Posted on 08/13/2012 11:43:30 AM PDT by Brown Deer
For many of us, our main understanding of the American South, slavery and the Civil War derives from countless viewings of ‘Gone with the Wind.’ New research has revealed that Michelle Obama’s forefathers include Charles Shields, a slave-owner of Irish descent, who lived in the very same county in Georgia State where the fictional Scarlet O’Hara’s family lived. This is the remarkable story of how Charles Shields and a slave girl called Melvina became ancestors of the first African-American to become First Lady of the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at turtlebunbury.com ...
Some of my ancestors owned slaves, so it’s possible that you and I are related. I would hope you to consider naming me in your will..... I’d appreciate anything, but your guns and ammo would be nice.
Oh, I am of Scottish blood, so I won’t be able to leave you anything.... it’s a rule that we take our treasures with us, sorry.
First of all, that’s irrelevant, and second, it’s not the whole truth. There were white raiding excursions that would capture Africans.
And once again in the middle of the story is the same old untrue reference about Thomas Jefferson. But then again, what would history be if the liberals didn’t try to re-write it continually.
“The article doesn’t suggest that the first lady has any Irish ancestry at all but rather Scotch-Irish forbears. It is amusing that the author freely refers to Stotsmen as Irishmen but refers to Michelle as an “African-American”. Apparently a person of Scotish descent can become a plain old Irishman with after a few decades but a black American shall forever be an “African-American” and never a plain old American.”
There were two major migrations from Ireland to North America.
The second group during the 1800s mainly by catholics. Always called “Irish.”
The earlier first group during the 1700s mainly by protestants, predominently people “planted” from Scotland and northern England into northern Ireland.
This first group self-identified as “Irish” in north America, as per census, birth, travel and other documents.
They later called themselves “scots-irish” to differentiate themselves from the unpopular “irish” of the 1800s.
The term “scots-irish” is used only in the US.
In the UK and Canada, they use “Ulter protestants” and “Ulster Scots” for the equivalent immigrant groups.
FYI racially Scots and Irish derive from the same peoples of celtic ancestry, as well as other other lines (English, Nordic, etc.).
A present day Irishman of Scottish ancestry usually self-identifies as “Irish.” Example is Van Morrison.
So yes, a plain old Scotsman can become a full fledged Irishman in just a few generations. But the Ulster Scots category of resentments and conflict have raged for a long time, on BOTH sides.
The single biggest contribution to peace in Northern Ireland was 9/11/2001 whereby both sides decided against being classified with terrorists such as muslims. Previously, the IRA had trained and sympathized with muslim terrorists for decades.
Scots and Scottish are people, Scotch is a whiskey drink.
Diseases, hostile native people, bad maps or NO maps, extreme weather, language barriers, challenging terrain, etc. made travel into the interior out of the question.
White slavers established strongholds on the coasts, where native chiefs (many of whom were Muslim) brought masses of their unfortunate 'brothers' to enslavement. The chief who brought their brothers out of the interior held MANY slaves of their own and always had. It was a long standing, well organized and lucrative business for them.
All the way up to the very early 20th century, white people could hardly expect to survive travel into the interior.
If you think blacks are the only people who have been sold into slavery you are wrong.
The Arabs have been trading in slaves for centuries, not just blacks. They were raiding the lands all around the Mediterranean. (Remember Abduction from the Seraglio, Pirates of the Barbary Coast). Even the English were enslaving their people. See the link for an interesting history of the Irish slaves. Not indentured servants. Slaves.
http://www.kavanaghfamily.com/articles/2003/20030618jfc.htm
It’s important to remember, it wasn’t the Irish or the people in Europe who were enslaving their fellow countrymen. The blacks however did just that. Rival tribes sold each other into slavery.
If you really want to know how brutal African natives were to one another (and up until VERY recently in the history of that country), just read Richard F. Burton, who explored the interior of the continent in the late 19th century.
(The film version of his African travels is: ‘Mountains of the Moon’.)
White people did NOT introduce brutality or slavery into Africa. It was ancient and rampant when white people could finally get into the interior and see with their own eyes.
Burton expressed the brutality that he whitnessed in a way that was chilling, even for a 19th century writer.
Excellent points!
They have done DNA studies confirming that a large percentage of us have ancestors from the other race that we know nothing of.
Selective breeding practices resulted in a Michael Jordan and a Michelle Obama. Who’d a thunk it in 1783 when they did it?
Plenty of ordinary Scots may have thought of themselves as "Scotch" but the intelligentsia determined that "Scotch" -- apart from the whiskey -- was a barbarous anglicism to be avoided.
In the same way, it's not easy to say just what those Ulstermen or Northern Protestant Irishmen called themselves. "Ulster Scots" or "Ulstermen" or "Scots-Irish" were heard. Some may just have thought of themselves as Irish or British. "Scotch-Irish" is mostly an American term (later "corrected" to "Scots-Irish").
“Actually “scotch” is an adjective which means “of Scotland”. “Scotch” only refers to a drink because it is shorthand for “scotch whisky”. The word “scotch” is there to differentiate it from whiskey from other places like Ireland. Beyond that your reply is an impressive exercise in ignoring my point which was really about the term “African-American”.”
We agree on the African American thing, but I stand firmly that there are no Scottish or Scots people that will agree to be called Scotch.
Read more on the topic and see that I am correct.
Most people know very little about their ancestry or family history.
The fact we have Chinatowns, Little Tokyos, Little Italy’s, Germantowns, Scandinavian areas, etc. reveals to me that retention of family/ethnic identity is NOT a solely black practice.
verstehen, comprende, capisce?
In the same way, it’s not easy to say just what those Ulstermen or Northern Protestant Irishmen called themselves. “Ulster Scots” or “Ulstermen” or “Scots-Irish” were heard. Some may just have thought of themselves as Irish or British. “Scotch-Irish” is mostly an American term (later “corrected” to “Scots-Irish”).
I know from research that both colonial and Canadian “Ulster Scots” gave “Irish” for their nationality in the census and other documents.
I have some, and I have done the research. “Scots-Irish” was an American invention, as I described, and as historians have written.
“Scots-Irish” was used to differentiate the 18th century Protestants, from the later, lower status “Irish” eg. 19th century Catholics.
The long settled “Irish” were effectively saying “we aren’t like these dirty, drunken, illiterate Irish newcomers. We are “Scots-Irish.”
I am descended from Scottish slaves, sent here by the British during the Highland Clearances, after the Battle of Culloden.
None of us have asked for any reparations, we just want the effin government to leave us alone and stay OOT of our way!
If Michelle had any Irish at all in her, she would be the same. I doubt she now has a drop of cogent Celtic blood in her, after she first pricked her finger and bled that drop of it out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.