearly contributed to the developing idea. In these pre-Darwinian times the observed differences--biological, behavioral and cultural--were all considered to be products of creation by God. It was in this intellectual climate that the perceived purity and immutability of races originated. Perceived behavioral features and differences in intellect were inextricably linked to race and served as a basis for the ranking, in terms of superiority, of races.
Early natural history approaches to racial classification supported these rankings and the implications for behavior. For example, in the 18th century, Carolus Linneaus, the father of taxonomy and a European, described American Indians as not only possessing reddish skin, but also as choleric, painting themselves with fine red lines and regulated by custom. Africans were described as having black skin, flat noses and being phlegmatic, relaxed, indolent, negligent, anointing themselves with grease and governed by caprice. In contrast, Europeans were described as white, sanguine, muscular, gentle, acute, inventive, having long flowing hair, blue eyes, covered by close vestments and governed by law.
In the 1800s, the first "scientific" studies of race attempted to extract the behavioral features from the definition of race. However, racist interpretation remained. For example the origin of racial variation was interpreted as degeneration of the original "Caucasian" race (the idea of a Caucasian race is based on the belief that the most "perfect" skulls came from the Caucasus Mountains). Degeneration explained the development of racial differences and racial differences explained cultural development. Biology and behavior were used to gauge the degree of deterioration from the original race. Measures of intellect were an important part of these early studies. In some cases, the degree of facial prognathism, bumps on the skull as interpreted by phrenology, cranial index, and cranial capacity were used as measures of intelligence. IQ is just the latest in the list of these so-called "definitive" features used to rank races.
The clearest data about human variation come from studies of genetic variation, which are clearly quantifiable and replicable. Genetic data show that, no matter how racial groups are defined, two people from the same racial group are about as different from each other as two people from any two different racial groups.
One of the basic principles about genetic transmission in families is that different variants are transmitted to different offspring independently. The more generations of mixing, the more likely such heterogeneity in geographic origin of genes within the same person will be. Fixed sets of traits are not transmitted across generations as many people assume. Rules like the "one drop of blood" rule show clearly how vague and social, rather than biological, are categorical terms for people.
Modern humans (Homo sapiens) appear to be a fairly recent and homogenous species. Regardless of ancestral geographic origins, humans maintain a high degree of similarities from a biological perspective. Admixture, even among and between highly isolated populations, has resulted in widespread, worldwide distribution of genes and thus human variation.
It is because people often share cultural identity and geographic ancestry that "race" or a system of terms for grouping people carries some information that can be useful for biomedical purposes (as in assigning resources for disease screening). For example, sickle cell hemoglobin is a health risk associated with black or African-descended populations and PKU or phenylketonuria is a health risk associated with white or European-descended populations. Despite being loaded with the historical or colloquial connotations, such terminology may in practice be about as effective as any other questionnaire-based way to define categories of people that capture at least limited biological outcomes.
"Race" as a concept is controversial because of the numerous instances in human history in which a categorical treatment of people, rationalized on the grounds of biology-like terms, have been used. Common examples of this include arguments about which "race" is more intelligent, better at mathematics or athletics, and so on. The ultimate use of categorical notions of race have occurred to achieve political ends, as in the Holocaust, slavery, and the extirpation of American Indian populations, that, while basically economic in motivation, has received emotional support and rationale from biological language used to characterize groups. The danger in attempting to tie race and biology is not only that individuals are never identical within any group, but that the physical traits used for such purposes may not even be biological in origin.
The American Anthropological Association recognizes that classical racial terms may be useful for many people who prefer to use proudly such terms about themselves. The Association wishes to stress that if biological information is not the objective, biological-sounding terms add nothing to the precision, rigor, or factual basis of information being collected to characterize the identities of the American population. In that sense, phasing out the term "race," to be replaced with more correct terms related to ethnicity, such as "ethnic origins," would be less prone to misunderstanding.
Social and Cultural Aspects of "Race" and "Ethnicity"
Race and ethnicity both represent social or cultural constructs for categorizing people based on perceived differences in biology (physical appearance) and behavior. Although popular connotations of race tend to be associated with biology and those of ethnicity with culture, the two concepts are not clearly distinct from one another.
While diverse definitions exist, ethnicity may be defined as the identification with population groups characterized by common ancestry, language and custom. Because of common origins and intermarriage, ethnic groups often share physical characteristics which also then become a part of their identification--by themselves and/or by others. However, populations with similar physical appearance may have different ethnic identities, and populations with different physical appearances may have a common ethnic identity.
OMB Directive 15 views race and ethnicity as distinct phenomena and appropriate ways to categorize people because both are thought to identify distinct populations. Although this viewpoint may capture some aspects of the way most people think about race and ethnicity, it overlooks or distorts other critical aspects of the same process.
First, by treating race and ethnicity as fundamentally different kinds of identity, the historical evolution of these category types is largely ignored. For example, today's ethnicities are yesterday's races. In the early 20th century in the US, Italians, the Irish, and Jews were all thought to be racial (not ethnic) groups whose members were inherently and irredeemably distinct from the majority white population. Today, of course, the situation has changed considerably. Italians, Irish, and Jews are now seen as ethnic groups that are included in the majority white population. The notion that they are racially distinct from whites seems far-fetched, possibly "racist." Earlier in the 20th century, the categories of Hindu and Mexican were included as racial categories in the Census. Today, however, neither would be considered racial categories.
Knowing the history of how these groups "became white" is an integral part of how race and ethnicity are conceptualized in contemporary America. The aggregated category of "white" begs scrutiny. It is important to keep in mind that the American system of categorizing groups of people on the basis of race and ethnicity, developed initially by a then-dominant white, European-descended population, served as a means to distinguish and control other "non-white" populations in various ways.
Second, by treating race and ethnicity as an enduring and unchanging part of an individual's identity, OMB and the Census ignore a fundamental tension and ambiguity in racial and ethnic thinking. While both race and ethnicity are conceptualized as fixed categories, research demonstrates that individuals perceive of their identities as fluid, changing according to specific contexts in which they find themselves.
Third, OMB Directive 15, Census and common sense treat race and ethnicity as properties of an individual, ignoring the extent to which both are defined by the individual's relation to the society at large. Consider, for example, the way that racial and ethnic identity supposedly "predict" a range of social outcomes. The typical correlation is that by virtue of being a member of a particular racial or ethnic group, imprisonment, poor health, poverty, and academic failure are more likely. Such an interpretation, while perhaps statistically robust, is structurally and substantively incomplete because it is not the individual's association with a particular racial or ethnic group that predicts these various outcomes but the attribution of that relationship by others that underlies these outcomes. For instance, a person is not more likely to be denied a mortgage because he or she is black (or Hispanic or Chinese), but because another person believes that he or she is black (or Hispanic or Chinese) and ascribes particular behaviors with that racial or ethnic category.
Current OMB Directive 15 policy and federal agency application of the Directive that does not take into account the complexities of racial and ethnic thinking is likely to create more problems than it resolves. Racial and ethnic categories are marked by both expectations of fixity and variation, both in historical and individual terms. Attempts to "hone" racial categories by expanding or contracting the groups listed in Directive 15 and on the Census form or by reorganizing the order in which questions are posed, will continue to miss important aspects of how people actually think about race and ethnicity. Similarly, treating race as an individual rather than relational property almost certainly compromises the value of the data collected. Finally, by ignoring the differences between self- and other- strategies for identification, Directive 15 and the Census application creates a situation where expectations about the nature of the data collected are violated by the way most people use common sense to interpret those same questions.
Overlap of the Concepts of Race, Ethnicity and Ancestry
A basic assumption of OMB Directive 15 is that persons who self-identify or identify others by race and ethnicity understand what these concepts mean and see them as distinct. Recent research by the US Bureau of Census and other federal agencies, supported by qualitative pretesting of new race and ethnicity questions and field tests of these new question formats, has demonstrated that for many respondents, the concepts of race, ethnicity and ancestry are not clearly distinguished. Rather, respondents view race, ethnicity and ancestry as one and the same.
It should be pointed out that the race and ethnicity categories used by the Census over time have been based on a mixture of principles and criteria, including national origin, language, minority status and physical characteristics (Bates, et al, 1994.) The lack of conceptual distinction discussed below is not exclusive to respondents, but may represent misunderstandings about race and ethnicity among the American people. Hahn (1992) has called for additional research to clarify the popular uses of these concepts.
The following outlines some of the evidence for the lack of clear distinctions between the concepts:
First, respondent definitions of the concepts. Cognitive pretesting for the Race and Ethnicity Targeted Test and the Current Population Survey Race Supplement suggest that, except for some college-educated respondents who saw the terms as distinct, respondents define all of the concepts in similar terms. Gerber and de la Puente (1996) found that respondents tended to define race in terms of family origins. Thus, common definitional strategies included: "your people," "what you are," and "where your family comes from." These concepts were invoked also to define the term "ethnic group" when it appeared in the same context. Many respondents said that "ethnic group" meant "the same thing" as "race." In subsequent discussions, the term "ethnic race" was frequently created by respondents as a label for the global domain. McKay and de la Puente (1995) found, too, that respondents did not distinguish between race and ethnicity, and concluded that many respondents are unfamiliar with the term "ethnicity." for example, several respondents assumed that a question containing the term "ethnicity" must be asking about the "ethical" nature of various groups. They concluded that the terms "race," "ethnicity," "ancestry" and "national origin . . . draw on the same semantic domain."
Second, perceived redundancy of race and ethnicity questions. In most Federal data collections, Hispanic origin is defined as an "ethnicity" and is collected separately from "race." In most recent tests, the Hispanic origin question precedes the race question. Both Hispanic and non-Hispanic respondents tend to treat the two questions as asking for essentially the same information.
For example, when Hispanic and non-Hispanic respondents are asked what the Hispanic ethnicity question means, they often say that it is asking about "race." Respondents often comment on this perceived redundancy, and wonder aloud why the two questions are separate. Non-Hispanic respondents attempt to answer the ethnicity question by offering a race-based term, such as "Black" or "White." (McKay and de la Puente, 1995.)
In addition, many Hispanic respondents regard the term "Hispanic" as a "race" category, defined in terms of ancestry, behavior as well as physical appearance (Gerber and de la Puente, 1996; Rodriguez and Corder-Guzman, 1992; Kissim and Nakamoto, 1993). They therefore tend to look for this category in the race question, and when they do not find it there, they often write it in to a line provided for the "some other race" category. More than 40% of self-identified Hispanics have not specified a race or ethnic category in the 1980 or 1990 Census. Census Bureau research has shown that over 97% of the 10 million persons who reported as "Other race" in 1990 were Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau, 1992.)
Third, multiethnic and multiracial identifications are frequently not distinguished. Some respondents who identify as "multiracial" offer only ethnic groups to explain their backgrounds. For example, McKay et al. (1996) found that some individuals who defined themselves as "multiracial" offered two ethnicities, such as "German and Irish" as an explanation. The authors concluded that such reporting "presents the overlapping of the semantic categories of race and ethnicity. . . ." (p. 5). Other respondents in the same research who identify with only a single race category subsequently mention an additional "race" category when answering the ancestry question.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The American Anthropological Association supports the OMB Directive 15 proposal to allow respondents to identify "more than one" category of "race/ethnicity" as a means of reporting diverse ancestry. The Association agrees with the Interagency Committee's finding that a multiple reporting method is preferable to adoption of a "multiracial" category. This allows for the reflection of heterogeneity and growing interrelatedness of the American population.
2. The American Anthropological Association recommends that OMB Directive 15 combine the "race" and "ethnicity" categories into one question to appear as "race/ethnicity" until the planning for the 2010 Census begins. The Association suggests additional research on how a question about race/ethnicity would best be posed.
As recommended by the Interagency Committee, the proposed revision to OMB Directive 15 would separate "race" and "ethnicity." However, the inability of OMB or the Interagency Committee to define these terms as distinct categories and the research findings that many respondents conceptualize "race" and "ethnicity" as one in the same underscores the need to consolidate these terms into one category, using a term that is more meaningful to the American people.
3. The American Anthropological Association recommends that further research be conducted to determine the term that best delimits human variability, reflected in the standard "race/ethnicity," as conceptualized by the American people. Research indicates that the term "ethnic group" is better understood by individuals as a concept related to ancestry or origin sought by OMB Directive 15 than either "race" or "ethnicity." While people seldom know their complete ancestry with any certainty, they more often know what ethnic group or groups with which to identify. It is part of their socialization and daily identity. Additionally, there are fewer negative connotations associated with the term "ethnic group."
4. The proposed revision to OMB Directive 15 advocates using the following categories to designate "race" or "ethnicity": "American Indian or Alaskan Native," "Asian or Pacific Islander," "Black or African-American," "White," "Hispanic origin," "Not of Hispanic origin." Part of the rationale for maintaining these terms is to preserve the continuity of federal data collection.
However, the "race" and "ethnicity" categories have changed significantly over time to reflect changes in the American population. Since 1900, 26 different racial terms have been used to identify populations in the US Census. Preserving outdated terms for the sake of questionable continuity is a disservice to the nation and the American people.
The American Anthropological Association recommends further research, building on the ongoing research activities of the US Bureau of the Census, on the terms identified as the population delimiters, or categories, associated with "race/ethnicity" in OMB Directive 15 in order to determine terms that better reflect the changing nature and perceptions of the American people. For example, the term "Latino" is preferred by some populations who view "Hispanic" as European in origin and offensive because it does not acknowledge the unique history of populations in the Americas. OMB may want to consider using the term "Hispanic or Latino" to allay these concerns.
5. The American Anthropological Association recommends the elimination of the term "race" from OMB Directive 15 during the planning for the 2010 Census. During the past 50 years, "race" has been scientifically proven to not be a real, natural phenomenon. More specific, social categories such as "ethnicity" or "ethnic group" are more salient for scientific purposes and have fewer of the negative, racist connotations for which the concept of race was developed.
Yet the concept of race has become thoroughly--and perniciously--woven into the cultural and political fabric of the United States. It has become an essential element of both individual identity and government policy. Because so much harm has been based on "racial" distinctions over the years, correctives for such harm must also acknowledge the impact of "racial" consciousness among the U.S. populace, regardless of the fact that "race" has no scientific justification in human biology. Eventually, however, these classifications must be transcended and replaced by more non-racist and accurate ways of representing the diversity of the U.S. population.
This is the dilemma and opportunity of the moment. It is important to recognize the categories to which individuals have been assigned historically in order to be vigilant about the elimination of discrimination. Yet ultimately, the effective elimination of discrimination will require an end to such categorization, and a transition toward social and cultural categories that will prove more scientifically useful and personally resonant for the public than are categories of "race." Redress of the past and transition for the future can be simultaneously effected.
The American Anthropological Association recognizes that elimination of the term "race" in government parlance will take time to accomplish. However, the combination of the terms "race/ethnicity" in OMB Directive 15 and the Census 2000 will assist in this effort, serving as a "bridge" to the elimination of the term "race" by the Census 2010.
REFERENCES
Bates, Nancy, M. de la Puente, T. J. DeMaio, and E. A. Martin
1994 "Research on Race and Ethnicity: Results From Questionnaire Design Tests." Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census' Annual Research Conference. Rosslyn, Virginia. Pp 107-136.
Gerber, Eleanor, and Manuel de la Puente
1996 "The Development and Cognitive Testing of Race and Ethnic Origin Questions for the Year 2000 Decennial Census." Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census' 1996 Annual Research Conference. Rosslyn, Virginia.
Hahn, Robert
1992 "The State of Federal Health Statistics on Racial and Ethnic Groups." Journal of the American Medical Association 267(2):268-271. March.
Kissim, E., E. Herrera and J. M. Nakamoto
1993 "Hispanic Responses to Census Enumeration Forms and Procedures." Report prepared for the Bureau of the Census. Suitland, MD.
McKay, Ruth B., and Manuel de la Puente
1995 "Cognitive Research on Designing the CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnicity." Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census' 1995 Annual Research Conference. Rosslyn, Virginia. Pp 435-445.
McKay, Ruth B., L. L. Stinson, M. de la Puente, and B. A. Kojetin
1996 "Interpreting the Findings of the Statistical Analysis of the CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnicity." Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census' 1996 Annual Research Conference. Rosslyn, Virginia. Pp 326-337.
Robey, Bryant
1989 "Two Hundred Years and Counting: The 1990 Census." Population Bulletin 44(1). April.
Rodriguez, C. E., and J. M. Cordero-Guzman
1992 "Place Race in Context." Ethnic Racial Studies Vol. 15, Pp 523-543.
U.S. Bureau of Census
1973 Population in U.S. Decennial Censuses: 1790-1970.1979 Twenty Censuses: Population and Housing Questions: 1790-1980.1992 Census Questionnaire Content, 1990. CQC-4 Race.
Go to Executive Summary
See also AAA Statement on "Race"See also AAA Statement on "Race" and Intelligence

RELATIONS BETWEEN RACE AND ETHNIC GROUPS

Race and ethnic relations may follow many different patterns, ranging from harmonious co-existence to outright conflict. George Simpson and Milton Yinger (1972) have provided a useful typology of six basic patterns of intergroup hostility or co-operation. This typology covers virtually all the possible patterns of race and ethnic relations, and each pattern exists or has existed in some part of the world.

1. Assimilation. In some cases a minority group is simply eliminated by being assimilated into the dominant group. This process may involve cultural assimilation, racial assimilation, or both. Cultural assimilation occurs when the minority group abandons its distinctive cultural traits and adopts those of the dominant culture; racial assimilation occurs when the physical differences between the groups disappear as a result of inbreeding. Brazil is probably the best contemporary example of a country following a policy of assimilation. With the exception of some isolated Indian groups, the various racial and ethnic groups within the society interbreed fairly freely. Portugal attempted a policy of assimilation in the African colonies that it ruled until the mid-seventies. The Portuguese even created a special status, assimilado, for those Africans or people of mixed race who were considered sufficiently Portuguese in color or culture to share the privileges of the dominant group.

2. Pluralism. Some minorities do not want to lose their group identity; their members have a strong consciousness of kind and pride in their own heritage, and are loyal to their own group. The dominant group in the society may also be willing to permit or even to encourage cultural variation within the broader confines of national unity. Tanzania, for example, is a pluralistic society that respects the cultural distinctions among its African, Asian, European, and Middle Eastern peoples. In Switzerland four ethnic groups, speaking German, French, Italian, and Romanche, retain their sense of group identity while living together amicably in the society as a whole.

3. Legal protection of minorities. In some societies, significant sections of the dominant group may have hostile attitudes toward minority groups, but the minorities may enjoy the protection of the government. In such cases the government may find it necessary to introduce legal measures to protect the interests and rights of the minorities. In Britain, for example, the Race Relations Act of 1965 makes it illegal to discriminate against any person on racial grounds in employment or housing. It is also a criminal offense to publish or even to utter publicly any sentiments that might encourage hostility between racial and ethnic groups in the population.

4. Population transfer In some situations of intense hostility between groups, the problem is "solved" by removing the minority from the scene altogether. This policy was adopted, for example, by President Amin of Uganda, who simply ordered Asian residents to leave the country in which they had lived for generations. In a few cases, population transfer may involve outright partition of a territory. Hostility between Hindus and Muslims in India was so intense that the entire subcontinent was divided between them in such a way that a new Muslim state, Pakistan, was created. There are signs that Cyprus is becoming permanently divided into Greek and Turkish territories, and Lebanon into Muslim and Christian territories. Voluntary and forced population transfers have been taking place in both countries.

5. Continued subjugation In some cases the dominant group has every intention of maintaining its privilege over the minority group indefinitely. It may be fully willing to use force to achieve this objective, and it may even physically segregate the members of the various groups. Historically, continued subjugation has been a very common policy. In the early colonial empires, for example, it was implicitly assumed that colonial domination over the subject peoples was to be a permanent state of affairs. The climate of world opinion is now such that few countries dare to endorse openly a policy of continued subjugation, but the pattern does persist in some cases. The outstanding example is South Africa, where, under the policy of apartheid, the white minority proposes to keep its power over the black majority forever, and has openly declared its willingness to use all necessary force to achieve this goal. Less overt policies of continued subjugation are found in several Latin American countries, where dominant Hispanic groups continue to oppress the indigenous Indian minorities.

6. Extermination. The extermination of entire populations, or genocide, has been attempted and even achieved in several parts of the world. The methods of genocide include systematic slaughter by force of arms and the deliberate spreading of infectious diseases, particularly smallpox, to peoples who have no natural immunity to them. Dutch settlers in South Africa entirely exterminated the Hottentots and came close to exterminating the San, who at one point in South African history were actually classified as "vermin." British settlers on the island of Tasmania wiped out the local population, whom they hunted for sport and even for dog food. There is strong evidence that economic interests in Brazil, with the connivance of the Brazilian government, have slaughtered the Indian occupants of land that is wanted for agricultural development. Between 1933 and 1945 several million Jews were murdered in Germany. The most recent example of attempted genocide occurred in the African state of Burundi in 1972, when the dominant Tutsi tribe massacred nearly 100,000 members of the Hutu tribe.
These patterns are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and a society can adopt more than one of them at the same time. It is interesting to note that at some point in its history the United States has made use of every single one of these six strategies. Immigrant groups, particularly those from Scandinavia and other parts of northern Europe, have been assimilated into the mainstream of American life. There is a strong trend toward pluralism at present, with different groups, such as blacks and native Americans, asserting pride in their own cultural traditions. Legal protection of minorities has been entrenched in law through a series of civil rights acts. Population transfer was used extensively against the native Americans, who were often forced to leave their traditional territories and to settle on remote reserves. Continued subjugation was practiced against blacks, particularly through slavery in the South. Extermination was used against the native Americans, and several tribes were in fact hounded out of existence.

Robinson, I. (1977). Patterns of Race and Ethnic Relations, (pp.267-268). Sociology. New York: Worth.

Map Ethnic Racial Isolates Reputed Partial Indian Origin

ETHNONYMS: Aframerindians, Creoles, Half-Breeds, Marginal Peoples, Mestizos, Metis, Micro-Races, Middle Peoples, Quasi-Indians, Racial Islands, Racial Isolates, Southern Mestizos, Submerged Races, Tri-Racials, Tri-Racial Isolates
This generic label covers some two hundred different groups of relatively isolated, rural peoples who live in at least eighteen states mainly in the eastern and southern United States. In general, the label and the various alternatives refer to distinct peoples thought to have a multiracial background (White-Indian-African-American, African-American-White or Indian-White, Indian-Spanish) who historically have been unaffiliated with the general White and African-American population or with specific American Indian groups. Estimates place the number of people in these groups at about seventy-five thousand, although some groups have disappeared in recent years through a combination of migration to cities and intermarriage with Whites and African-Americans. The best known of these groups is the Lumbee Indians, numbering over thirty thousand mainly in North and South Carolina.
Classification of a group as an American Isolate rests on (1) real or ascribed mixed racial ancestry of group members; (2) a social status different from that of neighboring White, African-American, or American Indian populations; and (3) identification as a distinct local group with the assignment of a distinct group name.
American Isolates existed prior to the American Revolution, perhaps as long ago as the early eighteenth century, and they increased in number throughout the nineteenth century as they came to public attention in the areas where they lived. Among factors leading to group formation were the presence of offspring of African-American male slaves and White women and the offspring of Indians and free or enslaved African-Americans. Once a small community of multiracial members began, it grew primarily through a high fertility rate and became more and more isolated both socially and physically as its members were rejected by Whites and chose, themselves, to shun African-Americans. The movement of Indian groups west also contributed to their isolation. More recently, isolation was maintained in part through government action, most significantly through the banning of Isolate children from public schools. Most Isolate groups were and continue to be described by outsiders in such stereotypical terms as lazy, shiftless, criminals, violent, illiterate, poor, or incestuous.

Groups known to have still existed in the 1950s and 1960s include the following, listed by state:
Alabama: Cajans, Creoles, Melungeons (Ramps)
Delaware: Moors, Nanticoke
Florida: Dominickers
Georgia: Lumbee Indians (Croatans)
Kentucky: Melungeons, Pea Ridge Group (Coe Clan, Black Coes)
Louisiana: Natchitoches Mulattoes, Rapides Indians, Redbones, Sabines, St. Landry Mulattoes, Zwolle-Ebard People
Maryland: Guineas, Lumbee Indians, Melungeons, Wesorts (Brandywine)
Mississippi: Creoles
New Jersey: Gouldtowners, Ramapo Mountain People (Jackson Whites), Sand Hill Indians
New York: Bushwhackers, Jackson Whites
North Carolina: Haliwa Indians, Lumbee Indians, Person County Indians, Portuguese, Rockingham Surry Group
Ohio: Carmel Indians, Cutler Indians, Darke County Group, Guineas, Vinton County Group
Pennsylvania: Karthus Half-Breeds, Keating Mountain Group, Nigger-Hill People, Pooles
South Carolina: Brass Ankles, Lumbee Indians, Turks
Tennessee: Melungeons
Texas: Redbones
Virginia: Adamstown Indians, Brown People, Chickahominy Indians, Issues, Melungeons, Potomac Indians, Rappahannock Indians, Rockingham Surry Group
West Virginia: Guineas.
While it is difficult to generalize across all Isolate groups or individuals, most live in rural areas and derive their income from farming and unskilled or semiskilled labor. Social status within a group is based on wealth, access to the White Community, primarily through intermarriage, and residence in a settled, named Isolate community.