The British did the same in Australia with the aborigines. At the time of
the First Fleet in 1788, Governor Philip had a very respectful attitude to
the native people, but his feelings weren't shared by many of his
compatriots. There were hunting parties, massacres, intentional germ
warfare.
Inevitably over time there was racial mixing, and many of the white people
thought that eventually the black would be bred out of the race. It went so
far more recently, that children in the outback who were more fair-skinned
were taken from their families and became what is now called "The stolen
generation". The idea was to take them to institutions (often religious) to
be educated to a certain level and trained to be compliant servants. This
has led to much heartbreak recently, when records having been released, the
stolen generation try to reunite with their families, only to find that
their mother died two years ago, or the families can't be traced.
Some aboriginal people have made good and defend the practice, but most
yearn for the families they lost.
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
-------Original Message-------
From:
lostcooper@yahoo.comDate: 04/23/06 14:37:45
To:
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.comSubject: Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?
Although you did not address the question to me...the difference lies
in the cultures from Europe, specifically France & Spain versus
England. The French intentionally took Native wives in order to become
part of good trapping families and profit from the fur trade; in the
process, many of them assimilated to the Native way of life. The Metis
are the classic example of this but not the only example. The Spanish
intentionally married Native women in part because of a cultural belief
(Roman in origin, perhaps?) that "race-mixing" tended to bring out the
best of each. They were also concerned with creating a Native and mixed
population of devout Catholic laborers who would be loyal (and
profitable) to the Crown. The English were quite the opposite. They had
a cultural belief that "race-mixing" created "mongrels" who represented
the worst of both groups. As soon as Pocahontas & John Rolfe left for
England, the colonies enacted anti-miscegenation legislation. This does
not mean, of course, that such liaisons did not continue to occur - but
it became a punishable crime. The English also became obsessed with
skin color - perhaps more so than cultural or religious differences.
They had developed myths of their own "purity" (contrary to historical
fact) and, as in a caste society, regarded "race mixing" as pollution.
It is also of note that the English launched the most aggressive wars
of extermination, brought the custom of using human scalps as trophies
for bounties, and began the germ-warfare program represented by the
giving of blankets as "gifts" that were contaminated with smallpox &
other infectious diseases to which the Native people had no immunity.
Obviously, the occupation of any country by a foreign power is brutal &
to emphasize the extremes to which the English went is NOT to say that
the Spanish & French occupiers did not also commit atrocities. And, as
well, there were atrocities committed upon all of the European groups
by Native people. The one thing all groups had in common was their
humanity - the best of it and the worst of it. But when Native people
today, especially in the north, look at the colonial period - they
recall the French in the friendliest terms (notable exception: the
Blackrobes). For these reasons, there is some probability that a
mixed-blood person during that time period would not have been English.
That said, the *possibility" is always there. Best, Bronwen