Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Curtis,
First, I appreciate your well thought-out post, and the respectful way in which you present your views. It's hard to know where to start in replying, so I'll just address your comments using parts of your post;
"It's an even bigger problem to try to prove the null hypothesis wrong."
I also completely understand your views about "proof by lack of evidence", and have encountered that attitude many times myself. I do think we've all been guilty of this at one time or another, and to tell the truth, I'll show how this applies to your views as well.
"People talk about "scientific" ways of approaching the issue of Melungeon origins, but then set up false foundations for the "research" ... or for whether or not they will consider that either there are other explanations OR whether they should give up on the dearly held and compelling belief. Circular arguments abound, and people--like yourself, Kevin--and I have great respect for you--get so used to an idea being true, they they don't stop to question whether or not it is, in fact, true, after all."
I agree with Virginia DeMarce when she stated that genealogy was the best tool for Melungeon research. I believe one should work backwards from the known to the unknown. To start at 1618 and jump forward can lead to faulty conclusions, which mirrors what Brent did with his theory. You can take any historical event and appear to connect the dots when you leave a gap of 200 years in between. This is the problem with Kennedy's stranded Turks hypothesis, and this is the problem with the Melungu theory. I could use the historical fact that there were Mullinses on the Mayflower and insist that these were the Mullinses that ended up on Newmans Ridge if there was nothing to indicate otherwise, but that wouldnt make it a fact. A proper technique would be to take a family or an individual, for example Vardy Collins, who was without a doubt a Melungeon, and trace him back, to see that he owned land, voted, had high standing in his community, etc. (Vardy's better documented than most non-Melungeon individuals!) This type of research, by people like DeMarce and J Goins, has been used to shatter the old stereotypes and beliefs that have been long held about Melungeons. To start with an historical event and speculsate ahead is building the false foundation you're refering to. One must force themself to either ignore contrary evidence or use speculation to make the puzzle pieces fit using the latter method.
"For example, you state that the Melungeons of old did not call themselves that name / word ... or that there is no evidence that they did. But I have stated elsewhere (on Joanne's Research List) that, in fact, there IS evidence that they did."
Perhaps I worded my views to have left them open for misinterpretation. My view is that the evidence is overwhelming that the people called Melungeons did not self-identify by that term, and furthermore resented it altogether, not that there's no evidence that they didnt use the term themselves. There are MANY relevant sources which empahtically stated that the Melungeons did not like to be called that, and even in the 1840 article, the two individuals who called each other Melungeons did so as insults. I would like to see the evidence that you're refering to. If you'd like, I'll follow up with examples of my point of view.
"The fact that they are not recorded as having used the expression is meaningless. Furthermore, there is ALSO no record attesting to the idea that others who used the expression did NOT get it from them ... much less that they got it from "the French," from the Turks, from the Arabs, from the Armenians, or from old English in the form of "malengine.""
It's ironic that you would use the Null Hypothesis after pointing out it's meaninglessness and the difficulty to disprove it. Since early writers on Melungeons stated that they did not like the word, the lack of evidence otherwise would bolster that case, imo.
"Yes, there are negative comments recorded about the Melungeons, and yes, "malengine" and all the other supposed word origines--none of which is related to the other--all have some kind of negative connotation. Only one has a positive connotation."
Which word origin has positive connotations?
"Do you think for a minute there weren't people who wanted Vardy Collin's natural spring? What are some of the ways they mught have used to get it away from him? How would he have had to act to protect his resources and family? Why? Because he was someone of some different origin? Or, more specifically, because he was perceived by some--in spite of the cover story--as being at least part-Black?"
Perhaps, but this is total specualtion without evidence of
any actual attempts to deprive Vardy of his rights and property. Vardy's trial for illegal voting does not tell what his defense was, but it does show that he was aquitted, and the wealth of documentation on him shows his respected standing in the community. Again, it is not Null Hypothesis to point out the lack of evidence of legal prejudice towards Vardy when a situatiuon has been alternately hypothesised.
"Now you (collectively) say that the word, itself, was one that depicted them as dirty, mangy, liars, etc., and that even the word that stuck with them was really only an insult. Why do you say it? BECAUSE THEY DENIED THE WORD ABOUT THEMSELVES."
I didnt say the word depicted them that way, I said the word was often USED in contemporary accounts in such a way as to suggest an outlaw image. Sort of like "poor dark trash".
"And yet--from the discussions over the last few days--it is clear and obvious why they would NOT want to be labeled in ANY way that might jeopardize any aspect of their rights or freedom. So that if the word "Melungeon" had morphed into a perjorative, they would certainly have wanted to disavow it. Wouldn't they."
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the record indicates that they enjoyed rights and priveledges that others in the area enjoyed and with the exception of the 1844 illegal voting charges, there's no record of any attempt to deprive them of those rights.
"The word did not merely "follow them," they brought it with them. Then others perverted it, turning it into a derisive term that they needed to shed to avoid the problems associated with it once it began to be enunciated and repeated by outsiders. Outsiders didn't make the name up, but outsiders ruined it."
With all due respect, Curtis, this is pure speculation, with no evidence to back it up. Its very likely that the word is a provencialism that was found only in the mid-Appalachian region until it caught on to a wider usage through publicity. Why werent all the other similar racial groups called Melungeons?
"You have the evidence of the origin as a word from the language of the Portuguese colony from which slaves were taken ... FROM WHICH THE FIRST AFRICANS IN THE BRITISH COLONIES CAME FROM. You KNOW this. You know the Portuguese took the word from those people, and you know that the word was used here ... for decades as an "inside" word, used in the way of the MEANING of the word: "Shipmate," "Comrade," "Mate," "Countryman," and "Fellow-Traveller." No one wrote it down BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WRITE. But once they got away from Coastal Virginia, when they thought it was safe, before the threat of some of the laws that came along, they let their guard down and outsiders heard them use the word. Some married in with outsiders. The word became known. It was repeated, used ABOUT them, and finally used AGAINST them."
Again, this is all speculation and nobody KNOWs any of this. These same arguments can be used in support of Kennedy's theories, as well as others. Without being able to connect the dots between the Portuguese/Angolan arrival and it's earliest KNOWN documented usage in 1813, this is another theory that's unproven, though I'll say it does warrant serious consideration and more research.
"Kevin, you say that they "DID NOT self-identify by that word." And yet you have absolutely NO evidence that is true. None whatsoever. The evidence that they DID use it and, indeed, brought it with them, is contained in the word, itself, and is a direct reflection back to where the old man at the head of each family came from ... as well as the fact that the word was SO meaningful and in such use that the Portuguese, themselves, ended up borrowing it ... NOT because they needed to invent a new word, but because they KEPT HEARING IT, and understood what it meant. So well did it convey the meaning of "Comrade," etc., that the Portuguese simply adopted it."
Early accounts of Melungeons maintained consistantly that they did not use the name to apply to themselves. I dont understand how you can be so persistant about a percieved lack of evidence there, while maintaining that an obscure word survived for hundreds of years while showing NO evidence at all of it's usage before 1813.
One biting question I must ask is why would they retain the tribal name while discarding the tribal identity?
"Since I know who you are, Kevin, I am surprised that you--of all the active Melungeon researchers--would deny the African ancestor, too. But, hey! Who am I to judge?"
I do not deny African ancestry for Melungeon families, my opinion is that it's a given, like their European ancestry is. I do doubt very seriously that there is a common origin for all families identified as such, including any notion that they all collectively came on a slave ship, pirate ship, etc. That being said, I do think there's a pretty good case made that the Goins family may have originated in Angola. Unproven, but compelling. To speculate that every Melungeon family has the same history is a mistake in my opinion, whatever their ancestry holds. I'm not saying that's your position Curtis, just stating my opinion. The gist of this debate centers on the origins of the word "Melungeon", which has long been at the top of the unanswered questions regareding these people. I still dont think anyones come close to solving this question, the one real "mystery" pertaining to the subject.
Thanks for the oppurtunity for this exchange of views, Curtis and I look forward to seeing the post that you mentioned. Feel free to clarify or expand on any of your views, or make any points you feel like making. Regards,
Kevin
Notify Administrator about this message?
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/melungeon/messages/25604.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|