Talk:Melungeon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Isn't there a myth or legend that the Melungeons settled along what we now know as the Appalachians long before the Anglo British, Spanish, or French, and that they were of Portuguese/Turkish ancestry?--BlueGlowGuardian 04:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that is the *main* story about the Melungeons which has been floating around Appalachian Studies and other scholarly circles for the past 10 years or so. It has been promoted by N. Brent Kennedy and picked up by others. It is developed in Kennedy's book, which should be cited in the "References" section of the article. It's well worth reading, even if much of it seems rather speculative. Badagnani 05:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have received (offline) comments since I started the Melungeon page that the definition of what a Melungeon happens to be, is probably the most problematic definition of any known concept or entity, perhaps exceeding in difficulty the formidable challenges posed by characterising quantum subatomic phenomena.

The causes of this problem are not the same as the causes of the descriptive obstacles encountered in the subatomic world.

In subatomic physics, the subordinate characteristics of difficult to define phenomena are themselves typically difficult to describe in non-technical terms.

Melungeon as a phenomenon is difficult to define because for 'ontological' reasons, i.e., what is and what is not Melungeon is determined by a set of properties which produce an extraordinary diversity of borderline cases of Melungeon/not Melungeon indeterminables conditions.

If you are not racially a Melungeon, can you be a cultural Melungeon?

Judaism poses similar problems, but 'adds' religion and a 'historic homeland' issue, which 'anchors' Jewishness/Judaism in a way which, despite the fact that these issues introduce tremendous definitional complexity, is 'rescued' from the even greater multiplication of permutations that the Melungeon phenomenon represents.

Melungeon, deprived of even these 'simplifying' factors (which ironically in all other comparisons are in fact 'complicating' factors) could either be viewed as a taxonomist's dream (if one were looking for a sustainable career) or a lexicographer's nightmare.

Eric Ross

---

This is a topic where I'd sure like to see more of a list of references. Jmabel 04:57, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Debunking the Melungeon Diseases Myth

You seem to have included every know myth about Melungeons. Melungeon descendants have not been proven to be any more suseptable to the diseases you mention than the general population. In fact the old Historical Melungeons were known for amazing health and longevity. They routinely lived into their 90's, some well past 100, under harsh conditions and without modern medicine. They walked many miles over rough terrain. They were not sickly.

The belief that they passed on genes for exotic diseases has been promoted by a quite few books and websites.

Check out the best website for learning about the Historical Melungeons.

[1]

Thanks, MelungeonResearcher

Who is proven Melungeron descendant?

In my honest opinion all researcher who believe in historical facts and documentation, as one would use in forming his or her own family tree use records that are found in the following. court, military, land, census, birth, death and tax records as well as what little history we have on the Melungeons. You do not show one sprig of historical documentation to support your silly opinions on the Melungeons as you record on your web site. This type of misinformation as contained on this web site, should bear the burden of of standard historical and genealogical proof as required in a court of law.. Jack

Historical Melungeons

Definition of the Melungeons by Jack Goins

http://www.geocities.com/ourmelungeons/jgdef.html

It is strange that the Ottoman/Mediterranean question still exists. There are no mythical seafaring Middle-Eastern or Southern European whites who managed to settle middle Appalachia. We are mostly mestizos (indigenous and white) with some black strains here and there. I find it truly perplexing that those more inclined to research actually pursue this ludicrous and hilarious link. It is not complicated; Cherokees inhabited most of this region or used it as hunting areas, and whites intruded...mixing was inevitable.

Definition of Melungeon

A show on the History Channel debunked the myth of the word Melungeon, and I believe I transcribed it correctly.

Etymology

This edit just showed up:

However, "melungeon" is also an archaic English word meaning scoundrel.

When you say "archaic English," do you mean it comes from England? Earlier in the article a similar pejorative use is mentioned, but in the context of racially mixed persons. This new sentence seems to imply an older British Isles origin, predating its application to the Appalachian ethnic group. Can you please provide more background on this? Badagnani 06:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it comes from England. See the article by Pezzullo and Douglas at:

http://www.melungeons.com/articles/morm032002.htm

Probably called Melungeon's because they're in the South

The American South, although containing African-American and Native-American communities is pretty much a homogenously White culture, so it's no surprise that the mixed people referred to as Melungeons are typecast as "other" peoples since they do not fit into the dichotomy of being Black or Native in the eyes of the Majority White populace in Southern Culture.

Settling Myth

-- It seems likely to me that Melungeons are the descendants of Romany (Gypsy) people from Europe who were exiled by Spain, Portugal, and England as the solution to their "Gypsy Problem". This occured to me after I read about the forced removal of Gypsies to the New World during the colonial period in "Bury Me Standing" by Isabel Fonseca. The tri-racial isolate theory of Melungeon origins doesn't actually make sense, based on how Melungeons actually appear physically - They don't tend to have the facial features and hair indicative of African genes or the Asian features derived from Native American genes. And Brent Kennedy's theory of a Turkish origin doesn't make sense if you know what Turkish people actually look like - they don't look like Melungeons (besides the fact of there being virtually no contact between turkey and the New World during the period of colonisation.If you look at old pics of Melungeons from before there was much mxing with the European-descent population, you notice that the people have essentially Caucasian facial features, but with very dark skin, darker than that of Sephardim, Spainards, or Middle Easterners - but like that of the Romany, who are Indian in origin. A few generations down the line, today, after marriages to their Scots/Irish/English Appalachian neighbors, the Melungeons have lighter skin and hair, and look more like Mediterranean/Middle Eastern people. I think that the Melungeons are descended from Gypsies who were forced to move to the American colonies, and then fled from the coastal settlements and started their own communities in the mountains, far from the European settlers who were predjudiced against them. what do you think? --apalachiangirl , new to wikipedia

That's an interesting hypothesis but I'm not sure that there is any record of such voyages. Did you believe that such settlements took place during the 1600s? Because supposedly there were already Melungeons settled in the Appalachian region when the first settlers from the original 13 colonies arrived there in the 1700s. The late Joe Begley, a famous older resident of Blackey, in Letcher County, Kentucky used to say that the facial features of many Melungeon men reminded him of Saddam Hussein. He didn't mean that in a bad way, but due to their dark skin coloration and because many Melungeon men used to (and still do) wear large mustaches. Badagnani 22:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

There are actually records of these voyages - as I said, I read this initially in "Bury Me Standing" by I. Fonseca. on page 216, she writes "In the sixteenth century, Potrugal became the first country to deport Gypsies to its colonies..." then France and England followed this practice. Like the Jews in Europe, Gypsies were constantly being expelled from the countries in which they resided - being a "stateless" people. Fonseca quotes historian Angus Fraser saying that "this novel method of expulsion [to the colonies] was considered acceptable, and useful for the slave labor it provided (cargoes of Gypsies preceded African captives), because the Gypsies were transported only within the empire, and so were not, strictly speaking, deported" I quote this book in particular only b/c I happen to have it here at home with me, but these quotes (in addition to what I've read elsewhere) lead me to believe that the resettlement of European gypsies to the New World colonies is an accepted fact in academic circles. Not that you should trust this source (!) but on the wikipedia page for Gypsy, the forced settlement of Gypsies to the colonies in Virgina are mentioned. The Gypsies were sent to the New World beginning in the 1500's. This was a way for Spain and Portugal and England to rid themselves of the "undesirables" like Gypsies and criminals. I'm sorry I don't have other sources for this info off the top of my head, but I've read quite a bit about this in my amateur study of Gypsies. perhaps I'll be back with other sources later. It is more widely known that the Jews and Moors were banned from Andalusia at this time and many came to South America and the Carribean. In Fonseca's book, she says something about the fate of the resettled gypsies being unknown - well, I think they became the Melungeons. and again, let's think about how Gypsies actualy physically look - many have very dark skin, but facial features that look Caucasian - they look like Asian Indians (no surprise, b/c their ancestors came from India) and this is also how Melungeons appear, esp. in old pics from the 1800's (before intermarriage with Whites was common). I think it's interesting that on the related groups section of this article, the Red Bones and Brass Ankles of Lousiana are mentioned - pretty far from the Appalachian mountains, BUT that's where the French dumped their Gypsies - in Lousiana. Appalachiangirl 12:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Your hypothesis is pure speculative nonsense, without a shred of linking evidence. The genealogy of the LA groups you mentioned is well-documented. They descend from FPCs who migrated in from the Carolinas, and have nothing to do with French Gypsy dumping.

anon revisions

Anonymous posters have several times recently removed portions of varous lists from this article. I've always reverted the changes, because no explanation is given, and since they're anonymous IPs you can't ask them to explain. If there are portions of this article that need to be removed, please explain why here when you do it. - DavidWBrooks 16:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Again ... please explain here why you are making major changes, so that all the editors can consider and debate them. You might change people's minds and enlighten them - but not unless you try! Just re-doing it over and over, or leaving comments at individual editors Talk pages, won't work. - DavidWBrooks 01:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Delaware Moors NOT Melungeons

Asalaam Alaikum, I am writing to protest strongly the content of the Melungeon article in Wikipedia. I am a "Nanticoke-Moor" and I find having my people lumped in with the Melungeons to be particularly offensive. First, the Tidewater groups(Nanticoke-Moor,Wesorts,Lumbee, etc.) have continuously maintained an identity as mixed/Native people for centuries. On the other hand, Melungeons chose to "marry out" (to Whites)and subsequently "pass for White".They deliberately chose "White skin privilege" over racial solidarity, thereby harming the socio-political position of all mixed peoples.And unlike the Melungeons who today look mostly like "Mountain Whites",my own family and related groups actually look like people in the Maghreb/South Asia as well Native people TODAY.Secondly,based on my own research (to lengthy to recount here),the "Nanticoke-Moor" are really Ruma/Tuareg(from Timbuktu,Mali)as well as Nanticoke/Lenape.I also have information on the true identity of the "Turks" of Sumter County and the Ben Ishmael Tribe(not mentioned by Melungeons)of Indiana as well as family traditions of connections to the Muslim world.I am asking the Melungeons to stop "hijacking the heritage" of the Tidewater/ Lowcountry groups.The Melungeons have a well documented history of making racist statements(using the "n-word",proudly claiming to be a "redneck",etc.)that are offensive to people who actually look mixed and have endured centuries of oppression.I intend to edit my group and the others OUT.It may be the holy month of Ramadan but the Melungeons are asking for a heaping helping of hell by trying to claim to be what they are not.

                                                   Allahu Akbar!
                                                   {Meena}

Comment:

Actually, Meena, I am afraid you are the one being offensive here. I think the intention was to suggest the Delaware and Jersey Moors were "mixed race" people--which they most certainly are--and in that sense bear a "relationship" to the Melungeons. Further, the "Wesorts" and Lumbees" have unequivocally NOT "continuously maintained an identity as mixed/Native people for centuries." They were always classed as mulattoes and Negroes, and I know because I have researched them back into the 1600s. Moreover, their primary white sponsor--Hamilton McMillan--is the one who bestowed upon them an Indian identity in 1885. Prior to that, as he says, and into the early 1900s, they called themselves Melungeons. I repeat--and McMaillan testified to this in front of courts and Congress, with "Lumbee" sitting right next to him--that the Lumbees called themselves "Melungeons."

I won't get into the Nanticoke issue, as I simply do not have time to do that right now. The Indian ancestry you claim for them is undocumented. Same for the so-called "Turks" of South Carolina. Their "Muslim world" connections are likewise undemonstrated. Many years ago, "Turk" was considered a pejorative in that section, and you would never say that in front of a Turk. The Turks called themselves Indians, and when some real Turks saw them in the 1960s they said they looked like Maltese, not Turks. Genealogically, there is no evidence for descent from Muslims. These folks are always citing the "Benenhaley" family, claim that is a corruption of ‘Ben Ali’ or some such, and leave it at that. The male progenitor of this clan was a white man. He married a "Lumbee" woman. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Factiness (talk • contribs)

"Turks and Moors"(but NOT Africans)

Asalaam Aleykum , I had not really expected a reply to my post and/or a defense of the Melungeon position because it is really indefensible. I think it is clear that for Melungeons DNA means "Deny Negro Ancestry". With all their talk about "Turks and Moors" landing on Roanoke Island in 1586 and their claim of kinship to them , the Africans who were also freed there are completely forgotten. And I think that THAT is the heart of the matter.The Melungeons have clearly waged a campaign to change their history not so much to right old wrongs but rather to rewrite ( ha ! ) new ones. The Anglo aristocracy of the 19th c. C.E. sought to cast the Melungeons solely as mere "mulattoes" i.e. simply a mixture of White and Black and that was WRONG. WRONG also is their attempt to whitewash their own history and deny ALL Black ancestry. I also believe that the Lumbees are a far more logical choice as the descendants of the "Turks and Moors" as well as the Blacks from Roanoke Island. They certainly look it and more importantly they have a very long oral tradition relating their ancestors residence there.I could say similar things about the "Brass Ankles" and their probable relationship to Santa Elena and Chicora. My own great-grandmother Molly (Mali?) was a Moor from northeastern North Carolina who migrated north to marry a Delaware Moor. I believe that the people who "labored in the vineyard" all these years ought to bear the "fruits of the harvest". The Melungeons are simply too atypical of mixed people to be the leaders of any movement. Lastly , the one clue I can give about how I solved the origins of my own people (Nanticoke-Moors) was to find the true identity of the Bumberry family. Years later I read E.W. Bovill's "The Golden Trade of the Moors" and that only confirmed my findings. I also intend to re-edit this article to reflect my view which is based on FACT. Ma'salaama User: Meena Late morning , 4th day of Ramadan

Appearance

The whole reason for why the Melungeons had to develop explanations for their origin is their physical appearance (swarthy/dark skin, dark eyes, preference for big mustaches for men). Can someone add this to the article, as it seems there's a hole left when explaining why they had to develop these theories of where they came from, in contrast to their more purely "white" neighbors. Badagnani 19:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Kudos

Whoever is responsible for the major rewrites recently, kudos. This article is much improved. It is refreshing to see that a lot of the mythological nonsense that swirls around this topic is dealt with appropriately.

Thanks! That would be me, S9arthur. I've made it my business since about 1999 to fight the BS on the Internet about the Melungeons, but it's like using a spoon to empty the ocean...

here here - what a wonderfully well-written article. It handles all the silly stuff without being condescending and clearly examines each of the myths, the reasons people believe them and then the actual historical evidence. I am very impressed!172.162.161.80 14:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

S9Arthur

Just deleted several good edits (NPR link, removal of period, etc.). Please restore them immediately! Badagnani 05:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've put them back. S9Arthur, please discuss your proposed changes here. Please read this policy. If you continue to revert edits in this manner, you'll be blocked from editing in the first instance. We are all aiming for the best possible article here. Please treat us with that understanding. James James 05:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you keep putting the [tr: Meluncan] link at the bottom??? It doesn't show up in the article. On the Winkler article, it doesn't even mention Ivey. Why does it have to be in that sentence? I moved it down to the external link section, as it concerns Melungeons in general, not just that play. I also restored the NPR link - that was deleted by me by accident, actually. Also, "good" edits is a matter of opinion - why is it OK for you to change my edits but not for me to change yours? Sounds like a double standard to me. Finally, I don't know of anyone who likes to be threatened. Are James James, David W Brooks, or Badagnani sysops or administrators? User:S9arthur

You are not being threatened. I'm sorry you think you are. It's okay for us to change your edits because you are removing text without giving any reason and we are reinstating it. You have the same right as I do, or Badagnani does, to place text and remove it, but you must not revert to your preferred version more than three times a day, as I've explained to you and as DavidWBrooks explained to you. Also, we try to work in a friendly way here. That includes discussing what we're doing here on the talkpage. Simply removing the link with aggressive edit summaries is not really the way to go. You need to explain why you don't like the link and maybe suggest a replacement. Badagnani has explained his side of it. If your argument is compelling, I'd take your side, and I think Badagnani would too, but you can't just say "I don't want it" and expect to have your way just like that. James James 05:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring those changes. The tr: link was an interwiki, which shows up not in the article but on the left side. An interwiki is a link to an article on the same subject in a Wikipedia of another language. As an example, go to Appalachia and if you look at the left bottom you'll see that there's an interwiki link to the Appalachia article in the Esperanto-language Wikipedia.

Regarding the deleted link about the play, it goes into the origin of that outdoor drama in some detail (several paragraphs) in a way that other websites do not, and that portion of the article was relevant and helpful to a greater understanding of an outdoor drama that is otherwise dealt with in only a cursory way in the Wikipedia article. I doubt anyone will easily find it if it is not embedded in the text. A compromise would be to have the link embedded as a footnote, something that I personally find a bit cumbersome and which I try to avoid if possible. Badagnani 05:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no call to put it as a footnote. Other notes are embedded in the text. I found the link useful and informative and it sourced what is said in the text. I see no reason at all to treat it any differently from the other links in the article. James James 06:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

SAUNDRA IVEY IS NOT MENTIONED ON THAT PAGE. Those aren't Wayne Winkler's own ideas. He is not a folklorist. The link is down in the External Links section because it covers many topics, not just the drama.

Wayne Winkler is a published author on Melungeons. That makes him a reputable source by Wikipedia's standards. The link should appear, as others do, at the appropriate place in the text. I'd like you to put it back, and replace the sourcing to Winkler, which you also should not have removed. Showing a willingness to collaborate would be a good idea, because you are seriously in breach of Wikipedia's policies, and some effort to show that you are willing to respect them would be appreciated. James James 06:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wayne Winkler is not the source of the notion in question. Also, there are MANY published authors on Melungeons, and most of them are amateurs. Being a published author does not by itself prove anything. Why don't YOU collaborate with me? You seem to think I have not accepted anyone's else edits, and that is NOT true at all. Your argument sounds to me like 'shut up and do it our way!' Well, no, sorry, not gonna do that. Most of the best stuff in this article has been thanks to me. I put in almost all the References & Externalk Links, and corrected large sections of the text. Why don't you show some willingness to "collaborate"?

It doesn't matter whether Wayne Winkler is the "source of the notion". He is the person who we are quoting as saying it. Being a published author proves that someone thought he was worth publishing. In a field with few "professional" experts, amateurs are important. Why don't I collaborate with you? I'm more than willing to and have asked you to do so several times. Please put the link back. I don't know what your problem is with Wayne Winkler but you should not pursue it here. You have broken our policy on reverting and you're likely to be blocked for doing that. I'm suggesting you put the link back to show goodwill. Also put Winkler back as the source, because he was in fact the source for the paragraph, even if you don't like that. An alternative would be to source it to someone else. It is not "collaborating" to revert other editors nine times in a day without discussion. Only the threat of action has brought you to discuss it. The model here is collaborative. It doesn't matter who wrote most of the material either. There's no ownership of articles. If you're unhappy with that idea, you might be happier with a personal website.

Also, please sign your posts. It lets everyone know who the mystery voice belongs to. You do it by using ~~~~ at the end of your post. James James 07:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wayne Winkler is vice-president of the Melungeon Heritage Association of Wise, Virginia. http://www.melungeon.org/?BISKIT=%3C$::BISKIT%3E&CONTEXT=cat&cat=10023 I notice someone named S. J. Arthur is listed there as well, as the new president of this same association. Badagnani 07:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert wars

Folks, there is a rule on wikipedia call 3RR (Wikipedia:Three-revert rule) - no more than three reversions of a given article by a given editor in a given 24 hours. It is designed to prevent the kind of system-wasting back-and-forth edit war that this article has seen in the past week or so. People who ignore 3RR - which applies to several editors working on this article - can be blocked from editing for a period. So may I suggest you all figure out a way to be adults and cooperate on improving this article, which seems to me to be in pretty good shape at the moment. Among other things, learn to live with portions that aren't exactly what you would write, if you were in complete control. - DavidWBrooks 13:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Constant reverting

I've asked for action against S9arthur. I don't like to do it but he has now reverted the article to remove the link to the Winkler article NINE times in a day. He has refused to discuss it here, despite being asked to several times. James James 06:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

S9arthur's reply: A) Badagnani reverted as many times as I have; B) I HAVE discussed this (see above); and C) I don't see User "James James" anywhere in the History for this Article before today - I'm guessing it's a "sock puppet"...

It makes no difference how many times Badagnani reverts. You are still restricted to three, and you should still discuss changes here. Please don't attack me personally. That's also outside the policy here. I'm not a sockpuppet. I came across this page while patrolling RC, as many editors do, and was interested. James James 06:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Mulatto" reference

S9Arthur, can you add a reference for this?

"The "mulatto" Collins, Gibson, Bunch, Ridley and related families moved south from there to Orange County, North Carolina by 1755, then on to Wilkes and Ashe Counties, North Carolina and Pittsylvania County, Virginia."

Mulatto usually refers to part African, part European individuals and I don't believe the fact that these families were such is generally known (as some claim other ancestries for Melungeons). Do you mean "mulatto" as simply "mixed"? If so, it's an incorrect usage. But if you mean them as a population with both African and European genetic heritage, then you should give a source for this. Badagnani 21:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Mulatto" is what they are called in the records (see Heinegg - link & book for primary sources, it's also in Elder & DeMarce). "Mulatto" could mean Black+Indian, Indian+white, white+black, or all 3 - it changed definition (see Forbes). You keep demonstrating your ignorance of this subject by such questions. S9arthur 22:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You are again being extremely rude, and I expect that you will take that remark back. To the general reader (as evidenced by the definition given in the Mulatto article), "mulatto" means European + African, not including American Indian. Thus, no matter what you think my knowledge level about Melungeons is, the "mulatto" remark needs to be explained and/or qualified to avoid any misunderstandings that will inevitably arise due to the generally accepted present definition of "mulatto." Badagnani 22:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This page http://www.heite.org/Indians/invisible.html does indeed explain the use of the term "mulatto" in the United States to describe Indians (or part-Indians) living off reservations. This fact is not in general knowledge and should be explained if the term is used in this context in the article. In other North American countries Indian-white mixtures are called by other names than mulatto: Métis, mestizo, etc. Badagnani 22:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no accurate documentary evidence that any of these lines had any Indian ancestry at all. It would be misleading to suggest that they do until such time as it is proven. Latter-day claims to Indian ancestry are usually either camouflage for black ancestry, or romantic wishful thinking, or both.Pokey5945 01:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're not denying that Indian ancestry among caucasian populations does exist, and is common in Appalachia (not speaking strictly of Melungeons). Indian ancestry, while perhaps qualifying as "better than" African ancestry in former, more racist times, was still something that was hidden in mixed populations, and not just in Appalachia. When I travel in East Kentucky, East Tennessee, Western North Carolina, southwestern West Virginia, etc., many of the people I meet and see have Indian facial features (eyes, cheekbones, etc.), while self-identifying as "white." Badagnani 01:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The "mulatto" issue comes up again & again in all Melungeon books and discussions. The fact that you asked about that, Badagnani, tells me you haven't read any of the books or articles in the reference section. Please go do your homework, then come back with your little red pen. On this: "There is no accurate documentary evidence that any of these lines had any Indian ancestry at all. It would be misleading to suggest that they do until such time as it is proven. Latter-day claims to Indian ancestry are usually either camouflage for black ancestry, or romantic wishful thinking, or both.Pokey5945 01:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)" - in general, you are correct, however, it really depends on which specific family you mean (the Ridleys & the Basses are specifically listed as Indian, for example). S9arthur 03:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to the possibility of Indian ancestry in any American family, but it is so commonly claimed by these "tri-racial" populations that it can't be taken at face value without strong corroboration. A website by an amateur genealogist is not reliable sourcing for such claims.Pokey5945 02:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The key issue is what the old records meant by "mulatto" when describing Melungeon ancestors. We just don't know for sure, though the weight of the evidence seems to come down more on the African, rather than Native American side. That is because we find their relatives as "Negro" or "black" but rarely "Indian." However, Forbes (1993) has shown that there was SO much mixing in the early days between blacks & Indians, both in North America, the Caribbean & South America, that you almost can't have one w/o the other. Remember that the first black slaves in Virginia were not usually from Africa directly, but were "Creoles," blacks often w/ Hispanic names who had come from the Caribbean & other "Latin" areas, where they were often mixed with Indians such as Taino, Carib, etc. The remnants of the Virginia Algonquian tribes (Powhatan) mixed heavily with freed slaves. It was a very mixed world already by 1700. The records even show Italians, Portuguese, an Armenian, East Indians (from India & Indonesia) in early Virginia & Maryland. Almost everything BUT Turks, ironically enough for Brent Kennedy (who's currently in a coma from a stroke, sad to say). S9arthur 02:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"

The key issue is what the old records meant by "mulatto" when describing Melungeon ancestors."

EXACTLY. And the current version of the article makes it quite clear that the term is only being used in that historcial context. People need to put their own reactions to the modern usage of that term in their pocket when reading this article and see that the editors who worked on this are merely trying to lay out how the group was designated at various points in the past. 172.162.161.80 14:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

tri-racial

At the risk of sounding like an idiot, could I ask somebody to define "tri-racial" in the article? A single sentence would do, but it's not a standard term for most people and it's not clear from context exactly what it means: Descendant of exactly three distinct racial groups? Descendant of more than two racial groups? Descendant of an uncertain number of racial groups? Nothing in particular? - DavidWBrooks 14:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid point. I put in an explanation - hope it works. S9arthur 02:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Constant reverting and discourtesy

S9arthur, anyone can edit a Wikipedia page. They are perfectly entitled to edit it as they see fit, regardless of their level of knowledge about the subject. This is a good idea because sometimes "experts" disregard the niceties of neutral point of view, good sourcing and style, which are important to a good encyclopaedia article.

Please don't be discourteous to other editors and please stop removing the link from the "Toward Sunset" section. You haven't given a good reason to remove it, nor is your action supported by other editors. It's generally the case on WP that nothing is removed unless there is good reason. James James 01:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, you two (JJ & B) keep putting in links to unreliable pages that just confuse the issue, rather than helping. You clearly can't distinguish between a good source & a bad one. THAT is the "good reason"! If we threw in EVERY web page on Melungeons, we'd be up to our ears in a big steaming pile of nonsense. Capiche? S9arthur 02:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I don't agree. I think it's a good source. It is in turn well sourced. Wikipedia is a collection of views, not "issues" as defined by interested parties. It seems to me you have a personal problem with the source, rather than any reasonable intellectual objection. If you can find some discussion in another reputable source that shows it to be a bad source, then we could remove it. But your own personal opinion does not outweigh those of other editors. James James 02:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe it comes down to who has the most tenacity in the long term. I've incorporated almost every reasonable edit you guys have put in, and tried to address all the basic questions. I did not delete the link to the Winkler article, just moved it down to the "links" section, where I think it makes more sense, because it addresses Melungeons GENERALLY, not just the drama. S9arthur 02:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you do it again, I'm going to ask for you to be blocked. Refer to this policy. James James 03:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured article nomination

At this point, the article seems quite well researched and excellent, probably nearly worthy of Featured Article status (though things like results of genetic tests, Melungeon organizations and gatherings, Melungeon studies within Appalachian Studies/dissertations on Melungeons added to References section, etc. could be developed a bit more). What do other editors think about adding a Featured Article nomination? Badagnani 02:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool! I'll take that as a compliment (whether it was intended that way or not), since most of the content was written by yours truly. :) S9arthur 02:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Now someone who can write in Turkish needs to fix the Turkish version. I can read enough to tell it's very outdated. Any volunteers? S9arthur 02:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Melungeon/archive1 Go here and put this on your watchlists, as the comments (both in support and against) will start to flow in shortly. Get ready for a lot of work; these people can be very picky! Badagnani 02:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

http://tr.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Meluncan&action=history Looks like Zentuk is the main contributor. His/her user page says that s/he speaks English so why not put a message on his/her talk page? Badagnani 02:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Melungeon/archive1 Looks like they want photos added to the article. It's a good idea. Badagnani 10:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the comments were moronic. Like this one: " * Oppose - The external links should be inline citations. The section on related groups has too many red links. This line doesn't make sense: "Genealogists....have traced the "core" Gibson and Collins families back to Louisa County, Virginia in the early 1700s....The Gibson family can be traced back even further to Charles City County, Virginia in the late 17th century..." --the way it talks about the early 17th century and then says "traced further back to...late 17th Century" makes not sense. Referring to further back should take it back into the 16th Century. There should be photos and/or maps."

"makes not sense"?? Posted by Yoda, apparently! And the person doesn't understand the numbering of centuries, to boot! Sheesh! S9arthur 22:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Why settled in mountains?

Maybe it could also be added why these families may have chosen to settle in the Appalachian Mountains, not moving further westward into the Midwest or Plains. To have more privacy/to be left alone, as many other Appalachian settlers did (despite the difficulty of life/farming in the mountains and hollers)? Badagnani 00:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That would have to be purely speculative.Pokey5945 01:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pokey on that one. I think probably that they migrated for the same reasons as their white neighbors (cheaper land, new opportunities, etc), but I think speculation should be avoided as much as possible. Also, some of their descendants DID move west from Tennessee, and were assimilated, and ceased to be called Melungeons. Melungeon descendants are all over the country by now. S9arthur 21:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that some decided to move out westward of the mountains might be added to the article, then. That's of interest. Badagnani 22:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Done! S9arthur 22:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Passing

Hey folks. Browsing the article on Passing#Race gave me the idea that a lot of its material should be transferred over to this article - or vice versa. Particularly the triracial Appalachian communities who often self-describe their ethnic origin as simply "American" in US Censuses. //Big Adamsky 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a connection there, but I think the Melungeon article is already getting too big as it is - it's up to 32 KB now. S9arthur 12:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of the "Houma Tribe" link and replaced it with "Passing#Race". S9arthur 03:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the Houma, like the Lumbees, are a tribal-oriented ethnic group of various origins, mainly Cajun/Creole. But if the common denominator is Appalachian British roots and culture, then I guess they don't fit in with the other groups. //Big Adamsky 04:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

vandalism?

An anonymous IP just added "Cumbo family of Rich Square, North Carolina" to the list of potentially related groups. I don't know enough to edit it, but that smacks of a joke/vandalism to me - can those with more knowledge double-check it? - DavidWBrooks 21:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a multiracial Cumbo family in NC. One line became ancestors to the Lumbees. I've never heard of Rich Square, but I wouldn't automatically assume it was bogus.Pokey5945 21:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Plecker and Jim Crow

I am new to Wikipedia but not to Melungeons and appreciate the work that has gone into this article. I have some ideas for images. The website "Digital Library of Appalachia" http://www.aca-dla.org/site-templates/Melungeons/Melungeons.html contains images of historic Melungeons such as and Mahala Mullins. It also contains images of the Vardy School, a Presbyterian school run for Melungeon children. This article does not yet discuss the Vardy School, and I think it is well worth considering. There are also images of Newman's Ridge and the Vardy Valley in Hancock County, TN. Finally, it seems that all of the images on this site are owned by King College of Bristol Virginia, so it should be relatively simple to obtain permission to use them.

Additionally, I would suggest that this article contain some discussion of the application of Jim Crow laws to Melungeons. One very widely-cited example are the letters of Walter Plecker, the Virginia Registrar of Vital Statistics, to the school superintendent in Lee County, Virginia in 1930. See http://www.melungeon.org/?BISKIT=3007062276&CONTEXT=cat&cat=10080.

I may be able to come up with some additional resources, if these look promising. These are not the type of edits I would try to do myself. Thanks for your consideration Artiemishi 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)artiemishi

This is a good idea, but in general I don't think that melungeon.org qualifies as a reliable source. If anything, I think that Plecker deserves his own article, which could be linked to from this one.Verklempt 21:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have seen the Plecker letters cited in several sources, not just Melungeon.org, which I agree is not a scholarly source. I will see what I can put together. Did you look at the images? at the digital library? Artiemishi 21:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)artiemishi

I wouldn't claim that melungeon.org is a "scholarly" site since the site itself makes no such claim -- however, does anyone actually consider Wikipedia to be a "scholarly" site?

These all sound like good ideas. Badagnani 21:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted King College for permission to use their photographs and will let everyone know as soon as I hear back. Artiemishi 21:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason I never went into Plecker is mainly because Plecker was not out to get Melungeons specifically. He was a racist who was against all families who were trying to pass as white. The Melungeon families just happened to fall into that category. Many of the families listed on Plecker's infamous lists were Melungeon, but many were not. Those who want to make Melungeons into a "persecuted minority" who suffered "ethnic cleansing" bring out Plecker as the "Great Enemy" of the "Melungeon people" - all of this has more to do with modern myth-making than with real history. Plecker does deserve his own article, but Melungeons would be a footnote in the larger story of the American Eugenics movement, which, incidentally, helped to inspire the German version, which led ultimately to the Holocaust... S9arthur 15:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That's my thinking as well, that "Pleckerism" is part of the broader euqenics movement, and only tangentially related to Melungeons in particular. Still, the way that contemporary Melungeons manipulate the Plecker history to validate the Kennedy mythology may be worth writing up in here.Verklempt 22:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a page already on Plecker, perhaps I should propose a footnote there. By the way, while I admire Brent Kennedy for garnering some publicity for Melungeons, I do not agree with his theories / conclusions. For example, I recall that Kennedy claimed that people lost property rights due to being classified Melungeon or FPC, and as S9Arther points out above, there is no support for that claim. However, there is historical support for the claim that being classified "Melungeon" could affect one's inheritance rights from "white" relatives and, as demonstrated by the Plecker letters, could affect one's ability to attend school. Verklempt, would you want to write up an analysis of "myth" vs "fact"? I think it could be a good idea. Artiemishi 19:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

(P.S., Brent Kennedy also suggested that Elvis might be a Melungeon. That sort of thing hurts his credibility). Artiemishi 19:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

S9Arthur - Why do you consider information redundant?

S9Arthur, I have just barely contributed to this page, but the cites I have added do give good information about the Melungeons, especially around Newman's Ridge. Why do you consider them redundant? Have you read each of these books? I have read many of the books listed in the resources section, including the Kennedy book and Jean Bible's book, and I don't consider any of them "redundant." And the Bonnie Ball cite I have added is actually one of the first Melungeon books - it was original published in the 1960s, but the 1992 overmountain press edition is the only one still in print. The Vande Brake book is certainly not redundant of any of the other cites, because it is a scholarly review of fictional characters. I have at least 15 other articles, books, and short stories referencing Melungeons which I could offer as resources, but I thought I had offered three solid, easily obtainable books which I would hope would be helpful. I just don't understand why you keep deleting them. Could you tell me your concerns, and perhaps I can address then? Thank you, Artiemishi 18:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read/am familiar with the references you want to add, but the article is already too big. If you want to add everything ever published about Melungeons, the references section would be several pages long. The Ball book is just more rehashing of Melungeon myth & speculation, and we already have Bible's book listed. The others are covered by Langdon's book, which lists both fiction & non-fiction, and summarizes each work. At some point you have to draw the line and say 'enough is enough.' The references as they stand now support the text, and through them an interested reader can find pretty much anything else related. S9arthur 15:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

S9Arthur, I don't necessarily agree with you about the page being too big, but perhaps it could be laid out differently. What would you suggest? Do you think there should be separate articles about Brent Kennedy's theories as opposed to more mainstream theories? Do you think we should have a separate article for Melungeon fiction? For Melungeon culture (to the extent that it differed at all from neighboring populations?) What do others think? Artiemishi 19:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

those references ...

Just out of curiosity, are you folks going to go back-and-forth on this minor issue for all eternity? Whether those references are in the list or not doesn't matter very much, in the grand scheme of wikipedia things - surely your energies and knowledge could be better devoted elsewhere. I suggest one or the other of you just stop, realizing that it's no admission of being wrong; in fact, it might be a sign of superior maturity! - DavidWBrooks 16:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

While I mostly agree with S9Arthur that some of the disputed references are crap, I vote for keeping them in the article. They are relevant resources even if they are unreliable. They may be of interest to people who are researching the development of the Melungeon myth rather than the history itself. Let each reader decide for himself. Hashaw's piece in particular is worthwhile, even if you disagree with some of his arguments.Pokey5945 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Great; I feel the same way. Why not go ahead and add them back, then? Badagnani 05:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think all of you are right on this, and I acted too hastily. Pokey in particular makes a good point that "They may be of interest to people who are researching the development of the Melungeon myth rather than the history itself." I put the references back in. I apologize for any frustration or consternation I may have caused. My only desire is to make this article as accurate as possible, given that there are so few reliable Internet sources on this subject. Despite what some have accused me of, it is not some kind of ego-trip or claim of exclusive editorship. S9arthur 21:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment on a reference.

To the author of this very good, informative, article on Melungeons. I read through some of the comments on the discussion page and am quite surprised at the venom and misinformation. That said, I am an author cited in the main article. My name is C.S. Everett, and I spent a good ten years researching Melungeons, including extensive genealogical research on more than two dozen alleged "Melungeon" families. My article, originally submitted for publication in 1997, was researched and written mainly between 1989 and 1996. I have conducted further research, on and off, for the past decade.

The intent of my article published in Appalachain Journal was to SUGGEST Indian origins, and the POSSIBILITY of descent from a known indigenous tribe. I was trying to reiterate what Melungeons themselves claimed for so many years. Now, just for clarification's sake, I ask the author of the wikipedia entry to state that I am an "historian" and not merely a "researcher." Further, I suggest a qualifier on the notion that I "misidentified" John Collins. Please retain your language, just switch some words around. I would say that I "initially hypothesized" that John Collins the Sapony Indian "might be the same as" John Collins, the "mulatto" in North Carolina in 1755. Then, if you would not mind, please feel free to state that I have "subsequently revised that position." Or something to that effect. With the additional seven or so years of work on the subject, I have finally concluded that there is NO tie between the Saponi Indians and the Melungeons, yet I still conclude that they are primarily mixed-race, and used to claim mainly American Indian ancestry, and quite probably have American Indian heritage. The families, many of them, that made up the core of Melungeon settlers in Appalachia, did in fact come from eastern Virginia and North Carolina, ultimately. The story is quite simple, and the backwoods scholars of a century ago were most likely correct in presuming that the Melungeons represented the mingling of the African and European with the Indian. Occam's Razor, I believe it is called.

That is not to say all "Melungeons"--which i still contend was NEVER a unified ethnic group, historically--are just composed of these three races exclusively. There is variability, and other races contributed. I have logged, oh, I'd say about 270 hours in the Virginia archives. East Indians, Turks, a few Spaniards, Italians, Irish, French, Germans, Dutch, Poles, all came to early colonial Virginia. Into this can be added, of course, thousands of Africans from dozens of tribes, and probably 1,000 American Indians who were imported as servants and slaves, for about 100 years. The tribal affiliations of most of those Indians is basically anyone's guess and completely open to total speculation. At any rate, the scene was set for rather complex mixture in Virginia from the 1620s forward and well into the eighteenth century. What developed, I suppose, was a strain of colonists who weren't, for lack of a better term, "white" based on their physical features alone. So, this may be where all the Cherokee great grandmothers come in.

Are ALL Melungeons Indians? No. That is not likely and frankly, not very possible. Are SOME Melungeons DESCENDED from American Indians. Sure. That is likley and very possible. Are Melungeons a "tribe?" Again, that is not likely and not very possible.

Well, I have offered my thoughts. I think the article is largely accurate, and a fair synthesis of all the available sources. There are identity politics at work here, in some of the "discussion" comments I reviewed. I challenge anyone who takes strong issue with the conclusions reached in this article to produce more than the four boxes of documents and notes I did in my more than ten years work on this question.

Interesting. There is no "author" of this, or any other, wikipedia article, however - it's all for one and one for all. You can make these changes yourself, just to be sure that somebody doesn't mix it up again - give it a shot. Wikipedia could use more editors with your level of research experience. - DavidWBrooks 21:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

>I am researching the Melungeon families and have compiled a great deal of work on the genealogies of many of these families. I have not found documents to prove any ties to the Saponi Indians but would like to know what proof there is that the Saponi John Collins is not the same as the 'Mulatto' John Collins in 1755? Henry Bunch and a 'John Collins' are in Bertie Co., NC, both with land not very far from the Occaneechi-Saponi 'Indian Town.'

There is no documented connection between these Collins and Vardy Collins but it is interesting that Valentine Collins DNA matches that of Henry Bunch. Micajah Bunch is also said to be from this Bertie County family and it seems likely the John Collins associated with him might be of Bertie County line also. JP1813

Mr Everett, you & I have corresponded in the past, but I have chosen to remain anonymous here. I have a great deal of respect for your work, and I am aware of your findings of Portuguese surnames among early Indians, etc. I believe your characterization of early Colonial Virginia as a "melting pot" is absolutely correct. To my mind, the article does leave a lot of room for seeing Native American as a Melungeon ancestral component, and I agree with you that it probably was, though not the primary one. I was trying to get at that highly mixed background with the link to Berlin's "Atlantic Creoles". However, as I'm sure you know, the records for these families do not extend back indefinitely, and we reach a point of having to guess from DNA evidence and geographical location, association, etc. I incorporated your suggestions into the paragraph that referred to you by name. I hope you are pleased with the new version. If not, as already pointed out, you can make further changes yourself. S9arthur 11:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

For the person who asked about proof that the Saponi John Collins was a different man than the mulatto John Collins: the proof is that they were born at different times, and lived in different counties. The "mulatto" John Collins listed on tax lists in Orange County, North Carolina was only about six years old when the "Saponey Indian" John Collins was brought into Orange County, Virginia, court for firing the woods and taking pot-shots at a planter. That Saponi John Collins, along with ten other Saponi men, was expelled from the colony about the end of January 1743, according to court records. They appear to have gone to Shamokin, Pennsylvania, where they joined up with the Tutelo, another Siouan-speaking tribe that had come from Virginia. Meanwhile, the "mulatto" John Collins came from LOUISA County, Virginia, and as a teenager went to Orange County, North Carolina. He was a son of Thomas Collins, who in the 1740s lived on the north bank of the Pamunkey River, in eastern Louisa County, Virginia. Thomas was from New Kent, County, born there about 1715. Thomas' wife was described as a "negro," and male descendants of this Collins line test as of West African ancestry (see Heinegg, Goins refs in the article). Hope that helps. S9arthur 21:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes

It began earlier as you say, but the exact groups mostly claimed to be Melungeon by Melungeons are those written as opponents of the Ku Klux Klan in that article here on the Wikipedia (go look at the article now)--Catholics, Jews and Blacks...It just may be that the Melungeons were any matter or amount of these communities in the South. Remember, Irish Catholics were White slaves down South until the Revolution. French Catholics from Louisiana would naturally associate with them, but moreso with Scottish Catholics. When Italians or even Greeks would move in, they would of course be limited to Catholic groups hiding from hateful Protestants. If there were any mixture with Hispanic Floridians, they'd claim some glorious Pocahontas ancestry instead of typical Mestizo blood. It was much, much less common for anybody of any "Anglo" or Protestant orientation to have mixed-families with Indians until the 20th Century--unless their family comes from Oklahoma Territory for instance. Most Blacks with Anglo culture didn't resort to sexual relations with Indian women, nor really have Jews done it. The essence lies mostly in what the Conquistadors did, but that was mostly due to feverish sailors and did not really spread to non-Hispanic cultures, French Huguenots or Irish Protestants. It's ironic what religious fanaticism will do; the Spanish Inquisition killed many Jews and Muslims, but then the persecutors resorted to interracial sex as a way of controlling their conquered foes. Melungeon was/is definitely a catch-all-term for historical minorities in the Southern USA, with or without Indian blood (usually irrelevant to the term's usage). It's a type of Southerner hated by the KKK. IP Address 09:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As discussed in the article, non-Appalachian multiracial groups did also exist in other parts of the U.S., but were/are called by names other than "Melungeon." Melungeon was a usage restricted to specific regions of Appalachia, and traceable via specific families who were referred to by that term, then and now. It's all discussed, very carefully, in the article. Badagnani 09:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Roots of the term are not Anglophonic, thus extending a colonial Caribbean source. That is why the term only has currency in the real South. North of the Carolinas and across America, this term has no common use whatsoever. I contend the "Anglo-named" Melungeon families are due to Catholic British or Irish slaves that had relations with morseo traditionally Catholic blends around the Gulf and Latin America, because of Anglo colonies in the Caribbean. It is not Appalachian, which is a culture that stretches on the hinterlands from New England to the Virginias. IP Address 09:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

IP Address, you may want to go back and actually read some of the references provided in the article. You obviously don't know the first thing about this subject, and are here just to cause trouble. S9arthur 21:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Crank references that grasp at straws, are no certain truths...IP Address 08:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We have to rely on sources here, and many of the authors quoted in the sources here have worked hard (sometimes entire lifetimes) tracing Melungeon origins, relying on the available source material, throwing out theories that prove false. The purported Caribbean and Deep South origins that you mention are completely new to me because I've never seen any sources describing any population from these areas as Melungeon. The term has been used to describe populations living in Appalachian East Tennessee and the surrounding upland areas mentioned at the beginning of the article. The word "Melungeon" is definitely English (though English as a language is not a very old language). Badagnani 04:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll clear this up about my intentions: I have been told, or glanced over (in passing) several materials purporting the Caribbean slave contribution to the population of Charleston and Savannah (among New Orleans and other multiracially populated areas). It is also rather obvious about the romantic Pocahontas connection to ideas of Roanoke survivors, in discussions of Virginia. These things are dismissed as fancy, but they are distinct beliefs of those who attempt to put a face on what the Melungeon community has had as an inception. So you see, I am an extreme skeptic to the fantasies described by ignorant rednecks...but I do in fact think they are relevant to the beliefs of those promoting the Melungeon identity. One need not endorse a belief of association, but merely allow others to see what sort of identities Melungeon life has acquired. I am confident to declare that there is so much myth obfuscating the reality of what life is like in Appalachia. Appalachian culture is from the Deep South to Maritime Canada. Melungeon culture is centred on the Gulf coast and south of Bermuda on the Eastern seaboard--originally Spanish areas. People think that just because impoverished Scotch-Irish on the frontier dressed in buckskin and furs, that they were some "noble savages" (though they were not Cherokee, but in fact Andrew Jackson's henchmen). So many ideas here wreak of Crank (person) nonsense. Are you the spin doctors making apologetics for the Antebellum South, by having it seem like the perpertrators are actually descended from the victims? Are you sitting in a trailor right now, trying to deny your Jerry Springer lifestyle? Civil War's Reconstruction is a real bitch?!

--That white Spanish territory is the Melungeon core, in true history.

See here: --Hispanics contributed Melungeon heritage, via Louisiana and Florida colonies. This was much different from slave owners who raped slaves to make more slaves. Melungeons were basically the first Hispanics in the United States, whom often lived in secret or adapted to Anglo ways. Please, do not spread fantasies as facts in this article! This work as it is, makes me laugh my ass off at the premise of what it's trying to do! IP Address 08:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I rest my case. S9arthur 10:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

All you want is victory to indoctrinate others, not true and scrutinous education. There are shitloads of holes in the theories you purport as true. IP Address 00:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

S9arthur should be blocked!

He has only claimed to be right in every instance, not letting others contribute. He has deleted any change made by other editors. I suggest that if he believes he should have full control, he should make his own website. This is an online encyclopedia community, where we are supposed to work together. IP Address 12:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That is demonstrably untrue, as can be seen from examining the edit history closely. You're obviously just upset because I changed YOUR edits. I have always retained GOOD edits by people who have "done their homework." I have never claimed "full control," as you put it, but I believe I have as much right to edit this article as anyone else. It is true that a large percentage, though certainly not 100%, of the text was written by me, but most of the formatting is thanks to editor Badagnani. S9arthur 21:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, trying to suck up to Bad now? You were the one shoving him around when I got here. Don't bullshit me. You do not believe I or others are entitled with the same rights to edit here as you do. You are a dictator and do not understand our American concept of the 1st Amendment. IP Address 08:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your edits and your comments speak for themselves. S9arthur 11:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yours do too, especially how you see yourself as with God-given domination of the article. I wanted to help before, but you threw it back in my face. IP Address 00:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Should be deleted?

Melungeon is not even in the dictionary! This is all a mystified cult! Screw this nonsense!

IP Address 08:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the dictionary. It's in every unabridged English dictionary in print, I believe. Why don't you go check? S9arthur 10:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow! It's not! IP Address 00:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls! - DavidWBrooks 00:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?FILTER=&query=Melungeon IP Address 07:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's in the Oxford English Dictionary. It's also in Merriam-Webster http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/melungeon and in the Random House: http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/Melungeon and here: http://dict.die.net/melungeon/ (Webster's 1913). As stated, you need to look in UNABRIDGED dictionaries, and you may need to actually crack open a book. Note that dictionary entries vary quite a bit as to the ethnicity of the Melungeons, and the etymology of their name, but all agree (as far as I have found) that they are associated with E. Tennessee. The disagreements on ethnicity and etymology are addressed in the article. S9arthur 09:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Then they are French mixes who came from Louisiana, not English/British/American...per etymology and usage. Care to show this word on an older dictionary, with English roots? IP Address 10:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.melungeon.org/index.cgi?&CONTEXT=cat&cat=10062

<<5 Interestingly, there are no listings for “Melungeon” in The American Heritage Dictionary (3rd ed.), Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.), Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.), Britannica Online, or The Columbia Encyclopedia.>>

Wow. IP Address 10:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Louisiana origins of the Melungeons cannot be drawn logically from an English word of French origin. (Referring presumably to the possible root given in the third paragraph of the "Etymology" section of this article, first noted during the English Elizabethan period). As you know, French words were introduced into English in large numbers beginning after the Norman conquest, almost 1,000 years ago. Further, the genealogies of many of the original families considered and referred to as "Melungeon" have been traced, but to the east coast, not the Deep South. Badagnani 20:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

IP Address wrote: "Then they are French mixes who came from Louisiana, not English/British/American...per etymology and usage. Care to show this word on an older dictionary, with English roots?" -- Read the article - all of this has been addressed. Badagnani wrote: "Further, the genealogies of many of the original families considered and referred to as "Melungeon" have been traced, but to the east coast, not the Deep South." -- Exactly! IP Address, you're not going to convince anyone that this entire article should be deleted. The more you post, the more you prove my point that you don't know the first thing about this subject. S9arthur 21:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just mystical nonsense concocted to make poor and ignorant rednecks feel special. By the way, Huguenots (French Protestants) lived in colonial Virginia. The word used by Edmund Spenser for a "trickster", sounds mystical to me. Then again, it is definitely a spin on "malignant". I cry foul at the attempts of ignorant honkies to make themselves special from nonsense. You can keep building this pipe dream, but it won't get you anywhere but fantasy. IP Address 00:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Surnames

Don't leave out the part about European surnames; part of the "mystery" is that these people are purported to have non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds yet nearly all have Anglo-Saxon surnames. (Though Kennedy points out that some of the names might have been anglicized from other languages.) Badagnani 22:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved the intro paragraphs around a bit. I think it works better now...S9arthur 21:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

S.J. Arthur/S9arthur

By the way, I am not S.J. Arthur, as some have speculated. I think I am going to have to change user names, to get this idiot IP Address off my back. S9arthur 01:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Bunch Cherokee link

It seems that the link just added about the Bunch Cherokee family doesn't mention the term Melungeon. Is this the same Bunch family and is this link relevant to this article? Badagnani 14:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The Melungeon Bunches were not Cherokee - see Heinegg: http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/Brooks_Byrd.htm and also Elder and DeMarce. The Melungeon Bunches were mulatto. S9arthur 21:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Though from editing here I've learned that "mulatto" (coming from the word "mule," I think) didn't always refer specifically to African-European mixtures but also Native-European and triracial persons as well. Badagnani 21:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That is true, but the origin of the Bunch family that is associated with the Gibsons was in eastern Virginia, far from the Cherokee area. If they were of Native American ancestry at all, Cherokee would be unlikely, and the Y DNA results for Melungeon Bunch lines are haplogroup E3a, which is West African (Bantu). S9arthur 02:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

>>Quoting Heinegg; "The Bunch family probably descended from John Bunch, born say 1630, who received a patent for 450 acres in New Kent County on 18 March 1662 [Patents 5:152]. He may have been the ancestor of several mixed-race members of the family" -- 'Probably' and 'may have been' means Heinegg is speculating. While a couple of Y results have came back E3a there is also a COLLINS that matches this line that goes back to Henry Bunch. Question is; Was Henry Bunch really a Collins or were the Collins and Bunch really Gibsons or Goins etc. There are just too few results back yet to make any assumptions.

-- As far as the Cherokee being in Virginia there was a tribe 'thought to be' Cherokee who settled at the Falls of Richmond in 1656, they were called Rickohockan or Rechahecrian but most ethnologist say they were Cherokee, while some say they were Yuchi. New Kent Co., Virginia deed book 5, shows that John Bunch was assigned 450 acres on both sides of the Rickahock Path.

---

Heinegg is not just freely speculating, he's making an educated guess based on the evidence. Claims that they are Cherokee are a late tradition. What Southern family doesn't claim Cherokee? That's one of the few tribes that most Americans have heard of, so they pick that one when they claim Native ancestry. As to the ethnic identity of the Richahecrians, in Jeffrey L. Hantman's "Powhatan's Relations with the Piedmont Monacans" (Ch 4 of "Powhatan Foreign Relations" ed by Helen C. Rountree) they are listed as "believed to be Siouan-speakers from the piedmont," and "may have included Monacans" (p 110). There seems to be no solid proof as to their identity, and even if they were Cherokee, there is no real evidence of a link to the Bunch family. Also, there were multiple Bunch families in colonial Virginia & North Carolina, and it really depends on which family you're referring to. Note that in the article itself, there is no specific ethnic identity given for the Bunches. Like other Melungeon lines, there is more evidence for black ancestry than for Indian. S9arthur 20:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

---

The Rickahocakans were Nassaw, or "Nesson," a "Siouan"-speaking people, probably--but not certainly--Saponi, mixed with elements of other regional tribes. They came to the Falls of the James to battle the Mohawk, coming down from up north. The Virginians and the Pamunkey drove them out after two assaults. They retired to the South, where they left the "Manks Nessoneicks," or the 'Great Old Fields of the Nesson' to later colonists. Tne "Rickahock Path" is a fairly common central-Virginia reference alluding to the routes these Indians--and likley others, as well as colonial traders--travelled to get to and from what is now Richmond, and the colonial fort located near their settlement. "Rickahock" means something like 'sandy point' in the Powhatan language, which probably alludes to the path's terminus at a river crossing.

Sock Puppets

I'm wondering if recent posters AngleWolf, A88aturk, and DonFernando are just sock puppets of IP Address - check out their user contributions... S9arthur 21:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

New sock puppet of IP Address - RezDog

If you don't know the IP addresses of these editors I'm not sure that's possible to say definitively. RezDog's edits seem focused on Native American issues within the article while some of the others focus more on the purported Turkish connections. But they are all have "red" links and generally don't participate in the discussion here (other than edit summaries). Badagnani 21:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Lumbee

The Lumbee are a state-recognized tribe of Indians, and were recognized as Indians by an Act of Congress in 1956. They appear as such on official correspondences with the federal government since 1887, on official correspondences with the state of North Carolina, as well as Robeson, Hoke, Scotland, and Cumberland county governments, in addition to being referred to as such on state and congressional legislation, congressional acts, and census data, etc. Nowhere and not once on the extensive corpus of mentioned correspondences does the term, "tri-racial isolate" appear when referring to the Lumbee or the Sappony Indians of Person County. Additionally, the Lumbee are defined as Indians in the mainstream academic literature. Academics, moreover, have come down harshly--quite rightly so-- on the eugenics-informed literature that came up with the oxymoronic term, "tri-racial isolate." DeMarce and Heinegg, on the other hand, are genealogists, not historians. Heinegg has a degree in engineering, in fact. Neither offer a cogent historically contextualized analysis of the data that they have compiled. Given their lack of academic qualifications, they cannot nor should they be expected to do so. Genealogists are by definition, antiquarians and are not taken seriously in the academic community. Neither DeMarce nor Heinegg have a position in a two- or four year accredited university/college, let alone a research university where they teach and/or research on the Lumbee or Sappony Indians of North Carolina, or for that matter, on anything else. Neither has published in a peer-reviewed journal or press on the Lumbee, Sappony, or anything else.

If you can find a single historian, anthropologist, sociologist, political scientist, etc. that refers to the Lumbee as a "tri-racial isolate" in a peer-reviewed mainstream academic journal or press published in the last 35 years, CITE them. The fact is, in the academic literature by PhD's in Political Science, Law, History, Anthropology, Sociology, Religion, and Native American/American Indian Studies, the Lumbee are uniformly defined as American Indians/Indigenous/Native/Native Americans. Refer to the Lumbee wikipedia article and more importantly, refer to the extensive literature that is cited there. In the meantime, I've once again removed the untutored, delegitimizing misrepresentation of both the Lumbee and the Sappony Indians of Person County, another state-recognized tribal nation of American Indians. My reasons are based on sound, citable, credible peer-reviewed research conducted over the past several decades.

And no, I'm not a sock puppet of whom ever . . . RezDog 22:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Here:

• DeMarce, Virginia E. (1992). "Verry Slitly Mixt': Tri-Racial Isolate Families of the Upper South - A Genealogical Study." National Genealogical Society Quarterly 80 (March 1992): 5-35.
• DeMarce, Virginia E. (1993). "Looking at Legends - Lumbee and Melungeon: Applied Genealogy and the Origins of Tri-Racial Isolate Settlements." National Genealogical Society Quarterly 81 (March 1993): 24-45.

Note the second above refers to Lumbee by name as a "Tri-Racial Isolate" IN THE TITLE.

Also note that the article says very clearly "SO-CALLED "tri-racial isolate"".

If you don't know who Dr DeMarce is, read the article... S9arthur 23:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Very good discussion. Thanks for your thoughts! There are a number of tribes with significant genetic input from Europe or Africa but which are still considered to be authentically indigenous people, and it's good that you pointed this out in regard to the Lumbee. The more discussion about this the better from informed editors, so we can get things as accurate as possible. Badagnani 07:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is: DeMarce & Heinegg are both highly respected genealogists. Whether they are technically speaking historians or not is irrelevant. The Lumbees have long been considered a tri-racial isolate group by many researchers, while also being considered a Native American tribe. The fact is, several of the families who make up this group (such as the Newsomes) can be traced back to white-black intermarriage in colonial Virginia. This does not exclude Native American ancestry, but it does indicate "tri-racial" is a pretty good description. Removal of the Lumbee from the list of "other so-called tri-racial isolates" in the Melungeon article would reflect a political, not an academic, agenda. The Lumbee should stay on the list. S9arthur 09:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the question whether the majority of today's Lumbee can be demonstrably shown to possess genetic material from Native American, European, and African sources? What's the definition? Badagnani 09:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we discuss here before deleting? Self-definitions often vary between people within and outside a group. Badagnani 11:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Badagnani on your willingness to keep an open mind. This is primarily addressed to S9Arthur, but of course, I will bear you as well as other likely readers in mind: The question ultimately, is a legal one. There is no distinction between Lumbee "self-definition" as an American Indian tribe, and the way "outside groups define" the Lumbee. They are one and the same. The Lumbee were recognized by the state of North Carolina, an "outside group" as an American Indian tribe. The Lumbee were also recognized as an American Indian tribe by an Act of Congress, in this instance, Congress being the "outside" group. The corpus of correspondences generated through congressional acts, congressional, state, and county legislation for the past 120 years all refer to the Lumbee not as "tri-racial isolates" but as American Indians. In other words, the U.S. government, the state and county governments of North Carolina, the Supreme Court, the NC state supreme court, U.S., state and county legislative bodies-- all "outside groups"-- have a government to government relationship with the Lumbee whom they all define as an American Indian tribe. I believe this helps answer Badagnani's query to the question of "self-ascription" vs. "outside definitions." The two are in fact the same.

For S9Arthur, the bottom line should be that. Moreover, S9Arthur needs to understand that neither DeMarce nor Heinegg are respected authorities on anything except amassing genealogical data. Amassing data and speculating on the data one has mined does not imply that one is then able to contextualize the data based on the evidence one has amassed. Contextualization requires critical analysis. Your pointing out that at one point in the article, and not in the section where the reference has been removed, you say "so called" does not help your case. So called by whom? Two genealogists who have no credibility in any of the academic disciplines that have produced a substantial body of research on the Lumbee? Two sociologists whose work has long since been discredited; whose work is only cited in the effort to show how little social scientists understood about the populations they researched?

I think that we can all agree that junk posing as credible scholarship has no place in an online article about anything. Junk should not be presented as credible just because it accords with one's dogma about a people one clearly know nothing about. There's a great deal of difference between 1) citing the work of a number of respected researchers who reflect the diversity of research methodologies in the various disciplines, and 2) relying solely on the genealogical data of DeMarce and Heinegg (people who have never published in a peer-reviewed history, anthropology, literature, political science, law, linguistics, or sociology journal on the Lumbee or on anything else) just because it supports one's own unsupportable position. The first is about scholarship-- something required by wikipedia. The second is not. Again, DeMarce and Heinegg do not publish in any of the humanities, social-science, or hard science disciplines.

I feel I've had to repeat this too many times now: genealogy is not a credited academic discipline. Genealogy is not a humanities discipline. Genealogy is not a social science discipline. Genealogy is not a hard-science discipline. AND, not one researcher who has published in a peer-reviewd journal or press has cited DeMarce and Heinegg as credible scholars on the Lumbee. Not one. Considering the sizable body of peer-reviewed literature on the Lumbee, that should be a red flag for anyone.

Stating that DeMarce is a "respected" genealogist is irrelevent. Genealogists do not receive university appointments as genealogists. There are no "Genealogy Departments" in colleges and/or universities. There are no genealogy courses to be had in the humanities. Colleges and universities do not offer genealogy courses through their social science departments. There is no genealogy course, nor has there ever been a genealogy course offered in the hard sciences. One cannot receive a BA or BS in Genealogy, or for that matter, an MA, MS, or PhD in genealogy. Universities do not hold symposia or conferences on "Genealogy" and generate volumes out of the proceedings. Genealogists do not receive book contracts with peer-reviewed presses for their genealogical work.

If what you present does not follow accepted research methodological processes, and is not being presented by professionals ("professional" according to academic standards means someone who is university trained to conduct research and write within a given discipline, or a combination of academic disciplines that is structured by given methodologies), then you certainly should not present it as credible. Apparently you're unaware that professional academic journals are peer-reviewed (ie. history, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, law journals). In fact, many of the sources you provide are not peer-reviewed journals or presses. That means that any joker can submit something, say to a genealogical quarterly, and get it published. However, this by no means absolves one of the responsibility of qualifying the reasons one chose to provide a spurious source. And again, this is not about the academic qualifications that genealogists lack. Again, I've met DeMarce and have corresponded with Heinegg-- extensively. Neither would make the claims that you make on their behalf.

More to the point is S9Arthur's ignorance of the pertinant scholarship on the Lumbee. Clearly he is unfamiliar with THAT significant literature, literature which unlike DeMarce and Heinegg's, IS respected in the academy; research literature that disproves his contention. The links that I removed are not cogent to the body of the article on Melungeons. Leaving the links where they were would be irresponsible, clearly misleading, and not based on current, credible, peer-reviewd academic research. RezDog 13:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the last post is less of a dialogue and more of a diatribe, without discussing too many specifics but instead focusing, at length, on opinions why one discipline differs from another. There are different methodologies in different disciplines and different aspects of the same subjects can be elucidated by these different approaches. What claims, for example, did DeMarce and Heinegg decline to make? Do the Lumbee have long-standing African and European genetic intermixture among the majority of today's Lumbee? State definition aside, if this is so, they may meet the definition of "tri-racial isolate," though you (and other scholars in other disciplines of the social sciences, as you say) may object to the term. If the term were changed to "European-African-Native American genetic mixture in a single location" would it be accurate? These are the things that need to be discussed. The rest (i.e. disparaging of other disciplines) isn't so helpful, especially as it sounds ad hominem to me -- if the data is carefully researched and presented, it should be disputed on those grounds, not where or to whom it's presented. Badagnani 21:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It was mostly a diatribe against ME, actually. But to address the real issue: just because the Lumbees claim to be Indians, doesn't mean they aren't ALSO tri-racial - those aren't mutually exclusive terms. Also, if RezDog is NOT a sock puppet, why do his user contributions only go back to 21 May, right after edits to the Melungeon article by other (probable) sock puppets. I don't see a long history of edits by him of the Lumbee article. Whether he's a sock puppet or not, though, his arguments are unconvincing, and the Lumbees should stay on the list. S9arthur 21:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

We all have our own expertise, and RezDog sounds knowledgeable about the Lumbee. But, again, if the question is mixture of genetic heritage, that's not so uncommon among East Coast tribes. The Shinnecock and Wampanoag in NY and MA, for example, have a lot of "black" members who are nevertheless accepted members of the tribes and culturally identify as Wampanoag (while not necessarily ignoring the other parts of their heritage). That's a very American trait. Badagnani 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It has long been known that the Lumbee are more black and white than Indian, and what little Indian they are is a mishmash of various tribes. Rez is either ignorant of this fact, or in denial for political reasons (because he wants them to be Indians). He's not the only one - if you drive down I-95 through North Carolina, you'll see billboards for Lumbee Indian Crafts - there's money in such things. He may have impressed you, but not me. I am descended from the same Newsome family (that I mentioned above) that is among the ancestors of the Lumbees (and is in Heinegg's book). I am thus related to both Melungeon and Lumbee families. Like so many other Appalachian and Southern mixed-race groups, they try to play up the Indian ancestry, and deny the black ancestry. Some people would call them the "Wannabee" tribe...LOL! S9arthur 22:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are some non-recognized tribes or "remnant bands" with dubious claims to Native American heritage, but (despite their apparently mixed Native heritage), due to their long history and recognition in the area I would not place the Lumbee among these. The attempt at humor comes across as a little offensive. Badagnani 22:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations S9Arthur! You've shown your true colors, and your incredibly offensive, politicized position. Your brand of "humor" is all the more egregious when it comes from someone who demands a call for "apoliticism" and academic veracity even as he chooses to ignore both when they are offered to him. Clearly, given your offensive quip and your inability to explain how it is that not one of the people who has conducted extensive research on the Lumbee in the past three decades refer to the Lumbee as a tri-racial isolate community. Whatever your own contemptible, contemptuously stated, clearly heart-felt prejudices against the Lumbee, you have yet to read, refer to, refute, and seem incapable of refuting the scholarship of James Campisi (Anthropology), Karen Blu (Anthropology-NYU), Gerald Sider (Anthropology-CCNY), David Wilkins (Political Science, Law, American Indian Studies-U Minnesota), Robert Williams (Law, American Indian Studies-U Arizona), Vine Deloria, Jr. (Law, Religious Studies, American Indian Studies-U Colorado-Boulder), Theda Perdue (History-UNC Chapel Hill), Walt Wolfram (Linguistics-NC State), Stanley Knick (Physical Anthropology/Archaeology-UNC Pembroke), Clare Dannenberg (Linguistics-NC State), and Malinda Maynor (History-Harvard U)-- all of whom have researched and written on the Lumbee and published their work in academic peer-reviewed journals and presses. Not one of these academics refers to the Lumbee as "tri-racial isolates." Not one of these scholars cites the work of Heinegg and DeMarce as having provided incisively analyzed, critically qualified academic research on the Lumbee. Not one. And yet, all are considered to be experts on Southeastern Indians in general, and the Lumbee specifically. Badagnani wrote earlier, "[t]here are different methodologies in different disciplines and different aspects of the same subjects can be elucidated by these different approaches." Exactly. No dispute there. That is the case with the above mentioned scholars. Heinegg and DeMarce on the other hand solely rely on genealogical data gleaned from probate records and land deeds. For an historian, or an anthropologist, or a sociologist to exclusively rely on such an extremely narrow source base is extremely problematic. Why? Land deeds, tax and probate records reflect a small fraction of the kinds of primary source evidence one necessarily needs to consider when researching, contextualizing, and critically analyzing any given historical topic. Yet these are precisely the kinds of records that genealogists solely mine to gather their data. Given the narrowness of their source base, they cannot critically research, assess, analyse, contextualize, and interpret a given historical event, phenomenon, person, or groups of people. Historians, and any and all scholars who investigate the histories of peoples, must necessarily rely on a wide variety of documents and primary source evidence, and in some instances, material objects, oral histories and testimonies, and archaeological data, as well. Not to do so would be akin to a scientist testing a given hypothesis through a data set so limiting that it has no application whatsoever.

The Lumbee are well known in academic circles and in Indian Country as an American Indian tribe, not as "tri-racial isolates." Not only do the Lumbee define themselves as American Indians, not only do several governmental and legislative entities define the Lumbee as American Indians, but the scholars who are considered to be experts on the Lumbee (and who are cited on wikipedia's Lumbee article) define the Lumbee as American Indians as well. Admixture with any number of groups does not detribalize or delegitimize any American Indian polity, or make a "tri-racial isolate community" even though that is YOUR contention. There is a distinct difference between American Indian tribes with admixture from one, two, three, or more different races and non-Native communities with admixture from multiple races. Given your logic, you might as well place the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, Seminole, Catawba, Houma, Jena Choctaw, Kiowa, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Viejas, Mashpee Wampanoag, Barona, Mashantucket Pequot, Eastern Pequot, Brotherton, Aquinnah Wampanoag, Munsee Delaware, Tuscarora, Narragansett, Delaware Indians, etc. on your "tri-racial isolates" list. Moreover, they are all, to use S9Arthur's language, "a mishmash" of various tribes." Most of the 500 plus American Indian tribal nations in the present-day contiguous U.S. are. By insisting that your links remain, you are guilty of reifying a prejudice of "wannabe-ism" (of which you yourself are clearly guilty) that is insulting to the Lumbee, and to those scholars who've actually gone to the trouble of conducting, contextualizing, and critically interpreting their painstaking primary source research on the Lumbee. You have chosen to be offensive, caustic, academically unsound, and now, transparently and duplicitously political. I have been more than accountable in my response to this discussion page, yet you choose to call it a "diatribe" without addressing what is seriously problematic with your position. Congratulations on your double standard as well. RezDog 05:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

RezDog's argument seems to be that he doesn't like or respect the authors who describe Lumbees as "tri-racial." So what? It is still legitimate to observe that some authors have described Lumbees that way. RezDog goes to great lengths to disparage the research of DeMarce and Heinegg as mere "genealogists." But DeMarce worked at the BIA as part of the office that vets groups who petition for recognition. I believe that she was also the editor of NGS Quarterly, which is a refereed publication. The introduction to Heinegg's book is by Ira Berlin, one of the most famous Americans historians alive, and the leading expert on free people of color in the antebellum period. These two authors are not fringe figures or cranks. RezDog just doesn't like their writing. That's his problem, and doesn't warrant their exclusion from this encyclopedia. It is unclear to me why he objects to the term "tri-racial isolate." It seems to me to be descriptive, not pejorative. Also, I've seen it in the scholarly literature. I believe William Pollitzer used the term to describe Lumbees. Finally, RezDog seems to have a problem with the fact that DeMarce and Heinegg research in documentary evidence from the early colonial period. That's something that the academic Lumbee researchers generally avoid. DeMarce and Heinegg are where you have to go for good historical research on proto-Lumbee ancestors in these early time periods, because academics are not doing it, or at least not doing it nearly as thoroughly as Heinegg has.Verklempt 06:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Verklempt's reading of my response is remarkable for its lack of acuity. "I don't like or respect the authors who describe Lumbees as tri-racial?" I certainly do not like it when people make unsupportable claims. NGS is NOT an academic, juried, peer-reviewed journal in any of the humanities, social, or hard sciences. Genealogy is not an academic discipline anywhere in the world. Neither DeMarce, Heinegg, nor someone like Leah Sims (know her?), could get a position as a professor of genealogy anywhere in the country. So what? Given the limitations of genealogical research methodology (which I addressed), they have not nor can they publish in any academic juried journal or press in the humanities, social sciences, or the hard sciences. It isn't a matter of "liking" or "disliking." All of you are so intent on ascribing motivations to me; as intent as all of you are in ascribing a definition that is NOT CURRENTLY ACCEPTED or USED in academic circles, or by the Congress and Senate, Federal, State, and County governments, Federal and state supreme courts, or legislative bodies. None of you have been able to adequately respond to this.

Rather than "having a problem with the fact that DeMarce and Heinegg research on documentary evidence from the early colonial period," as an early Americanist by training and profession, I work almost exclusively WITH primary sources from the early colonial to the antebellum period. So what? As a university trained historian, I laud, applaud, and am appreciative of any efforts that are supported by SOUND METHODS. This is why I outlined the serious methodological limitations and LACK of cogent analysis to a larger understanding of a given history that is peculiar to genealogists. Given the extreme narrowness of their source base, they simply cannot produce a larger supportable analysis, a larger contextualized history that necessarily requires a wide variety of sources.

S9Arthur claimed that there are historians who have written on the Lumbee as "tri-racial isolates." He has yet to verify this claim. Who are these historians? Instead of providing evidence of such work, S9Arthur grand-standed with the laughable claim that "It has long been known that the Lumbee are more black and white than Indian." Known by whom? His imagined historians? Where are his citations? Nor are Verklempt's claims on behalf of such historical work any more helpful. So what? Ira Berlin is not THE leading expert on free people of color, although he is a "famous American historian." Berlin DOES NOT research or write on free people of color of the antebellum South as Verklempt erroneously claims, nor does Berlin claim to be an expert on the history of this significant population.

DO NOT make claims for credentials and scholarship on behalf of people who themselves have never, nor would ever do so. Berlin is an historian of SLAVERY. So what? As an historian of slavery, Berlin's research focus is a different population and historical experience alltogether. His book titles clearly refer to the historical phenomenon of Southern U.S. slavery: "Slaves without Masters," "Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America," "Generations of Captivity: A History of African American Slaves," "The Slaves' Economy," "Freedom: A Documentary History of Emancipation, 1861-1867," "Remembering Slavery," and "Slaves No More." Moreover, Berlin has never claimed to have conducted research, nor has he written on Indians in the Southeast, Indians from anywhere else, nor, to my knowledge, does he plan to do so. Berlin has never conducted any research on the Lumbee, and to my knowledge, has no plans to do so. So what? Writing an introduction in no way suggests or was intended to imply that Berlin himself conducted, critically analyzed, or contextualized Heinegg's research. Berlin then, cannot be credited as Verklempt does, with conducting research on free people of color, or for that matter, the Lumbee. Cite his introduction all you want. Berlin offers no critical analysis of the primary source evidence there, as no one offers critical analysis in an introduction-- especially an introduction to a book for which he himself did no research.

William Pollitzer published his "genetic pool" study more than thirty years ago. He has conducted no research whatsoever on the historical context of the Lumbee, nor did he ever claim to do so. The two sentences worth of contemporaneous history that he does offer is inaccurate actually. Just as pertinent to S9Arthur and Verklempt's claims, Pollitzer himself stipulated that one of the criteria for "a tri-racial isolate" is "to have a social status differing from that accorded to Whites, Indians, or Negroes (sic) in the[ir] area in such a way as to throw them generally together in their more personal social relationships." So what? "In their area" of Robeson County, the social and political status of the Lumbee is "Indian," not white, not black, and not a status "differing from that accorded to whites, Indians, or Negroes (sic)." Another Pollitzer stipulation is that isolates "must be recognized in their locality" and "identified by a distinguishing group name." So what? The group name of the Lumbee Indians in Robeson County is not "tri-racial isolate," but "Lumbee Indians," or simply, "Indians." The criteria Pollitzer himself establishes does not apply to the Lumbee. Worse, Pollitzer "conducted" "research" on "phenotype," "skin color," "facial physique," "alleles," "morphology," and "blood type." So what? Were he to attempt to conduct such research now, Pollitzer would be laughed out of any lab, anthropology department, and most certainly, the academy. He was called on this kind of nonsense at the time, and has, since 1972, given up on writing on the Lumbee, confining his research interests to other subjects. See Pollitzer, "Genetics of Marginal People," American Anthropologist (1972): 74-75. Just because Pollitzer published, does not make his work supportable. That’s the next necessary step that Verklempt and S9Arthur conveniently forget.

Nor have I ever said that I agree with all the current scholarship on the Lumbee. What I have said is that, save for Heinegg and DeMarce, no one current historian, sociologist, anthropologist, or those who work within the academy and have researched and written on the Lumbee, who are respected for their work in the academy (whether I “like” their work or not), and who currently publish in academic peer-reviewed journals and presses use the term “tri-racial isolate.” Not once is that acknowledged in the Melungeon article. But then, it is an article about the Melungeon, not the Lumbee (which, in wikipedia's thoroughly researched, amply cited article, interestingly enough, makes no reference to "tri-racial isolate" as a viable, existing descriptor for the Lumbee). For all intents and purposes, the term is a misnomer, outmoded, debunked, not used, and certainly not descriptive of who American Indians were historically, and who they continue to be culturally, legally, and politically. If the Melungeon want to now pick it up, fine. But you cannot now loosely apply it to an American Indian tribal nation when no one-–save two genealogists who do not publish on the Lumbee within any academic discipline—-currently uses it in their research.

Nor have I ever said that the Lumbee should be excluded from mention in the melungeon article as Verklempt claims. So what? I did not, for example, remove the statement, "the surname Goins is also found among the Lumbees." Nor should it be removed, since it is true. The Lumbee should however, be excluded from a list with the heading, "Other so-called 'tri-racial isolate' populations" since they do not appear in the current academic literature as a "tri-racial isolate population," but as American Indians. The Lumbee do not fit that category even according to the definition of "tri-racial isolate" proposed by one of its chief proponents, Pollitzer, the dubiousness of his research notwithstanding. Admixture with any number of groups does not detribalize, delegitimize, or redefine it as a "tri-racial isolate" an American Indian polity in as much as S9Arthur, Verklempt, Heinegg, and DeMarce might want it to. Therefore, it isn't that "I don't like or respect the authors who describe Lumbees as tri-racial?" as Verklempt claims. Again, there is a distinct difference between American Indian tribes with tri-racial admixture and non-Native, ethnic enclaves, or communities with tri-racial admixture. An ethnic "enclave" or "community" that is part of a larger plurality does not funtion as a polity. It does not have its own jurisdiction. Ethnic enclaves or communities do not have government-to-government relationships. Whether you believe them to be "wannabes," states and/or the federal government in their infinite wisdom have determined otherwise. Ultimately, there is a big difference between being "part" something and "part of" something. An individual Melungeon may be "part" black, white, and Indian, but at most, an aggregate of Melungeons are, as you claim, only descended from a tri-racial isolate community. An individual Lumbee person may very well be "part" white, black, and Indian. However, an aggregate of Lumbees constitute legally and politically, a tribal Indian nation. Lumbee citizens, are part of a distinct polity that does not recognize admixture with non-Indians as a mitigating factor in membership. The Melungeon are neither a state-, nor federally-recognized American Indian tribe. Nor, based on my discussions with Brent Kennedy in the past, do they plan on petitioning for such status. And, as I pointed out, given the logic presented, and if “tri-racial isolate” is "merely descriptive" as you claim, why aren’t the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, Seminole, Catawba, Houma, Jena Choctaw, Kiowa, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Viejas, Mashpee Wampanoag, Barona, Mashantucket Pequot, Eastern Pequot, Brotherton, Aquinnah Wampanoag, Munsee Delaware, Tuscarora, Narragansett, Delaware Indians, etc. on your "tri-racial isolates" list? Oh, I get it. They'd look like "wannabes." RezDog 15:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

When did you talk to Brent? Last I heard, he was in a coma. S9arthur 21:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Rexdog your claims about Berlin are laughable: "Berlin DOES NOT research or write on free people of color of the antebellum South as Verklempt erroneously claims." The full title of his book, which you truncated, is "Slaves without Masters: The Free Negro in the Antebellum South". So much for your reading comprehension, eh?

Your major beef here seems to be with the term tri-racial, because it's no longer popular with the people you read. Again, so what? Throw stones at the pople who use the term all you want. The fact remains that some very accomplished researchers do use that term. You still haven't said what's wrong with it in any specific way. It does not contradict your insistence that Lumbees are Indians. Your argument seems more based in identity politics than in substance. Your insistence that the academy is the only legitimate source of knowledge is incredibly elitist.

I vote that the "tri-racial" designation stays. It's used by numerous authors, it is objectively correct, and it links similar populations together into a group, which is useful for the encyclopedia's users.Verklempt 22:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

One thing I notice is that those discussing here fail to answer key points the others have asked. If we read carefully what the others have written and respond to their questions, I think this can and will be resolved. For example, which scholars use "tri-racial" to refer to the Lumbee, and should other Native American tribes that are mixed with other cultural groups also be listed in the article as "tri-racial"? Another point to consider is that the entire counties of Robeson (and maybe also Sampson) have been described as "tri-racial isolates," rather than just the Lumbee Tribe. Also, again, it's best to aim criticisms at the research facts rather than on the personal backgrounds of the various researchers, which doesn't seem very helpful. Badagnani 22:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

An important distinction between tri-racial isolates and mixed-race Indians is that the isolates mostly didn't articulate an Indian identity until the Jim Crow times, whereas many of the other tribes mentioned above were always Indians. With the Lumbees there is no documented Indian identity until after the Civil War. Melungeons were claiming Indian identity before the Lumbees were.Verklempt 23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Then again, in my region of the Midwest and Appalachian foothills it could be extremely dangerous, as a remnant Native family who somehow avoided removal, to self-identify as Native due to bounties and other dangers of doing so. This was the case well into the 19th century. These outside pressures created a self-fulfilling prophecy in that some scholars from the same cultural backgrounds as those propagating the anti-Indian and removal policies (i.e. those of European ancestry) now use these same historical factors to negate "true Indianness" among such people, and tribes who protected their identities for these reasons are now denied federal recognition. Badagnani 23:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy this. Removal didn't happen until the 1830s. In North Carolina, only some Cherokees were targeted. Lumbees and Melungeons were never targeted for removal.Verklempt 23:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the Midwest and Appalachian foothills. Official "Removal" was only one way of "removing" Indians; official and unofficial bounties and also outright murder were others. This was quite common and source material is widely available. This alone (let alone other forms of discrimination) did lead to the concealment of Native identities in many places, particularly among those who were able to "pass" due to being of partly European blood. Badagnani 23:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you know this? Once people conceal their ancestry and adopt a new identity, then that's who they are. If you're living as white, then you are white.Verklempt 23:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Rez mentioned the works of anthropologists Gerald M. Sider & Karen Blu. This husband & wife team (now divorced) worked among the Lumbee, and wrote books on them. Sider's Lumbee Indian Histories: Race, Ethnicity, and Indian Identity in the Southern United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pg xxii says: "...some local Whites in Robeson County said that the Lumbee had a contestable identity because they were either partly Black or something that was called in professional jargon a "triracial isolate."" - note "professional jargon". I point this out because Rez mentioned these two authors specifically. "Native Americans: An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and Peoples" by Barry M. Pritzker says of the Lumbee: "...a historical Indian tribe whose ancestors were Indians of indeterminate tribal affiliation, Anglos, and African Americans" and says they "have always spoken English." Heinegg traces many of the core Lumbee families, and provides primary sources for each family. S9arthur 23:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting. Not being familiar with this material, I'm curious, then, which original tribal identities these families originally held before identifying as Lumbee. Badagnani 23:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no indication that they had any tribal or even Indian id.Verklempt 23:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Verklempt in her/his infinite ignorance once again makes spurious claims. See Campisi on the extensive bibliography on wikipedia's Lumbee article for the research that necessarily took him into colonial era documents. RezDog has been so meticulous in answering all of your questions, but to no avail, and no matter the soundness and political/legal veracity of RezDog's arguments. The personal attacks were levied by S9Arthur who it seems cannot help but be discourteous and nakedly offensive-- the last resort of the intellectually destitute. To claim that Gerald Sider and Karen Blu write about the Lumbee as a tri-racial isolate is fraudulent. The title of Sider's work is "Lumbee Indian Histories," not "Lumbee Tri-racial isolate community histories." For Karen Blu, the "Lumbee Problem" was and continues to be those local Robesonian whites who for several hundred years have been a thorn (to put it mildly) in the side of the Indians of the area and those researchers from the outside who provide these noble people with even more ammunition. The history of the area is exceedingly violent and continues to be so. Pollitzer's dubious work was and continues to be just the kind of amunition that people like S9Arthur and his spiritual kin in Robeson County rely on to continue their attacks of wannabeism on the local Native population. Unfortunately, for S9Arthur and local Robeson County whites, the official political and legal status of the Lumbee is an American Indian tribe. They have no official legal or political status as a "tri-racial isolate." They are not enumerated on the federal and state census as "tri-racial isolates." Heck, they could be an admixture of ten billion races if there were such a thing. They'd still be an American Indian tribe. They never detribalized, something the county, state, and Congress acknowledge, despite the sentiments of S9Arthur and Verklempt. As a significant contributor to wikipedia's Lumbee article and being familiar as much as RexDog seems to be with the literature and history of the Lumbee, I fully concur with RezDog's arguments. The Lumbee have no business being listed as a "tri-racial isolate" since the government-to-government relationship with the U.S., North Carolina, and Robeson County as Lumbee Indians defines them, not their ethnic (as well as inter-tribal) admixture-- the argument you make for people like the Melungeon. LumbeeRiver 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and your expertise is welcome. One question, though (following my earlier criticism that people are "talking past" one another and not fully answering all questions): how is the Blu/Sider "tri-racial" citation fraudulent? The citation and quote was given as evidence. Would you please address the quote directly rather than simply dismissing it as fraudulent? Also, can you help elucidate what the component tribes of the Lumbee were/are? This seems important, as another editor seems to be claiming the answer is "none." Thanks, Badagnani 02:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an important questions that both Rezdog and LumbeeRiver haven't addressed: Why is the term "tri-racial" mutually exclusive with "Indian tribe"? It seems to me that the Lumbees occupy both categories. Or is there some denial that they have tri-racial ancestry? Also, there is no evidence of any of the Robeson FPCs identifying as Indian until after the Civil War. The argument that they "nver detribalized" is wishful thnking. There's no evidence that they even thought of themselves as Indians, much less a political entity before then.Verklempt

Well, it's clear that they do not object to the fact that the Lumbee also have European and African ancestry. It's the term to which they object, as well as the fact that the Lumbee are being singled out as "tri-racial" when the other cited tribes (some of which actually have much more African) are not listed in the Melungeon article as tri-racial isolates. They do have a point about this, do they not!

I would like to hear their response to your second point, however. Badagnani 16:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I've already addressed the second point, but it's worth summarizing and restating. First, Lumbees are described as tri-racials in the literature. The only objection on the table is that some people don't like this particular literature. But it still exists nonetheless, and is worth citing. Second, Lumbees are distinguished from "non tri-racial isolate" tribes in that their claim to Indian identity and tribal status is recent, dating back only to the post-Civil War period. LumbeeRiver cited Campisi, but Campisi was being paid by the Lumbees to help on their petition, so he is not an independent, objective source. Also, he give no direct evidence of pre-Civil War Indianness, only speculation and wishful thinking.Verklempt

Thanks. Hope we hear from them, as this is important. If what you say is true, this would, then, set them apart from tribes like the Mashpee Wampanoag who, though they have also lost the use of their language for everyday speech, and also have members who are part European and/or African, have consistently maintained their tribal identity from the 1600s through the present. Badagnani 17:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Continents are not races

Calling them "tri-racial" and then not indicating the races (only indicating the continents) is a contradiction in terms. Either identify the races or drop the "tri-racial" moniker. ColdGold 15:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The solution implemented by ColdGold (adding the outdated racial categories to go with this possibly outdated term), while preserving the continent-specific labels, seems to be a good compromise that treats the subject accurately. I'm happy with it. Badagnani 17:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Which human "races" exist is a matter for debate. Different authors have created different systems for dividing Humanity into sub-groups. The debate over which terms to use, and as to whether races even exist, continues:

"The CBE Manual states that the term Caucasian, like Mongoloid and Negroid, are "based on an outmoded theory of racial distinction and are no longer used." The AMA states that Caucasian "is technically specific to people from the Caucasus region and thus should be avoided."" (http://www.wame.org/describe.htm)

American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (May 17, 1998)"In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups." (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm)

Racial and Ethnic Classifications Used in Census 2000 and Beyond: "The minimum categories for race are now: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and White." (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html)

Ancestry by DNA DNA Print 2.5 Test "BioGeographical Ancestry (BGA) is the term given to the biological or genetic component of race. BGA is a simple and objective description of the Ancestral origins of a person, in terms of the major population groups. (e.g. Native American, East Asian, European, sub-Saharan African, etc.)"(http://www.ancestrybydna.com/welcome/faq/)

There is no consensus on which racial categories exist, therefore it is more reasonable to use somewhat vague but scientifically based terms of geographic origin (European, African, Native American) than it is to use the incorrect and outdated terms "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid." S9arthur 00:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "tri-racial" should not be dropped, because it has been used so often in academic writings on groups such as the Melungeons and the Lumbee Indians. It also is a really good shorthand description for such groups. Whether you spell out the "tri" part as "white, black, Indian," or "Anglo, Negro, remnant Indian," or "European, African, Native American" is not critical, but the latter terms have few pejorative connotations, though they may irk the misinformed armchair anthropologists out there in Wikiland. S9arthur 00:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Added "sub-Saharan" to African, going with Ancestry by DNA's system, since it is based on actual genotypes. S9arthur 21:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I dropped "Western" from European because of the recent Y haplogroup R1a result for a male descendant of Vardy Collins. Although R1a is found in Western Europe, it is primarily associated with Eastern Europe. This doesn't mean that the Collinses came from Eastern Europe in any recent genealogical sense, but I think leaving it simply European, without specifying Western, etc, would be appropriate. It will be interesting to see what the one Goings line turns out to be - it was thought to be P*, and thus possibly Native American or Central Asian in origin (but also could be German), but now it's being suggested as "L," found primarily in India & Sri Lanka. See http://jgoins.com/y_dna_results.htm. If it is L, then Gypsy becomes a possibility for that one line, or it could be Indian - there were Indians (from India) and Indonesians in Colonial Virginia & Maryland - Heinegg lists some here: http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/free_Indians.htm - note "East Indies" and "East India". Brent Kennedy's mtDNA haplogroup is "M," which is also from that part of the world. The Goings Y haplogroup may turn out to be something else, however. S9arthur 21:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of citations, "Beethoven"

Interesting, that the complaint is on my saying the Beethoven was black or showed black ancestry. I really don't think this is still in dispute, except by those with the mentality that since he was a great musician, he could not be part black. See http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/sf/faq068.htm for documentation. Even Charles Schulz (Peanuts) picked up on this, see http://www.geocities.com/melungeonorigin/peanuts.gif . But who cares, it has nothing to do with Melungeons.

I know the objection to my writing comes from the fact I insist the word Melungeon should be applied to all Melungeons, not just those associated with the area where the word was first used. While the word Melungeon may have first been used for the Melungeons of Hancock, Hawkins and Grainger counties of Tennessee and Wise, Scott and Lee counties of Virginia and Letcher county, Kentucky, and these groups have the distinction of having never been known by any other name, there are several other groups which have long been known as Melungeons. The group in Rhea, Roane and Hamilton counties, Tennessee, ("Graysville Melungeons") are called Goins locally, but have been identified as Melungeons by people from the rest of Tennessee. The groups in Magoffin and Floyd counties, Kentucky, and Highland county, Ohio, has been called the Magoffin County People in Kentucky and the Carmel Indians in Ohio, and have only recently been called Melungeons. The group in western Louisiana and adjacent Texas is known as the Louisiana Melungeons or Redbones. The group in Gulf and Calhoun counties, Florida, was called the Florida Melungeons but was also known as the Dead Lake People. Being of Graysville Melungeon ancestry myself, I deeply resent the attempt of the "Ridge only" people to exclude everyone who does not trace back to the vicinity of Newman's Ridge. I am also aware that some of these people are more against my work because I insist that there is a sizeable black component to Melungeon ancestry than anything else. Since I believe that is true, I see no reason to recant.

My book is very dated, as I have said many times. It is pre-Kennedy, written before his book made being Melungeon fashionable, and before the mass of recent research had begun. It is based on the older literature and reflects the biases in that literature. It is not at all what I would write today. But it does have a nice bibliography which will help someone get into the older research and it did complement Kennedy's book, coming out the same year, and giving a contrasting viewpoint. I would hate for anyone to read it as the only thing they read on Melungeons, but it does contain a lot of information. But it was out there, given to libraries throughout the Melungeon area in 1994 before Kennedy's book came out (and long before I figured out how to put it on the internet).

I believe statements like my "What is a Melungeon" are needed to provide some balance for the "Ridge only" bias. Other Melungeons should be allowed to use the name and should be heard from. The irony is that Melungeon had always been a term of oppobrium until Kennedy popularized it. I was one of the few people to claim the term before Kennedy, to think being a Melungeon was interesting and to take pride in it.

Mr Nassau, the problem with your view of Melungeons is that Melungeons WERE a geographically specific group, as has been demonstrated by Jack Goins, Pat Elder and others. Using the term "Melungeon" to apply to all such groups is a recent, artificial phenomenon. It gives the false impression that these tri-racial groups were all "one people" derived from one source, and that is just not supported by the historical and genealogical evidence. "Melungeon" was applied to a somewhat broader range of families than just those of Newman's Ridge, but you go way too far in insisting as you do in applying it to all such groups. Beethoven may have "looked black" in some sense, but explaining this appearance by reference to a deployment of African troops during the Roman Empire (almost 2000 years prior to Beethoven) is just an example of the type of loose and speculative scholarship you appear to engage in. There is enough nonsense on the Web about Melungeons as it is, we don't need to add more. S9arthur 00:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reformat?

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but this article is ugly as hell. Kultur 07:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Aside from somebody framing me...News about Chavers!

http://www.ancestry.com/learn/facts/Fact.aspx?fid=10&ln=Chavers

That's all folks! Kennedy has an agenda, echoing his Scotch-Irish roots of being oppressed by Puritan Aristocratic Englishmen in the UK with mythology of "Melungeons". You lot are so fake and fantasize about glorious "noble savage" origins. The majority of Southrons (Black or White, even most Creole Louisianians) do not in fact have Indian blood (Spic Floridians don't count), save for those in certain areas of Oklahoma and other Trans-Mississippi lands on that frontier. I'm goddamned proud of descent from those Confederate Whites whose own ancestors kicked out the Indians. I don't apologize for it and you all look like damned fools for doing so. Some secularists would make fun of my "mythical ancestors" Adam and Eve, but that's because they is ignorant. I ain't fucking ignorant. So...live in your New Deal/Great Society fantasy of fake Democrats, extort money from my taxpaying pocket and jerk off in the dollar bills. I'll only be proud of my truly happy and proud British/Irish/French heritage in the boonies, where we "hell of a fellow"-type guys are real men and kick savage ass! We don't need no Carpetbagging Hippies disowning their roots, lest they be lost Southern Quakers from the Carolinas and should go North--where they is accepted. Yo collaboratin' Yanks ought to butt out of us Southrons' business! This ain't yo' territory! Yo goddamned wannabe Mexican Spics! IP Address 11:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Have you even read the article?Verklempt 21:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My previous edits to which you have replied, were meant to be part serious and part comical. I have less problem regarding the mulatto definition, but I seriously lament the weakness of some (obviously backwards White) people who just have to say that they are Indian or Cherokee especially. That's like saying the Nazis were Jewish. It insults everybody. I respect the true Indian more than the phonies who claim their heritage for political motives. Not that I care especially for their ways, but at least being genuine counts for something. Part of this issue stems from my own personal experience, since it has been claimed by one of my ancestral family members (born and bred in the sticks; never went to junior high school) that we had this descent. I then lived in a sort of social stasis for 5-10 years, before I finally had the nerve to discover the truth for myself. I found no such evidence, but poverty in my family prompted a certain close member of mine with personal problems to seek extortion from the US government. I am extremely upset at how retarded and desparate some can get, by their own choices. It disgusts me that some people concoct mythologies to shift blame onto others, instead of take charge of their own lives. I know for a fact that it is fantasizing, since this person I am referring to has other issues with a lack of self control and direction in life. I am so goddamned ashamed of this person, as near and dear kin. What is so wrong with acknowledging that my ancestors were slaveholders or slavetraders, or were Confederates? I am not going to hide it, even if I'm not particularly proud of it. I think it was good that Blacks made their way to the Americas somehow, where they can share in the New World. I also do not object to a Confederacy, for cultural reasons. Some people make their living in much worse ways. I'm not going to feel bad for things I personally did not do and I will not pretend I am somebody else to deflect criticisms; I will least of all, claim the identity of my (or my ancestors') victims or opponents--if I ever had them. This is sick social engineering at work, a total disrespect for other peoples. It's like rubbing salt in the wound, or headhunters and cannibals claiming a transference of soul energy through barbarisms! Through it all, I will NOT accept criticism for Old Hickory's Indian Removal. Still, I am a nativist American, born and bred. My capital is Washington, D.C. and more than half of my ancestors played a founding role in this nation. I accept the "American ethnicity", because 1776 means something to me. I wish those Asiatic colonials would disallow other peoples to call them American, when they are clearly not. They are sovereign, with extencive reliance upon American defence and currency. So Highland Southrons claim Indian blood (historical enemies) and Lowland Southrons claim Negro blood (historical victims). Hmm, what a coincidence that this all seems fabricated! Does not the one-drop theory apply? What an elaborate, self-parodying hoax this is! IP Address 23:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with your opinion. I just don't see much evidence of the Foolish Melungeon stereotypes that you are lampooning in this Wikipedia article. I we've successfully weeded out most of that sort of thing, although people do keep trying to sneak it back in.Verklempt 20:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, so you indeed are looking for the legitimate cases and not the mythological... IP Address 04:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

bias and tone

I was shocked by the one-sided opinions and clumsy language in this article. I have TRIED to restore some balance and I have removed as many of the references to "race" as I could find. I changed the heading "Legends" (which is denigrating) to "Traditional Accounts." As I understand it, Wikipedia articles should present all sides to a controversial issue. What we had was the gospel according to Dr. (!) DeMarce, Goins, Elder and Pestilenzo. All those who disagreed with them were labeled as "amateur" or "romantic" and discredited. Elizabeth Hirschman's work was not even mentioned, and Brent Kennedy's was summarily dismissed. The style was opinionated, belittling and belabored. The whole subject is far from resolved, but in the meantime any article on it should at least reflect the fact that there are radically different schools of thought, none of which has yet prevailed. Hopefully, my edits are acceptable. Donpanther 01:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro needs work

I question the validity of identifying Melungeons as "tri-racial isolates" in the intro. I have no problem with the term. But Demarce and Henige both make strong cases that there really is no isolation, and no one has ever really demonstrated any isolation. Since this has not been dmonstrated, this article should not take a hard position on it in the intro.Verklempt 05:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I delisted this article as a good article because it is a terrible article and the talk section is worse. The article itself is narrow minded, poorly written and an utter mess. If it were submitted to me in one of my writing classes I would give it a C-. I tried to fix things but all my edits were reversed. The talk section is full of slurs, slander, flaming, curse words and bigotry. The article should be removed entirely. Donpanther 00:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

All your edits were reversed? Ah, so your students *did* find the article. - DavidWBrooks 00:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Census Category

This reference to "a census category" is a little misleading - "The United States government recognizes the Melungeons as an ethnic group to the extent that a census category has existed for some time for Melungeons. For the 2000 Census it was "662 Melungeons" under "SOME OTHER RACE 600-999."

Actually, "Melungeon" is tabulated as a result of respondents WRITING Melungeon in the blank space provided under the "Some Other Race" category. Melungeon is not a separate category on the census, but it is tabulated under the "Some Other Race" category as a result of respondents writing it in - just like "Rainbow" and "Half-Breed" are also tabulated and assigned their own codes. The tabulation of write in responses does not equal a separate category. Our anonymous Verizon IP friend needs to re-write it to reflect this. As it stands, readers are being mislead. I've been involved in national advocacy efforts regarding the Census and other forms that collect government data and I'm not speaking off the cuff. This is not a grey area. There is a big difference between "a census category" and simply tabulating the responses under the "Some Other Race" category with an identifiable code like 662. The text needs to be revised to better identify that the tabulation is based on write-ins and not a separate category on the census. As it stands now, readers have no clue how the Melungeon data is being compiled regarding the Census and can very easily and reasonably read that passage to mean that there is a box on the Census for Melungeon. The category is "Some Other Race" - not "Melungeon". "Melungeon" has been assigned a tabulation code under the "Some Other Race" category. There is a difference. jlandrith 18:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Two John Collinses

It seems that an editor requires proof that the two John Collinses were different people. I thought the current scholarship showed that they had very different years of birth. Could this evidence be given here (or, better yet, in the article) so that this point will not continue to provoke edit warring? Badagnani 15:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the burden of proof is on those who claim the two Collinses are the same man, given that "John Collins" is such a common name.Verklempt 23:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I answered this already - please see "Comment on a Reference" section above. S9arthur 03:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)