Humm... I'd like to know your source for that bit of information.
This is a subject I know a good bit about... having studied the subject for years and amassing a pretty substantial library on the history of the matter.
I guess it depends on what you are calling America - and when...
- if it's New Orleans (the largest Slave Market in the continental New World), then perhaps it's possible - but would be very difficult to prove - barring some source information I have never come across.
- if it's South America, where the Spanish and Portugese imported slaves by the thousands to work in the 15th and 16th centuries, then it's unlikely. The "owners" would have been Spaniards... and these slaves were imported to work until they dropped. They were never emanicipated. They were considered subhuman.
- if it's in South Carolina... well, again...Charleston was French for a good while, and slavery was hugely popular there during the Hugonot period...so technically this was not "America".
- now getting to Virginia... Jamestown was started in 1607 and the first slaves were brought there about ten years later (give or take)... and it was actually an accident that they came there at all - a French Slave ship (if I recollect correctly) was in distress and needed to offload her human cargo... nevertheless... there were no African American's at Jamestown in the 17th century that were not slaves, and therefore it was not possible for an African American to own a slave. Slavery as an institution in North America, is considered to have begun in Jamestown.
- Splitting hairs a little bit further... "America" or the USA didn't actually exist until 1776 - 1780... and by then slavery was a going concern in every single "state" (former colony.) So there's really no way to say who the "First Slave Owner in America" actually was - becuase there were hundreds of thousands of them created the moment the Constitution was ratified.
This is all probably more information that anyone (but me) really wants to know... but my point in providing it is with purpose.
It's this: When a "white guy" makes an uninformed comment like"the first person in America to own a slave was an African-American?"... that sounds incredibly quippish and it diminishes the subject matter to something that sounds like justification and victim blaming. It's true that there were many continental African's involved in the European Slave Trade (the Atlantic Triangle), and it's true that there was a very small percentage of emencipated blacks who themselves owned slaves (but this number is a fraction of 1% of the enslaved population.)
Just don't make light of it... it's a really sore spot for about 40% of the US population... about 10% of the UK and French populations who are descended from the ranks of this ugly institution... and the people like me who study the subject in depth and realize the gravity of it - and how it continues to shape (grotesquely disfigure) the foundations of the nation I call home.
Well, that's pretty condescending! Perhaps you should realize that more than one person might be learned on the same subject. While it's true that I may have oversimplified by saying "the first slave owner", but then none of us really know, since we were not alive in the 17th century. I suggest you refer to "Did Black People Own Slaves?" by Henry Lewis Gates, Jr. He states that "some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so as early as 1654". In 1654, Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life. While it's true that the Union had not yet been formed in 1654, I did not refer to the United States of America. I referred to America, which is correct, since Virginia was in the American colonies. By the way, in the United States of America, we have something called "Freedom of Speech", so I would appreciate it if you did not try to tell me what I may and may not say! Have a good day.
Yes - perhaps my admonition to "Think" was condescending... and for that I sincerely apolagize.
My point, which I think may have been lost in your sense of defensiveness, was that it's a very touchy subject, for people on ALL side of the issue, and therefore it may be a good idea to not dive into the topic with glibness.
Dr. Gates is a distinguished author and lecturer. I respect his work. I suspect that he would rather take issue with entering into the subject of institutionalized Colonial and early American slavery with the justification that Black people owned slaves. His body of work is considerably deeper than that, as you must well know.
Again, I sincerely apolagize for the condescending content and tone of my previous note. No excuses. All I can say in my defense is that I have spent fifteen years on this subject and the more I study it, the less I understand it - and the more I see in my own generation that makes me think that given the right circumstances, we could descend into a similar madness again. The roots of nationalism and racism are like Kudzoo... they just won't go away.
Please have patience with people like me... We "think" too much.
Not a problem. I too have done some pretty intensive research on the subject trying to understand how and why slavery happened. I don't believe I'll ever completely comprehend it. I only know it's been with us since biblical times and as long as human beings are involved we may never get rid of it completely, or the aftereffects. I do, however, believe that we've come a long-long way. I only hope it continues to improve.
Thank you both for an interesting discussion. A bit animated, but civil, as are most enjoyable debates.
Canada was one terminus of the Underground Railway, but I really don't know much about the issue as a whole. From what I've learned so far, none of my ancestors owned slaves, but if ever it turns out that they did, I hope I can seek you two out for further information.
I wish there were a more compact alternative with less space while printing the family tree.
Just now it's only 84 A3 paper.....
but i felle like it's to much space, like theres room fore pics and so in, but if you don't have full info on the perons, you don't need that space.
also, it would be fine if you had the ability to choose a timeline, so the tree is not entierly build with parents after parents, but the place upwards, if you try to place people in the tre, according to the year they were born... (ok this wil make a lot of space, but would be interesting to see
I am building a family tree which includes all persons with the same surname as mine. So e.g. I have included my father and his mother and father, and then all their children (I.e my fathers brothers and sisters). Up to now I am 8 generations back on fathers line and tree is becoming very hard to move around in due to all siblings included.
I suggest an option where we can "stack" siblings. So in the Stack view I will see my father and then just a flag/icon on his photo representing his siblings. And then on my grandfather, I will only see him and a flag representing his siblings. Of course the same should apply on mothers side of the tree.
A further enhancement could be the ability to selectively turn siblings on and off for a single person.
When doing Smart Matches online, every time you get an accepted Smart Match, you get a verification window, where you accept the match a second time. In the same window there is a small writing area, where you can write a message to the other party, although it is rarely needed. When you decline a Smart match, however, this writing field is lacking. I would need it to explain in a few words why the Match was rejected.
Could you please insert a writing area in the Match declined window, identical to the one in the Match accepted window?
Kudos to the programming team for the Smart Matches process in FTB 7.0. It is now working much better than before, although some parts still contains old, very old bugs.
This already exists. In Smart Matches, if you are going to reject it and want to explain why, just hit the "Compare Trees" tab and scroll down to the bottom of that page. There is a send message box in which you can explain the reasons for rejecting the match. After sending the message, just hit the back arrow and reject the match. Hope this helps.
I know. I just happened across it after months of wishing I could tell someone that we might have a match, but that I couldn't accept it based on the limited info they had, etc. At least MH thought of it too, even if they did kind of hide it from us. Happy hunting!
I second Rolf's suggestion, as well as his kudo's to the dev team.
One thing that I think would also be very helpful in the Smart Match arena is the source information.
When I was new to this research I was not as careful as I should have been about accepting matches. Before I accept them, it would be extremely helpful to know where the info came from (another family site, a book or article, court records, family bible, etc.) Currently there is no good way to determine if the match is highly reliable (as with church or court records, seen first hand) or dubious (copied from another family site, which was copied, which was copied...)which is just propegating a "rumor" all over my family tree!
A number of times when doing Smart Matches, I have received in return the same information that I iniitially researched and developed myself, from my own sources, without any outside help. MyHeritage kindly informs, that now, as both parties have agreed that the information is correct, the information is fully validated. In my mind this is so called circular evidence, which in mathematical terms is not a validation at all. It is just too tempting to accept what is offered to you without really checking the information.
I don't see a straightforward way to enter someone's name in their native language (eg. 习近平) and then be able to enter it again in another language (eg. English: Xi Jinping) for another version of the name that they might commonly and legally use.
You can actually do this using the Family Tree Builder software.
There is a function there that let's you input the names and any other kind of information in different languages. You can do this by first downloading, installing and configuring your family tree builder software to work with your account and then going to Tools > Languages:
Display and Primary Language should be the same (for example English)
And check the box near Secondary Language, where you can pick another language (such as your native language)
After you do this whenever you open the details of a person to edit in the family tree builder software you will have double fields, side-by-side, that you could enter the information on both language databases.
This is currently not supported on the web version.
I would like to have ability in both the family tree builder and website to allow viewing by surname. The names could be collasped based on surnames..that way you only have to view the branch you are interested in...this would prevent you from having to create more trees.
And, related to your question; when I look at (and think of asking to join) a family tree which I think may include people who are related to me, the only way I can look at the surnames is to look at the individual entries under 'Family Tree', 'People'.
Almost impossible to justify the time that takes.
What I would like is a simple summary of the names; surname and number of people with that surname. A two minute look will tell me whether I am likely to find family in the tree.