APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2003-11 > 1068319585


From: Ray Beere Johnson II <>
Subject: [APG] Race and Blind Spots
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 11:26:31 -0800 (PST)


Elizabeth;
You were right to point out that race is not
the only blind spot. For example, my maternal
grandparents were both born in Ireland. Everyone
assumes they must have been Catholic... In fact,
the family tree prepared by one cousin in the
1970s lists one man with the cryptic notation
"Married RC - disowned". This was a Protestant
family, and such families did live in Ireland,
despite the fact everyone assumes "the Irish are
Catholic".
Any of these blind spots is likely to lead
to trouble sooner or later. However, it appears
to me that most of the others are more easily
overcome. If you assume your ancestors belonged
to a specific church, when you fail to find any
records there, you might at least consider
looking elsewhere. But, if your family was
white, then God forbid that anyone identified as
black might belong. (Their attitude, not mine.)
And, Tom, even if the 1930 Census had
allowed individuals to specify their own race,
who seriously thinks that someone with black
parents but white skin wouldn't have been tempted
to say they were white? In 1930... So their
"white" children would run up against a brick
wall when they eliminated their grandparents on
the basis that they were black, not white. (And I
do have some clients who know next to nothing
about their own grandparents, so that would be
possible.)
This is aside from the fact that black and
white are both really meaningless terms. If you
have even a drop of black blood, you are assumed
to be black, and only those with "pure" white
ancestry are white. The logic of that is pretty
twisted. Yes, it is interesting to note what was
listed under race for your ancestors, but hardly
as informative as some assume. And I know that
there were attempts at one time to quantify
exactly how much black and white ancestry each
person had ("quadroon", "octoroon", etc.) - these
are no more likely to be accurate descriptions
than any other record in our ancestor's lives.
I do take Jim's (since he identified
himself) point that if you note the race is
listed as 'B' when you expected 'W', it can
explain why you don't recognise a person with a
particular surname. But even then, why assume the
families are unrelated, and that the name comes
only from a slave adopting the master's name.
Although actual racial intermarriage was rare
before the latter part of twentieth century,
there were occasional examples, especially of
blacks who "passed" as white. And many, many
mixed race children were born without benefit of
marriage. So, even if you don't recognise the
name, the black person you dismissed could be a
distant cousin, or even a half brother or sister,
to your own ancestor...
Ray


=====
Ray Beere Johnson II - Genealogist
279 East Central Street, Suite 259
P. O. Box 95
Franklin, Massachusetts 02038


FAX: 508-541-6788

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

This thread: