Originally posted: October 7, 2008
Chicago Tribune
A white man discovers his black roots
For the earlier part of Mann Page Ciesemier’s life, race had never been much of an issue. He was raised in the predominately white suburb of Wheaton, Il., where all but one of his friends was white. He’d always known that his mother’s family had roots in Virginia, and when he was in his early teens, he said he got up the nerve to ask his mother: “Did our family own slaves?” She answered sternly: “Yes, but we were kind!” That was the end of the matter until decades later when he met an old medicine man who would start him on a journey that would help him discover his African-American relatives. This is Mann Page Ciesemier’s essay:
Fifteen years ago, I put together a management retreat that took my coworkers and me from Chicago to Phoenix for charity work. Initially, our plan was to work in an impoverished black community. But not many blacks in Phoenix needed our help so we turned our attention to a group of Native Americans.
At the end of the retreat, a medicine man said to me, "Your ancestors will appear to you." I thought, "OK." I told him that there were rumors that my family had descended from Pocahontas. But he didn't respond. When I returned home, I started to study Native American culture.
About seven years later, my mother died and my father brought me a couple of shoe boxes stuffed with letters and old books regarding our roots in Virginia. As I was growing up my mother never talked much about Virginia. Once, I asked her if our family had owned slaves and she told me sternly, "Yes, but we were kind." That was the end of the matter.
After she died, I began to research my family's history. I found white slave owners who had been influenced greatly by their slaves. I began to recall the manner in which my mother and grandfather would sometimes speak. This dialect would appear again while I read aloud, 100-year-old letters from my ancestors. My grandfather spoke in an ancient, "native" Virginia dialect that dates to the days of Shakespeare. He also spoke in a casual Southern style, and was fluent in a dialect that stemmed from slaves, called Black English. My mother spoke it also. When she would tuck me in at night, she would say: 'Your mama done love you; you da bessus boy dat ever did was.'
From my mother's archives, I began to learn more about my ancestry and, among other things, plantation culture. I read about how the slaves could not only name trees but generations of trees. The same is true in Native American culture. There were other similarities in both cultures and it didn't take me long to realize that the medicine man's prophecy had come true. My ancestors indeed were appearing to me. But they weren't red. They were black.
As I searched my family tree, I traveled to Virginia in 2002 and eventually became a board member of my family's Page-Nelson Society. About a year later, a man approached the society looking for proof of ancestry of slaves freed in the 1804 legal will of a white slave owner named Capt. Thomas Nelson, an ancestral cousin. I had heard about his descendants.
As the story went, Nelson, who had fought Native Americans during the frontier wars, once rescued three Native American children who were hiding in a hollowed tree. He "adopted" the children, but legally they were considered property, or slaves. One of the children was Jane Spurlock. We
believe that when Nelson's wife died and when Jane grew into a woman, he had six children with her. As they reached adulthood, those children were freed and given an education. When Nelson died, they and their mother were provided for.
After the Civil War, Nelson’s descendents who passed for white moved to New Jersey. The white family members married whites and evolved into the white branch of the family. Those who could not pass for white (who looked more Native American) married African Americans and evolved into the black branch of the family, the Nelson-Spurlocks, of King William County, Va.
Three years ago, I met my Nelson-Spurlock kin at a wreathe-laying ceremony at the Nelson family cemetery in Yorktown, Va. It was a cordial reunion. They came hoping to join our Society so that we could work together to find proof that we were relatives. They are associate members because so far the only proof we have comes from the similarities in the many stories and letters that have been passed down over the years---on both sides of the family. I also count the fact that we all have the same deep dimples when we smile. There were lots of smiles.
Since our meeting I have kept in touch with several members of my Nelson-Spurlock family. But this has not been an easy reunion. There, understandably, are a handful of folk from both family groups who have been reluctant to welcome one another. Skin color sometimes can get in the way of family members seeing one another as blood. But those of us who are committed to accepting one another, are indeed so.
I dearly value my family's place in my life. Years ago when the medicine man said that my ancestors would appear to me, I had no idea that, in doing so, they also would reveal who I am.
Speaking of owning slaves. During history class in middle and high school, I remember many times White students use to raise their hands and 'confess' that they knew their families "owned slaves". Sometimes I could barely keep my mouth shut because many of these kids were poorer than my family! I just remember always wanting to ask, "what the hell happened to all the money?". I do recall in history class them mentioning that only about 1/4 whites owned a slaved and the numbers decreased tremendously when you started going up to 10 or 100 slaves! Not to mention the wave of European immigration in the early 1900's. Its mind-boggling how so many White kids believe their family history read like the O'Haras in 'Gone with the Wind'........
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Wed 15 Oct 2008 13:02 Post subject:
girlfromthenc wrote:
Speaking of owning slaves. During history class in middle and high school, I remember many times White students use to raise their hands and 'confess' that they knew their families "owned slaves". Sometimes I could barely keep my mouth shut because many of these kids were poorer than my family! I just remember always wanting to ask, "what the hell happened to all the money?". I do recall in history class them mentioning that only about 1/4 whites owned a slaved and the numbers decreased tremendously when you started going up to 10 or 100 slaves! Not to mention the wave of European immigration in the early 1900's. Its mind-boggling how so many White kids believe their family history read like the O'Haras in 'Gone with the Wind'........
I feel bad for these students who felt like they need to "confess" that their ancestors were slaveowners. I had family the were involved in the slavetrade and for that matter we had at least one child molester. I wouldn't be surprised if there were also murderers, theives and otherwise generally undesirable people in our background but honestly all of that is not relevant to me.
As far owning slaves, just because someone had one or two slaves doesn't mean that would make them rich, only that they would have a higher standard of living. Case in point, we have a house servant now and I'm certainly no richer for it but my wife sure has a lot easier life.
As far as rich people passing all the wealth onto their children, this can easily be explained by simple mathematics - when people die they pass on their belongings to their children, like property and goods. Eventually goods wear out and are useless and property is divived up among the children. Imagine for example how many times a 100 acre parcel might be divided up over 6 generations? And finally, the ancestor I had that was a slaveowner was by all accounts rich and famous, yet my father grew up poor and in fact moved more than 20 times before he was 17.
Shouldn't this read "Man Discovers Distant Black Relatives"? From what I read, he's descended from those mestizos who married into the white community. The others who married into the black community are the descendants of his black relatives.
I do recall in history class them mentioning that only about 1/4 whites owned a slaved and the numbers decreased tremendously when you started going up to 10 or 100 slaves! Not to mention the wave of European immigration in the early 1900's.
I agree with what Chip wrote. I just wanted to add two points:
First, the 1/4 number is a bit sneaky. It turns out that the head of household normally owned title to all of the family's slaves. So if every four-person family owned slaves, that would come to only 1/4 of individuals owning slaves. A better measure of antebellum South middle-class status is, "What fraction of families owned slaves?" This number approaches 100 percent, since it includes families who had one domestic.
Second, it is also misleading to connect slavery exclusively to modern-day non-Black Americans. Girlfromthenc aleady made the point that millions of Europeans immigrated decades after slavery ended. In addition, the White population of the free North was much larger than that of the slaveowning South. Finally, many Afro-descended southerners owned slaves. For example, in the 1839 census of New Orleans, 41 percent of free Coloured families owned at least one slave. In Spanish Florida, even some slaves owned slaves. Taking all this into account, I suspect that if you could somehow measure whether an individual had a slave-owning ancestor, and if you measured White Americans and Black Americans at random, a higher fraction of the latter would be found to have slave-owning ancestors than the former.
First, the 1/4 number is a bit sneaky. It turns out that the head of household normally owned title to all of the family's slaves. So if every four-person family owned slaves, that would come to only 1/4 of individuals owning slaves. A better measure of antebellum South middle-class status is, "What fraction of families owned slaves?" This number approaches 100 percent, since it includes families who had one domestic.
Sorry Frank but I find 100% unreasonable and hard to believe.
Speaking of owning slaves. During history class in middle and high school, I remember many times White students use to raise their hands and 'confess' that they knew their families "owned slaves". Sometimes I could barely keep my mouth shut because many of these kids were poorer than my family! I just remember always wanting to ask, "what the hell happened to all the money?". I do recall in history class them mentioning that only about 1/4 whites owned a slaved and the numbers decreased tremendously when you started going up to 10 or 100 slaves! Not to mention the wave of European immigration in the early 1900's. Its mind-boggling how so many White kids believe their family history read like the O'Haras in 'Gone with the Wind'........
I feel bad for these students who felt like they need to "confess" that their ancestors were slaveowners. I had family the were involved in the slavetrade and for that matter we had at least one child molester. I wouldn't be surprised if there were also murderers, theives and otherwise generally undesirable people in our background but honestly all of that is not relevant to me.
As far owning slaves, just because someone had one or two slaves doesn't mean that would make them rich, only that they would have a higher standard of living. Case in point, we have a house servant now and I'm certainly no richer for it but my wife sure has a lot easier life.
As far as rich people passing all the wealth onto their children, this can easily be explained by simple mathematics - when people die they pass on their belongings to their children, like property and goods. Eventually goods wear out and are useless and property is divived up among the children. Imagine for example how many times a 100 acre parcel might be divided up over 6 generations? And finally, the ancestor I had that was a slaveowner was by all accounts rich and famous, yet my father grew up poor and in fact moved more than 20 times before he was 17.
Chip I just googled the average cost of a slave from the book "The Emergence of a National Economy,1775-1815" by Curtis P. Nettles just to get an idea of what a "slave" cost back then.http://books.google.com/books?id=Qm-kBtStrW0C&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=the+average+cost+of+a+slave+in+1800&source=web&ots=HDm767q22U&sig=zeG3QtqbVm9BIopIhaGNu4wuOO8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=bo In short it states field hands went for around $200 dollars in 1790. And during the profitable years in Charleston (for example) cost went from $300 in 1795 to $400 in 1797 to $500 in the 1800 to finally $600 in 1804! Does Chip or anyone else for that matter have any idea how much money that would have been back then? Sure, the average White family might have had $5 or 10 dollars saved to "help make their life easier" but not $200!!! Let's be realistic here.
On the contrary, I still believe most of the White kids that were confessing did so not because they had any real knowledge of them ever having slaves in the family. The notion in itself, like posessing Native American ancestry, in their minds showed 'proof' of their Americanism.
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 14:33 Post subject:
girlfromthenc wrote:
Does Chip or anyone else for that matter have any idea how much money that would have been back then? Sure, the average White family might have had $5 or 10 dollars saved to "help make their life easier" but not $200!!! Let's be realistic here.
You have completely missed my point - I never implied that the families (white or black) that had slaves weren't rich but that by merely having a slave or two that they would become rich because of it.
girlfromthenc wrote:
On the contrary, I still believe most of the White kids that were confessing did so not because they had any real knowledge of them ever having slaves in the family. The notion in itself, like posessing Native American ancestry, in their minds showed 'proof' of their Americanism.
Would you mind rephrasing a little more clearly - I don't understand the connection of Americanism and having slaves that you propsed.
Does Chip or anyone else for that matter have any idea how much money that would have been back then? Sure, the average White family might have had $5 or 10 dollars saved to "help make their life easier" but not $200!!! Let's be realistic here.
You have completely missed my point - I never implied that the families (white or black) that had slaves weren't rich but that by merely having a slave or two that they would become rich because of it.
girlfromthenc wrote:
On the contrary, I still believe most of the White kids that were confessing did so not because they had any real knowledge of them ever having slaves in the family. The notion in itself, like posessing Native American ancestry, in their minds showed 'proof' of their Americanism.
Would you mind rephrasing a little more clearly - I don't understand the connection of Americanism and having slaves that you propsed.
You seem to think that I'm saying that White families who had a slave were rich and that they should have passed that wealth on to future generations. I am not saying that at all. I am saying that I believe MOST White families did not have any slaves at all. Not 1 not 2 and not 3. None. Zero. Nada. I believe that this is more of a White urban legend. Looking at the cost of a "slave" in the 1800's this would have been too huge a sum for MOST people!
And as far as the Americanism thing goes, many White children grow up hearing that the Europeans that colonized America brought Black slaves from Africa to work in the South. For this reason, they seem to equate that because they are White and American that that means their family had to have owned slaves!
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 22:16 Post subject:
girlfromthenc wrote:
You seem to think that I'm saying that White families who had a slave were rich and that they should have passed that wealth on to future generations. I am not saying that at all. I am saying that I believe MOST White families did not have any slaves at all. Not 1 not 2 and not 3. None. Zero. Nada. I believe that this is more of a White urban legend. Looking at the cost of a "slave" in the 1800's this would have been too huge a sum for MOST people!
And as far as the Americanism thing goes, many White children grow up hearing that the Europeans that colonized America brought Black slaves from Africa to work in the South. For this reason, they seem to equate that because they are White and American that that means their family had to have owned slaves!
Thanks for the clarification, as far as the latter assumption, I don't believe this is the case - based on my experience on being white and growing up in the South. In fact I can't remember ever hearing this growing up among my family, friends, acquaintances etc. Furthermore, the only reason we were able to find out our ancestor who was involved in the slave trade was when my father researched news archives from Charleston, SC in the late 1700's. I think the reaction you are seeing from white students and their apparent shame is not due to they think their family must have had slave but more than likely a product of "white guilt", whereby they feel like they should feel guilty because they are white and are therefore guilty by association.
Posted: Fri 24 Jul 2009 04:54 Post subject: White Woman Discovers Black Ancestry
I was told growing up that I was 1/4 Jewish, "1/16 Native American" and 2/3 Celtic. I took an ancestry DNA test so I could submit the results with an application to work on a Native American Reservation. When the results came back it showed that I am not 1/16 Native American but 1/16 Sub Saharan African.
In the past, being 1/16 Black, I'd be called Hexadecaroon. I guess now I'm called "White with Black Ancestry". I'm proud of my African ancestry but I'm so sad that my Great-Grandmother had to lie for better opprotunities. I of course don't blame her. I blame the opressive society in which she was born into.
On forms, I mark "White" but when I am asked now "What are you?" or "Are you Greek, Italian, Spanish...Whatever?", I no longer say "White". I now say 1/4 Jewish, 1/16 Black and 2/3 Celtic. People are shocked that a "White" woman would admit to being part Black. They ask me dozens of questions and make really ignorant comments like, "You don't look Black" or "Oh, yes, I can tell from your nose, butt...whatever". I've even had a college educator co-worker said, "That's why you dance and sing so well".
I'd like to find other Whites with Black ancestry to talk to but I can't find any. Where are they? There aren't many Whites who are unknowly 1/8 or 1/16 Black but there are millions who are 1/32 or 1/64. Can't we talk about it now? Isn't it time?
This is a very generic and frankly pathetically predictable article. Its literally a media scripted piece that turns up once or twice in every paper yearly. The shaman addition just turns it into Velveeta but I'm glad you posted it.
Quote:
But they weren't red. They were black.
Which means no more free pass as a "mixed white person now you're black"
I'm assuming...
Quote:
I'd like to find other Whites with Black ancestry to talk to but I can't find any. Where are they? There aren't many Whites who are unknowly 1/8 or 1/16 Black but there are millions who are 1/32 or 1/64. Can't we talk about it now? Isn't it time?
I agree. I think you can assume any American who is white but also looks ambiguous to some might be a person to approach very gingerly. Just being MISTAKEN for someone with SSA may yield a kindred spirit. You could also approach anyone who is white given the odds. In Europe though a French or Greek person for instance would most likely not "get your drift" as culture and history runs much deeper then bogus science.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
