Peter, I am afraid that Barbados (and many Caribbean islands) have ever been a paradise for the very wealthy, and often more of a prison for those less fortunate. One old expression about being sent there was to be "Barbadoesed", which for many signified a sure sentence of death by mistreatment or disease. The enslaved were not only Africans; tens of thousands of enslaved Europeans were shipped to the colonies. The late Sean O'Callaghan's "To Hell or Barbados" is a poignant examination of the fate & plight of the Irish. Everyone interested in West Indian social history should read it, as they should the late Jill Sheppard's brilliant "The Red Legs of Barbados". The glossy tourist brochures tend not to mention the dark and troubled history of the "tristes tropiques" and contemporary historians seem to try to minimise if not ignore the fact that all slaves were not black; I think that a more balanced perspective is much needed. Ernest M. Wiltshire -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Spring Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:32 PM To: Rootsweb: Caribbean http://landing.ancestry.co.uk/intl/uk/barbados.aspx?o_iid=35816&o_lid=35816& offerid=0%3a7935%3a0 I was amazed at the number of Molls listed in the Barbados Register Peter Moll Tortola, BVI No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1377 - Release Date: 4/14/2008 9:26 AM

This is most interesting. Thanks for this insight. I am venturing into the (maternal gm) Pollard and Moore family research. I have really been doing it for about 100 years but on my gf's line LaMotte, Belfon. Hearing stories and understanding the culture of the time is eye-opening. Barbados is a new adventure for me. I ordered a film last week (an Index) and can't wait to peel back this very complicated lineage. Yes, the white slavery aspect is something to keep in mind. My aunt Olive (really an older cousin) in NY was explaining to me that many times after the "bonded slave " time frame was completed then the slave/bound person(white) was conveniently disposed of to not have to pay them for services. Unlike the black slave who was in servitude until death. I am looking forward to shining light on these ancestors who I elevate in prayer but had not examined as closely as I am now. Yvonne aka cuzin' Choli

Another work on the subject worth a look at: White Servitude and Black Slavery in Barbados, 1627-1715 by Hilary M. Beckles Cod ___________________________________________________________________________a a digression for those interested: There are many angles of view but one thing is for sure, a more than casual study of the various forms of bondage which prevailed in the 17th Century On the islands is essential to understand a lot of what happened then and later. Tough stuff! On several occasions Gen Chris Codrington(1698) applies the term "slave" to indentured caucasians... I believe by 1700 that would have been anachronistic or even disapproved of but certainly not in 1670. The penalties to a woman in bond for being pregnant were severe and the child's labor became the masters' till whatever terms there were had been satisfied. In the early islands, the rules guiding these things were flaunted if they existed at all. In addition, white indentureds often came at little cash outlay. Observers consistently note white indentureds being worked into the ground... To see this "in time" is to understand that "Human Rights" as we know them simply did not exist. They were developing along class lines in European society and as the history of the Carib progresses the notion of rights trickles down in conjunction with the growing influence of economics on social status. In the 17th, the men who got to Barbados, either struggled to both serve the crown (or parliament) and to acquire wealth/land. The hope being that with these achievements and good notice they might acquire title and further opportunity to break out of whatever limits they were "born to" Wealth increasingly developed influence over the relative security of an individual in his society. But for most of the 17 and part of the 18th Wealth was not enough to achieve "social security" or some form of protected status. And though it was far better to be a wealthy white planter than an indentured Irishman, there are plenty of examples where those planters came down as hard and fast as they had risen simply by diplomatic or social gaffe. Or Hubris or for no justification but envy. In the time of James I virtually anyone could rise and then be taken down. A persons' security likely relied on birth, "sponsorship" and wealth in that order. The limits to how far one could rise were quite diverse, and arbitrary. Race and nationality were not seen much differently at times Racist notions though long a part of human thinking developed to the degree known to us in direct conjunction with the need for "order" in slave based society and the justification for sustaining one. But it seems starkly evident that what we think of as "freedom" today was absolutely not conceived as a "right" in 1628.... Thus the prevalence of the expression "rights and priveleges" in so many contracts and bills as if by linking those two repetitively over time a marriage might be achived between the two. Certainly for nearly anyone not of Noble blood, any "rights" they might believe they had were in fact "priveleges" granted them and subject to a nearly arbitrary removal... In fact much of the English Civil War revolves around such notions though not as applies to regular folk. Anyway this is really a rich line of study. To me, in it lies the real history of The Americas Cod _____ I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 73 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> for free now!