The conventional view of the settlement of America is that white Europeans immigrated to North America, stole the land, and killed most of the Native Americans. The few survivors were driven to reservations, where a relative few descendants live today.
This view is partially incorrect. Some murder and mayhem did occur, but what happened in many cases is that whites and Indians intermarried and interbred. The second and third generation American was often a hybrid North American, carrying genes from European, Native American, and African genes. Continuing immigration of white settlers gradually increased the percentage of European contribution to the population. Our ancestors gradually forgot their origins, and that they were part Indian.
The early settlers in the 1600's and 1700's were tough people immigrating to a difficult environment. They were largely young men coming to the new world to make their fortune. They often came without wives, and/or their wives died in childbirth. They did what was natural and what occurs whenever two population groups come together - they intermarried. Who did these settlers marry, if not Native American women? I have it on good scientific authority that women are required for the creation of descendants.
When two populations come into contact they usually interact, socialize, and intermarry to form a new population group. This takes place in all countries. In North and South America there are a number of countries that proudly recognize their Native American roots. Mexico and Chile are two prominent examples. But Argentina and the US are examples of countries where large ongoing European immigration continued to dilute the original population mix.
Our history is full of conflicts and short wars between colonists and Native Americans. The wars get a lot of publicity and are a big part of our historical understanding of the past. But relatively few Indians and settlers were killed in the Indian wars. For the most part they peacefully traded and interacted and intermarried.
There are numerous accounts of intermarriage. The marriage of John Rolfe to Pocahontas is perhaps the best known example. But there is little historic memory of the intermarriage since it was not very noteworthy then. It was routine. People simply married and had children. Their children did the same and after a few generations little was remembered about the origins of the great and great great great grandparents.
Both my wife and I have family histories that indicate that one or more of our ancestors were Native American. And most of the known intermarriage would have occurred in the 1600 and 1700’s, when much of the European immigration was young men. And in the early years the population of the country was majority Native American.
Most of the social intercourse among Native Americans and colonists would have occurred at the edge of the colonial settlement. And this line very slowly moved west, allowing for many years of opportunities for trade, sexual intercourse, and marriage.
Disease also played a part. Europeans brought diseases which heavily impacted Native Americans who had no natural immunity to old world disease. And the Americas were the home of diseases for which Europeans had little native immunity. A person carrying both European and Native American genes had better immunity and a better chance of surviving and passing on his genes. The hardy survivors intermarried and passed on their immunities to their descendants.
Most people do not know their complete ethnic heritage back over 3 or 4 generations. There are roughly 10 generations back to pre colonial America (generation 25 to 30 years). Ten Generations equals 1024 forbears. Virtually no one knows the background or makeup of their 1024 ancestors.
I can only follow a dozen or so names back to the colonial era in my own genealogy. Most of these were male lines who they kept their last name. It is much more difficult to determine the ancestry of the women they married, who changed their name with each marriage. And some of them were probably Native American - more then my one known Native American ancestor.
In Mexico, for example, male ancestors are often of European descent, while female ancestors were Native Americans. This follows the pattern of the conqueror, with better technology and wealth who successful father's the most children. The same situation prevailed in the US, but with ongoing waves of European immigration overwhelming the Native American contribution.
http://www.williamsburgprivatetours.com/Pocahontas%20smith.htm
http://www.williamsburgprivatetours.com/Pocahontas%20smith.htm
3 comments:
The European rape of Native America can never be justified. The US owes Native Americans reparations. You can't just pretend that current
European Americans are descended from the people they raped.
leftywinger71
Leftywinger71, you are typical of all the leftwing crybabies. The Indians were conquered. Get over it. We aint paying any reparations. We have already been paying for 100s of years for folks to stay on the Res
AMadMarine
Bert says:
American Indians actually have more rights than whitey. Are citizens both of the U.S. and their respective sovereign American Indian nation both. Have rights that whitey does not have and NEVER can have. American Indians have a legal status UNIQUE among all peoples of the planet!
95 % of American Indian deaths after the arrival of Columbus were due to disease for which the American Indian had no resistance.
An amateur historian totaled up the deaths from massacre, American Indian and whitey both, since the arrival of Columbus and came up with about 10,000 American Indians and about 8,000 whitey. Contiguous 48 states alone.
Recent scholarship seems to indicate that during the last ice age, European [whitey] seal hunters following the pack ice could have crossed the frozen Atlantic and arrived in N. America even earlier than the ancestors of the American Indian. Whitey just took back what was his in the first place?
"Two wagons approach a bridge going in opposite directions, but only one can pass. One wagon full, the other empty. Which should be given the right of way?"
Post a Comment