Lafe, thank you for your clarity. Allow me to point out how this sounds from another perspective: You must place yourself in the 1800's to understand how people felt about the the invaders. The predominate race was still Indian, but we were no longer dominant due to technology and lack of resistance to diseases, and we were being herded off our ancestral lands. Many of us still believe that our primary allegiance is to our own nations first, although we die for the conquerors in record numbers in their military services. I do not mean to be rude. It is all a matter of perspective. When you say "people felt about Indians" the implication is that the only "people" were Euro, and that we were not "people". It is something most folks in the dominant culture do without thinking. They mean no disrespect. Nor did I. I certainly didn't intend to "flame". If I have offended those here who do not welcome my perspective, which comes along with my information, I will shut up. Few places are as rife with racial "attitudes" as the genealogical boards where the majority think of us as marginal beings, not really "people". It is tough to even be here and read and read and not, occasionally, speak up. My mistake. Jan, I will contact you off list after I've had time to look up my references regarding the Nansemond. They are stored away right now. In a message dated 8/2/2004 8:02:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, lanelson@execpc.com writes: > You must place yourself in the 1800's for a reference to how people felt > about Indians. > The predominate race was caucasian and they looked down their noses at other > ethnic groups (which many still do). > It has only been recently that we have considered all ethnic groups to be > AMERICAN. > > Lafe >