Couldn't one say the same thing about America and the use of e.g. native American Indians within a settlement as scouts etc? Generally a man on a muster list in 1730 would not be a native American Indian. They didn't much like arming Indians because they tended to use the weapon against theBritish. Just 11 years after 1730 the Indians would rise up, weapons or not, and slaughter almost all the settlers. So they were right to fear. This is not to say that the man hadn't manage to assimilate in British. So, if one's ancestor was native American and living in a British fort with the planters/settlers wouldn't one be asking if he/she was British or Native American? Probably to the British they were Indians and to the Indians they were British! Similarly, if one's ancestor was native Irish and living in a British fort in Ulster with the planters/settlers one is asking if he/she was British or Native Irish? Probably to the British they were Irish and to the Irish they were British! On 29/01/2012 08:00, scotch-irish-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Generally a man on a muster list in 1630 would not be Irish. They didn't > >> much like arming Irish because they tended to use the weapon against the > >> British. Just 11 years after 1630 the Irish would rise up, weapons or not, > >> and slaughter almost all the settlers. So they were right to fear. This is > >> not to say that the man hadn't manage to assimilate in British. The upper > >> classes probably did so the fastest because they were granted estates and > >> so had a lot to lose in an uprising.