terminology
UHUR...@aol.com
come across several words that describe the race of people. Some are obvious
(black, Negro, mulatto, quadroon, and octoroon), but there are two which I am
not sure of their meaning. The first was mestee. I am guessing this may have
some connection to mestizo (Spanish for mixed European and Native American
ancestry) but I am not sure. The second one was sambo or samboe. I had a
difficult time deciphering the second of those two words. I have no idea
what this could mean. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Stephanie Binns
Philadelphia, Pa
Cyril & Sandy Alberga
week. He was the first person to record Jamaican speech and edited a
dictionary of Jamaican English (which I do not have), and wrote a
popular book, "Jamaica Talk", from which I will quote (from Chapter 8):
The next degree of mixture -- of white with mulatto -- was originally
Terceron, but this term had little currency in Jamaica; its equivalent
seems to have been Mustee (from Spanish mestizo); and the equivalent of
Quarteron, Castee (from cast, by analogy with mustee):
There are also Mulattoes and Mustees; the first are from a Negroe and a
white Man; the other is from the second Generation; and the third are
called Castees [1740, "The Importance of Jamaica to Great Britain
consider'd]
But as Long pointed out, the terms were early confused:
These distinctions, however, [those of the Spaniard] do not prevail in
Jamaica; for here the Terceron is confounded with the Quateron; and the
laws permit all, that are above three degrees removed in lineal descent
from the Negro ancestor, to vote at elections and enjoy all the
privileges
and immunities of his majesty's white subjects of the island. [1774,
"The
History of Jamaica, ..."]
Yet another term existed, Mustifino, which the dictionaries do not
record:
The nearest to a Negro is a Sambo, the next a Mulatto, next a
Quadroon, next a Mustee, and next a Mustiphino; after which the shade
is lost, for
the children of a Mustiphino, by a white man, are accounted white by
law,
and have higher privileges than the others. [1825, "The West Indies as
they are; or a real picture of slavery" the Rev. R. Bickell]
Others spell it Mustiphini and Maestifino. It is evidently made up from
Mustee or Mestee with Spanish fino (fine) added.
The increasing complexity of racial mixture, the end of slavery, and
equality of all colours under the law, have contributed to the disuse of
most of these terms. The survivors have anything but precise meanings.
A police description of an escaped criminal in the Gleaner (1951) made
him a dark-sambo, and sambo is elsewhere explained as 'between black and
brown'.
[end of quotation]
So as I read this, Mulatto is the usual usage, one Black parent, one
white. Mustee is the child of a Mulatto and a white, while Sambo is not
clearly defined, but from context seems to be the child of a Mulatto and
a Black.
Cyril N. Alberga
Richard Bond
1/4 white + mulatto = quadroon
1/8 white + quadroon = octoroon
1/16 white + octoroon = mustee
1/32 white + mustee = mustifino
1/64 white + mustifino = blanco de las islas
at 1/64 since there are only 48 genes black genes are a rare and random
occurrence but two parents who are both at that degree of miscegenation
can on occasion produce a child darker than themselves
Sambo is a mix of black and Indian
Edward Crawford
grandparents. A sambo was a child of a mulatto and a black or one with one
white grandparent. A racially obsessed society like the planters Caribbean
had these specailised words just as the Eskimos and top employees in large
banks have a vocabulary of fifty words for snow.
Edward Crawford
Richard Bond
Crawford what is a griffe?
MReil...@aol.com
a term which originated in the Spanish colonies in the 16th century and was
borrowed, although not necessarily with the same meaning, by other cultures.
I have read about a linguistic origin for the word, but I can't remember what
it was. I think they related it to some West African term. Anyway, in the
Spanish colonies it meant a person who was half Indian and half African, and
maybe that's what was intended in Jamaica, although it seems doubtful that
there were any Indians left to mix with there by the 1700s, let alone 1800s.
I have seen a similar "chart" to Richard's for Spanish racial terms, with the
full range of permutations for black, white and Indian. I have also read
that most of those terms were half-humorous, or hypothetical categories
devised by people addicted to categorizing for its own sake, and in fact the
Spanish colonial authorities gave up on South African-style official racial
categories after a few generations, because it became imposible to invent
enough words to cover every possibility, much less keep track of the people.
Ultimately the only categories that mattered where "white" and "not white,"
and being unable to tell for sure, the Europeans looked down even on the
"criollos," people born locally of Spanish parents or grandparents. This
tradition is not entirely dead. Even today, in most Latin American countries
there is a fairly endogamous class of recent (past 2-3 generations) arrivals
from Spain, invisible to outsiders but very much aware of who is one of them
and who isn't.
As Richard points out, someone who's 1/64 "black" and 63/64 "white" can be,
and probably is, genetically indistinguishable from a so-called white person.
And I doubt that even the most racially obsessed person could tell a
"mustee" from a "mustifino" from a European with a tan if they married them.
The last term on his list 'blanco de las islas," literally 'a white person
from the islands' sounds like somebody's version of "close enough."
Although I would defer to others who may be more knowledgeable about
Caribbean history, it seems to me that you can't count on these words having
the same meaning in all times and places, especially since they're based on a
pseudoscience to begin with.
Edward Crawford
different parts and on different islands. But the word "sambo" can be found
in 18th century documents long before the arrival of considerable numbers of
East Indians in the British Caribbean. If you are referring to Native
Americans like the Aarawak and Carb tribes, then these were few and far
between in 18th C Jamaica. The reference to this and my explanation of the
word together with any citation escape me for the moment.
I rest my case
And please, on this friendly list, Edward, not Mr Crawford.
Edward
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Bond <Richa...@webtv.net>
To: CARIB...@rootsweb.com <CARIB...@rootsweb.com>
Richard Bond
Indians. The police reference was probably to someone with an East
Indian and Black mix as visible American Indian blood is rare. In
Trinidad Black/East Indians are more common they are called by the term
Dougla which has a perjorative origin. Actually there is a sizable
minority with American Indian Siboney, Taino, Arawak mitochondrial DNA
in the Greater Antilles but except in certain villages in Puerto Rico
and the Dominican Republic Indigenous phenotypes are passim. Even Haiti
has communities where by tradition the Indians were absorbed by the
Blacks instead of exterminated.
~DITSY~
research them as they are oft times listed in the "people of color" census
in the USA.......are there census available for the Caribbean. Sorry but I
am VERY new to research in the Caribbean, as if you can't tell :)
D.
National Domestic Violence Hot Line (1-800-799-SAFE)
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Bond <Richa...@webtv.net>
To: <CARIB...@rootsweb.com>
Lelia Lord
Guyana and Venezuela where traditional route movement, for example across
the Bocas, the narrow strip of sea separating Venezuela and Trinidad,
continues largely unhindered, even today.
Lelia Lord
attacks on white settlements were sometimes deported to the West Indies.
There is documented evidence to suggest this. In addition, my family's oral
history suggests that one of our 19th C. ancestors was an Indian deported
from Canada.
Subject: Re: terminology
> When you say American Indians......how did they get there? How do we
> research them as they are oft times listed in the "people of color" census
> in the USA.......are there census available for the Caribbean. Sorry but
I
> am VERY new to research in the Caribbean, as if you can't tell :)
>
> D.
> National Domestic Violence Hot Line (1-800-799-SAFE)
>
~DITSY~
evidence to "prove" this? Where could we find this information? BTW love
this conversation, just soaking up every word. Were there possibly some of
these Indians already on some of the Indian rolls in the USA?
Richard Bond
Community one is named Hernandez and the other is Richard Bharath, as
Bharath is an East Indian name Chief Bharath is both Indian and Indian.
UHUR...@aol.com
to help with a horse and cattle breeding farm. I am guessing that this is
not the norm although I do not know.
mayn...@candw.ag
We also have to remember that there were the indigenous Caribbean native
people. They were also referred to as Indians.Creole was a word used
later for the whites born in the islands in French and later in English
territories.
Jennifer
mayn...@candw.ag
Canada to the Malvinas. And that the term also includes the non-mainland
people of the island chain who may have different origins than the North
American Indians, for those of us are new to Caribbean History. Also to
remind us that Trinidad, Guyana, and to a lesser extent some of the
smaller islands also have Indians from India. Hence the confusion for
those who are new to the area.
Jennifer
monsanto wrote:
>
> Do you suggest that the "indegenous Caribbean native people" were not
> called Indian or Amerindian?
> --
> From: Christel Monsanto, promoting Caribbean Art
>
> mayn...@candw.ag schreef in artikel <3951757B...@candw.ag>...
John Weiss
While the last full-blood Caribs in Trinidad probably died before
the end of the 18th century, their decendants are largely
clustered around Arima, where the Spanish mission had earlier
concentrated their efforts to protect and develop the Carib
community. That part of their intention which concerned bringing
their charges into Christianity involved the fixing of both
Christian baptismal names and surnames, which accounts for the
common appearance of Spanish names among the community claiming
Carib descent. While the old Spanish missions include other
locations also, such as Princes Town (formerly Savannah Grande
and once known as Mission), the Arima district is the one most
prominently populated with people of Carib descent, who have in
turn intermarried with the large East Indians community in that
district, thus accounting for people doubly Indian. How ironic
that the original inhabitants, who were not Indian at all, can be
called simply "Indian" in Trinidad, whereas the newcomers, who
are the true and original Indians, have to be distinguished by an
extra term as "East Indian". Has anyone ever complained?
Whatever ethnic divides the Trinidad political scene may show,
the populace at large has abundant evidence of culturally diverse
communities celebrating their diversity, sharing each others'
cultural histories. I suppose the most Trinidadian thing about
this is the universal recognition of multiple New Year
festivities - Christian, Chinese, Hindu, Moslem - this is not a
complete list, and I'm sure if there was a larger Jewish
community the whole island would celebrate Rosh Hashana as well.
John McNish Weiss
John Weiss
that the newly found lands were part of the East Indies and that
the people they encountered were related to the Indians of India.
The mistake has stuck with us, but mistake it was, and attempts
to put it right should not surprise us.
John McNish Weiss
monsanto
--
From: Christel Monsanto, promoting Caribbean Art
~DITSY~ <Flo...@sofnet.com> schreef in artikel
<003401bfdba1$397a57c0$2dc210d1@computer>...
> When you say American Indians......how did they get there? >
They were here before Columbus set foot over here.
monsanto
called Indian or Amerindian?
From: Christel Monsanto, promoting Caribbean Art
mayn...@candw.ag schreef in artikel <3951757B...@candw.ag>...
monsanto
explained as being combinations of black and white in phrases of days gone
by - no connection to Amerindians yet. In my experience only 0,01 percent
of all the family stories of descending from Amerindians in the Caribbean
have a grain of truth in them.
--
From: Christel Monsanto, promoting Caribbean Art
UHUR...@aol.com schreef in artikel <97.70f66b...@aol.com>...
~DITSY~
Indian. That they were considered part of the lost city of Atlantis Indians
and were short in stature. I later was told it was "considered" bad to ever
be mean or nasty to one of them. Is there any truth to this? Does anyone
know?
D.
Richard Bond
escapees to the interior, they learned to live like Indians, outsiders
call them Saramaccas, they call themselves Matawari
Richard Bond
American Indians sent to the Caribbean as prisoners of war.
Lelia Lord
historians oral history is no longer regarded as ignorant mumbo jumbo. This
unfortunate attitude, held by many primitive Eurocentric researchers, caused
the last of a frighteningly vast body of knowledge. Thankfully the tide is
turning.
Richard Bond
Richard Bond
a traditionally Indian area in the southwest of the island showed
respectively 50% and 70% Taino M-DNA origin
~DITSY~
D.
National Domestic Violence Hot Line (1-800-799-SAFE)
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Bond <Richa...@webtv.net>
To: <CARIB...@rootsweb.com>
MReil...@aol.com
th!
!
!
ere were and are significant numbers of Asian Indians on some of the islands, most numerous on Trinidad but also on Barbados and St. Vincent, maybe a few on Jamaica. But I have never heard "Sambo" used to refer to someone half African and half Asian Indian. I believe there are significant numbers of Chinese on Jamaica, dating back at least to the early 19th century and I don't know what term would have been used to refer to someone of mixed Chinese and African descent.
Cindy Kilgore
MARI sounds a bit like Maori tribes of New Zealand - perhaps. Also, Atlantis is believed to have been in the neighbourhood of the existing Azores Islands which certainly know how to appear and disappear before our very eyes.
So, here's a question..... when did the people of the Caribbean begin being referred to as "Indians?" As far back as the first missionaries, Raymond Breton, de Rochefort, du Tertre, and De la Borde (all in the early 1600's) were referring to the native people
as either Savages or Caraibes. Even today the Caribs on St. Vincent are never referred to as Indians (only the East Indians are known as Indians), but as Caribs. hmmmmm... I'm curious.
1700's - does anybody know what are "the Plantation Books?"
And, is anyone other than myself on this List planning on attending the Conference on Caribbean Studies, 4-5 July, in Birmingham, England?
take care, folks,
Cindy
C.M.Codrington
ignorant mumbo jumbo"
Hi Lelia and listers,
I've found this thread interesting for several reasons, some related to the
actual subject matter but most not. Seldom if ever has a date or time period
been noted when conveying "information" be it of an oral nature or not. I've
seen few citations, and much of the information conveyed has been so general
as to render it ahistorical to any serious degree...... here is an example
which typifies the material thusfar conveyed:
Problem: John Grant died in colonial New York. There were horses in New
York, maybe John was killed by a horse? after all horses did trample
people.....
Conjecture is a part of any study, but it is conjecture, and there is loose
or casual conjecture and their is highly researched and supported
conjecture(and degrees in between of course).
We know that several loads of pequot prisoners were shipped south by
various New England governments in the 17th century. We know the caribs
maintained effective control of certain of the leeward islands for many
years and that larger islands such as Puerto Rico and Hispaniola provided
the time and exposure necessary for the African and indigenous peoples to
have a chance to interact. True also for the mainland colonies and islands
close by the mainland. All that makes sense.
The interactions between native and african peoples in the early
colonial(and later) period in the Carib is a really fascinating topic....and
an important one too.
But even the "eurocentric" literature (if you include the mass of colonial
office docs, eye witness accounts etc infinitum) would provide tons of hard
information which of course would have to be qualified by the prejudices of
the observer, the purposes of the report etc.And that process of ferreting
out the unknown(or merely obscured) and qualifying it via informed and
documented sources or opinions is what history is all about(when it is not
being done for partisan reasons)
Oral "history" as you rightly say is now regarded with far more seriousness
than in times past, and there are examples where the divergence from a
co-existant written chronicle are minimal or merely reflect differing ethnic
(etc) viewpoints of the same event. But most oral history does not come to
us in that form and to approach oral history as a literal record in all
cases is to seriously miss the special character of oral history.
Using oral history comes with a set of very stringent rules or "tests" if
you will and that is largely due to the nature of how stories evolve orally
regardless of the culture in which they reside and often directly because of
the particular culture....(or the condition of that culture at the time the
story was being "passed")
In my essentially "eurocentric" research (which actually employs the
Atlantic model)there was a
story in a local history of a town in Florida which was supposedly told by
my great grandparents regarding their removal from Jamaica to Florida in the
1860-70's.
The fellow writing the book was a well known local historian, so most people
beleived the things he wrote. But most of those who read his book knew
nothing of Jamaica and so accepted the story at face value.
I didn't think the story sounded right....so I attempted to verify it with
known historical events in Jamaica at the time and came to the conclusion
someone had garbled the story.
It was not that the "content" was wrong or that it did not have "value" or
did not convey their "experience" but that it was not a linear account and
was missing bits and pieces which effected the message We Received reading
it. In fact I now beleive it conveys the "experience" of the original
tellers rather than any linear "facts".....and that is a very precious but
different thing!
Further research allowed me to understand better what the original
conversation on the porch had probably been about and that what this fellow
recorded from that day or evening on the porch in Deland was a very messed
up and abreviated version of a more extensive series of events not at all
the cause and effect story I read.
So. is the story true? sort of. but does it still have value? yes. it has
pieces of truth and conveys the character of an experience which I had to
research to make genuinely intelligible to us so many years later. It is a
distillation of a whole series of things which led to a family leaving
Jamaica. It conveys a woman's terror, and a general dismay about change and
it probably also conveys a hint of self-pity about a life and status lost.
But beleive me, you would never know that without 2 years of sporadic
research and study from every conceivable source I could get my hands on.
You know honestly you can write several books on the subject of how
information is conveyed and how it is altered by the process not to mention
the needs or intent of those along the line who conveyed it(including you
and I) And that is true with either oral or written history. Oral is the
more fascinating because of the many special "traditions" and individuals
along the line which essentially add or alter detail and inflection to suit
the time of the telling. Oral history is entirely more kinetic, interactive
and ultimately intuitive than written work. Because it "becomes" each time
it is told...and each listener makes it their "own". It is very much a form
of living "history" but of an entirely different character and substance
than written history attempts achieve. And then at what point does tribal(in
the sense that all groups essentially cleave unto some sort of tribal
identity)world view alter the nature of the thing conveyed so greatly that
in fact it cannot be viewed sensibly but from within THAT worldview(a view
far older than you or I and probably quite foreign)?
But you can't penetrate these mysteries without anchoring to some detail, to
a time and place, a culture, a situation etc.
Cod
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lelia Lord [mailto:le...@candw.ky]
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 6:49 AM
> To: CARIB...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: terminology
>
>
> Your experience is clearly different from mine. You may know that amongst
> historians oral history is no longer regarded as ignorant mumbo
> jumbo. This
> unfortunate attitude, held by many primitive Eurocentric
> researchers, caused
> the last of a frighteningly vast body of knowledge. Thankfully the tide is
> turning.
Richard Bond
POWs from it were sent to the San Andres Providencia Islands near
Nicaragua and Barbados. There are still families claiming Mohawk origin
in Bermuda
Lelia Lord
Columbus and company. arrived in the Caribbeaan they mistakenly thought
they had reached Asia, therefore the inhabitants, also brown skinned had to
be Indians! Hence the West Indies and North American 'Indians'.
Rhona Panton
something is written that original document does not change however an oral
history/story is repeated by many people and the words used are not identical each
time. These small changes may result in the intent and essential facts or overview
remaining the same or it may change them dramatically.
The question of whether change has occurred or to what extent is why many researchers
use oral history as an adjust not as a whole. All history be it written or oral is
affected by context, who told/wrote the history, the culture(s) involved, the culture
of the time vs that of today etc
It is important to remember what happens with the old nursery game where you whisper a
sentence in your neighbours ear, they in turn whisper to their neighbour. I have
'played' this game with adults - sometimes the intent and essense remains other times
what started as 'Mrs Smith bought groceries from the supermarket' ends up as 'The
mountain was high and cold, when the climbers returned they had a hot bath'. when you
try to trace how this changed sometimes you can figure it out and other times .....
In doing genealogy research I have found some oral history to be very factual, however
I have also found oral history that is taken as fact by large numbers of unrelated
people has had no basis in fact other than a man arrived on the island, in other cases
the names and events were correct but the events did not happen to those people
instead it was their great great grandparents, in still others none of the oral
history seemed to be 'correct'
Another facit to be aware of is whose oral history is being used? Is it that of my
family, my town, my area of the county, a whole country? Oftimes there is no
consistent oral history instead each group has a different version which may even
conflict - in those cases of conflicting versions which is chosen?
Reality is that 100, 200, 300 or more yrs after the fact we have no way to know which
of the above is the reality of any oral history that we hear. Yes oral stories and
history are important but we must acknowledge that simply due to the method of
transmission and the length of time since their origin, they cannot be assumed to be
100% of what the originator of that history intended
Rhona
Edward Crawford
is that people often state that their relationship to others of high status
is closer than it is or else the status itself is exaggerated. So from my
own research on my family someone is said to be a first cousin but when you
look into it they must have been third or fourth cousins. This could happen
very easily as people talk about cousins generally. Another is a tradition
that someone was a lord when perhaps they were a knight, or very rich when
they turn out to be middling well off. I was told in the PRO that some
people researching an ancestor in the army insisted to the helpers that he
was a Major - he turned out to be a Sergeant-Major
Edward
John Weiss
<< Just to add - oral history is valuable but must always be
listened to with care. Once something is written that original
document does not change however an oral history/story is
repeated by many people and the words used are not identical each
time. These small changes may result in the intent and essential
facts or overview remaining the same or it may change them
dramatically. [snip] >>
If you have the opportunity to track back a family or community
story to its origins you may well find that it is simply not
true - and then what do you do? On the one hand, the story is
Knowledge that must be so because father or grandfather said it
was So, or even the great-aunt who Knew Everything. On the other
hand, you have documentary evidence showing that it is Not So,
evidence of a kind that is distant from people's experience and
not as trustworthy to them as the Known family story.
The temptation, if you respect your own research abilities, of
impatiently dismissing Ignorant Myths can be replaced by a
determination to find the real basis of the incorrect story. My
own experience in a piece of Trinidad history shows that a
completely incorrect account, repeated in history books over a
period of a century, has a very real foundation, but displaced in
time and place, in a parallel fashion to events which, as Rhona
said, "did not happen to those people instead it was their great
great grandparents". If I can give an example, it may interest
Trinidadians who know a little about The Company Villages, which
were originally the settlements of the Merikens, Black American
refugees of the War of 1812 who settled around Princes Town in
1816.
Some of the villages are named after the six companies of the
Corps of Colonial Marines, recruited from the younger men among
the main body of refugees. Today you have either villages or
districts known as, for example, Fifth Company and Sixth Company,
but there has never been a Second Company village, and until
recently it has been common knowledge that "Second Company never
reached the island, having been shipwrecked at sea off Jamaica".
But some after I started my research into the Corps I found the
muster lists for their recruitment, service and discharge, and it
was evident that Second Company had been paid off in Princes Town
(then Mission or Savannah Grande) along with the rest. Finding
the Corps records had been hard enough, but finding the true
origin of the untrue story seemed far more daunting. In the
belief that some real event must have started the story, I
decided that the shipwreck was the most tangible element, and
luckily found a register of British shipwrecks. Working backwards
from 1816 I soon found that in June 1800 the 2nd West India
Regiment - note that they were Soldiers, Second and Black - had
been shipwrecked off the coast of Trinidad in the Bocas, with no
loss of life but with plenty of spectacle. The women and children
were taken off first, and then the three hundred-odd soldiers,
marines and seamen camped on top of one of the large rocks for
thirty hours until they could be taken off. Accounts say that the
population of Port of Spain came out to watch and enjoy the whole
affair as a hugely enjoyable spectacle - I believe rockets and
flares came into the picture - quite a fête, in fact.
It appears that the 2nd Company of the Corps of Colonial Marines
were settled in 1816 around an existing village that already had
a name, and my interpretation of the combination of event and
myth is that in the course of time, the absence of a village
named Second Company Village was misinterpreted, and the
conceptual gap was filled by folk memory of the famous shipwreck
of the 2nd West India Regiment. I can't prove that this really is
the basis of the myth, but I can prove that the 2nd Company of
the Corps reached Trinidad - some of their descendants are still
on the plots of land their settler ancestors were given - and I
like to believe that the story originated from outside the
community, by administrators possibly, who couldn't tell one
Black soldier from another.
John McNish Weiss
Researching the four thousand Black Americans who took their
freedom in the War of 1812 by way of the Royal Navy