Friday, September 30, 2011

Indian Education: From the Colonial Era Through the Nineteenth Century

Indian Education
  Colonial Era Through the Nineteenth Century

Gale Encyclopedia of US History

For generations, Native Americans educated their children through ceremony, story telling, and observation, teaching them about their cultural heritage and a spiritual relationship with the earth and all beings. Then came the suyapo (the Yakama word for "white man"), whose education centered on one God, the written word, and a materialistic relationship with the earth. Colonial, and later U.S, educators thrust these values upon Indian children, but Native families also participated in schooling decisions. From the sixteenth through the early twentieth centuries, parents and communities sent selected youth to school to learn about the other culture, thereby empowering them as cultural intermediaries to serve their nations.

Each of the European colonial powers offered some form of education to Native people. The Spanish Franciscans in the Southwest and the French Jesuit missions in the Great Lakes region promoted basic literacy. In the British colonies Roman Catholic and Protestant religious leaders introduced a more ambitious program of European education to children of Eastern Woodlands nations. From the awkward efforts of early tidewater Virginia to the sophisticated fund-raising network of Eleazar Wheelock, a Congregational minister who founded a coeducational boarding school in eighteenth-century Connecticut, colonial schoolmasters influenced hundreds of Native children.

The reputation of colonial educators overshadows that of Native schoolmasters of this era. Among the Iroquois and southern New England Algonquins, many Indian students emerged as teachers within their own communities or among neighboring tribes. As educational intermediaries, these Indian schoolmasters reinforced cross-cultural awareness. Echoing their ancestors, who traded extensively with other Native groups, they interpreted Euro-American culture to their people.

Foremost among these Native educators, Samson Occom, a Mohegan Presbyterian minister, served Native groups of New England and New York. In the 1760s, Occom earned an international reputation when he preached in England, Wales, and Scotland, while raising thousands of pounds for Wheelock's school and his new venture, Dartmouth College. Purportedly founded for Indian students, Dartmouth catered largely to European Americans. Like its predecessors, Harvard and Princeton, Dartmouth graduated a handful of Indians who had survived disease and the foreign environment of the institution. Two centuries later, Dartmouth retrieved its legacy by reviving its Indian enrollment. In the colonial era, the College of William and Mary enrolled the greatest number of Indians, but their studies were limited to literacy and rudimentary arithmetic.

During the nineteenth century, thousands of Native people endured the traumas of warfare, disease, and removal. Nonetheless, small groups, both Indian and European American, remained committed to the education introduced by the outsiders. In the young Republic, the Christian denominations reached an agreement with Congress that was formalized in 1819 in the Indian Civilization Fund Act. In effect from 1819 to 1873, this measure promised an Indian education partnership between the federal government and "benevolent societies" (church related groups), ironically violating the constitutional mandate for se paration of church and state.

Although the Civilization Act stipulated a federal contribution of $10,000 per annum, in reality the federal portion remained below 10 percent. While the denominational groups raised additional funds, the Indian nations absorbed the greatest expense for their children's schooling because tribal leaders appropriated funds designated by educational provisions in their treaties. More than one-fourth of the almost four hundred treaties negotiated between Indian nations and the United States contained federal promises of education.

Most of the early Indian schools opened in the Southeast, serving the Cherokees, Choctaws, Creeks, and Chickasaws. Initiated by the founding of Brainerd School among the Cherokees (1817) and the Choctaw Academy (1825), these schools reflected the willingness of portions of the southern Indian nations to welcome certain Protestant denominations who sought to open missions and schools within the nations' lands. These short-lived experiments were interrupted by the removal of eastern Indian nations to Indian Territory in the 1830s.

Following the wrenching removals, the relocated Indian nations established national school systems in their new lands in Indian Territory. The schools and seminaries of the five southern tribes (including the Seminoles) exemplified educational self-determination in Indian Territory until 1907, when the federal government unilaterally closed them as it created the state of Oklahoma.

In 1879, Richard Henry Pratt opened the Indian Industrial Training School in an abandoned army barracks in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. This event marked the beginning of federal Indian schooling. Pratt was a public-relations wizard who persuaded private donors and federal agencies to acknowledge Carlisle as the premier off-reservation Indian boarding school. Pratt believed in the potential of Indian youth to emulate their European American counterparts through what he dubbed "total immersion" education. During his twenty-five-year tenure at Carlisle, he supervised over five thousand Indian students from numerous tribes.

Pratt also crafted widely adopted boarding school patterns, including half-day vocational training, half-day academic curriculum, uniforms and military discipline, mandatory church attendance, and the "outing system," whereby students lived among farming families in nearby communities. Pratt's ideas were the blueprint for other off-reservation boarding schools like Phoenix (Arizona), Chemawa (Oregon), and Chilocco (Oklahoma).

The Twentieth Century

The early twentieth century saw the dramatic rise of Indian enrollment in public schools, but popular perception focused on the notorious schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). During the 1920s, reformers lambasted the federal boarding schools for their severe discipline, overcrowding and widespread disease, meager diet, and zealous assimilation tactics that demanded uniformity of language (English only) and appearance. Less well known is the fact that Indian students also molded these institutions. Developing initiatives that escaped contemporary observers, students, who came from many tribal backgrounds, used English as a lingua franca to form pan-Indian alliances and other secret networks that eluded the authorities and persisted well into their post schooling lives.

In the wake of growing criticism, Congress authorized an extensive study of federal Indian policy. The Meriam Report, published in 1928, confirmed that the government's critics had been correct. As a consequence, the educational reformers W. Carson Ryan and Willard W. Beatty, successive directors of BIA education (1930–1952), broadened the curriculum of BIA schools to include Native cultures. During the Indian New Deal, the commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier (1933–1945) depended on a remarkable group of Indian leaders, including the Winnebago educator Henry Roe Cloud and BIA troubleshooters Ruth Muskrat Bronson (Cherokee) and D'Arcy McNickle (Metis/Flathead). But innovative changes were eclipsed by World War II, and bilingual texts, inclusion of Native art in schools, and summer institutes for BIA teachers quickly lost ground. By 1945 the postwar mood that spawned federal programs known as "termination" (of federal services to tribes) and "relocation" (of Indians to urban areas) persuaded Beatty to re-focus BIA school curriculum on education for urban life.

In the 1950s, however, the lack of schooling for thousands of Indians motivated the Navajo Nation, with 14,000 youth in this category, to challenge the BIA to address this need. Special programs, transfer to distant boarding schools, federal Indian-school construction, and further public schooling aided Navajo, Alaska Native, and Choctaw youth, and brought national Indian-school enrollment to over 90 percent by the mid-1960s.

By the 1970s, Indian leaders, tested on the battle-fields of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, and in the fight against termination, were addressing issues of self-determination in Indian education. Galvanized by the Red Power insurgency of that decade, Native people stood ready to assume the direction of their children's education. Following the Kennedy Report (1969), a stinging congressional indictment of Indian education, Indian leaders worked with empathetic members of Congress to craft legislation that would enable Native Americans to shape the educational programs in their communities. During this path breaking decade, Congress enacted more legislation on Indian education than at any other moment in its history. Keynote measures began with the Indian Education Act (1972), which belatedly addressed the needs of Indians in public school—the vast majority of Indian children—by opening the Office of Indian Education within the U.S. Office (now Department) of Education. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (1975) provided the foundation for contracting. It enabled tribes and other Indian groups to contract with the federal government to provide specific services to tribal members, including health care and education. Directly after its passage, the All Indian Pueblo Council contracted to supervise the Santa Fe Indian School, the first of numerous such contracts.

Capping this legislative marathon, Congress also passed the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act (1978), which provided funding for tribal colleges. Over thirty colleges were opened, beginning in 1969 with Navajo Community College (later Dine College), and including Haskell Indian Nations University in Lawrence, Kansas, and the Institute of American Indian Arts in Santa Fe. They have earned a significant place in American and Canadian Indian education and provide an alternative for the growing numbers of Indians earning undergraduate and graduate degrees at mainstream colleges and universities.

Although the administration of President Ronald Reagan attempted to modify these measures, the 1990s returned to a policy that celebrated the Indian voice. Native leadership directed the decade's national studies of Indian education, and Native communities—from grass-roots groups to organizations like the National Indian Education Association—crafted a blueprint for Indian education in the twenty-first century, coordinating their efforts with Bill Clinton's administration. The executive order "American Indian and Alaska Native Education," issued on 6 August 1998, reflected the tone of cooperation between Natives and the federal government. It opened with a frank, though often ignored, acknowledgment: "The Federal Government has a special, historic responsibility for the education of American Indian and Alaska Native students." As the new millennium opened, this promise emerged as a new reality, one that suggested strong Native leadership in Indian education.


Adams, David Wallace. Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875–1928. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995.

Child, Brenda J. Boarding School Seasons: American Indian Families, 1900–1940. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998.

Coleman, Michael C. American Indian Children at School, 1850–1930. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1993.

Szasz, Margaret Connell. Indian Education in the American Colonies, 1607–1783. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1988.

———. "Education." In Encyclopedia of North American Indians. Edited by Frederick E. Hoxie. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1996.

———. Education and the American Indian: The Road to Self– Determination since 1928. 3d ed. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1999.

Read more:

Alan Simpson: Senior Citizens “Greediest Generation”

Alan Simpson, Senator from Wyoming ,
Co-Chair of  Deficit Commission
Says Senior Citizens

“Greediest Generation”

Social Security
 “Milk Cow with 310 million teats”.
August, 2010.


"Hey Alan, let's get a few things straight..

1. As a career politician, you have been on the public tit for FIFTY

2.. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15
years old. I am now 63).

3 My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other
Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for
decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give
OUR money to a bunch of zero ambition losers in return for votes, thus
bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme
that would have made Bernie Madoff proud.

4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and your ilk pulled the
Proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing
Retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to
age 67. NOW, you and your shill commission are proposing to move the
goal posts

5 I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare
from Day One, and now you morons propose to change the rules of the
game.. Why? Because you idiots mismanaged other parts of the economy
to such an extent that you need to steal money from Medicare to pay
the bills.

6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our
entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again.
Because you incompetent S.O.B’s spent our money so profligately that
you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come
to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.

To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit" on
your incompetence. Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for

1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during
your pathetic 50-year political career?

2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and
how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the
American taxpayers?

3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?

4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you
proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or, as usual,
have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?

It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators called
Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow nutcases
who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from
millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers.
And for what?

 That's right,
  You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of
advancing your pathetic political careers. You know it, we know it, and
you know that we know it.

And you can take that to the bank, you miserable excuse for a human being.
If you agree with what this fellow citizen says,


Alexandria Baptist Church, Baptism and Chicken Dinners

By Elizabeth Morrow Cooley
Written in 1946
This condensed history is reprinted here with the permission of the director of the Family History Center in Norwood, Ohio, Alma Ryan. It is intended for the free use of researchers and not to be sold.
Among the early settlers of the region where Alexandria now stands were the Spilmans, who came from Fairfax and King George Counties in Virginia via the Ohio River; the Morins from Culpepper County, Virginia who came down the Ohio landing at Limestone (Maysville) in the fall of 1790; the Bakers of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania; the Reileys of Cecil County, Maryland and Washington County Pennsylvania; the Whites of Orange County, Virginia; the Thatchers; the Shaws from Virginia and the Bealls. Heads of these pioneer families were Frank and James Spilman, Conyers and Jacob White, Benjamin Beall, Daniel Thatcher, Edward Morin, John Reiley, John Baker, and John, James, David, and Robert Shaw.
Frank Spilman is said to have given this settlement the name of Alexandria as early as 1793 having come with his family from Alexandria, Virginia. The first written record found referring to the town, is in the old records of the Alexandria Baptist Church bearing the date of 1820. In 1828 Frank Spilman left in his will "twelve acres to be reserved as a site for the town of Alexandria". On February 22, 1834 the State Legislature incorporated the town of Alexandria.
The first log cabin built by Frank Spilman stood in front of the old cemetery adjacent to the First Baptist Church on the Alexandria Pike in the heart of town. Another log cabin built by members of the Spilman family was on the old state road about a half mile west of the town. This old home last owned by members of the family of Marshall Keiser and is wife Mary Spilman, was destroyed by fire about 1940.
The old Christian Church, brick in structure, stood on the lot next door to the present Evangelical and Reformed Church on West Main Street. The old Lutheran Church, on property given by Benjamin D Beall, stood at the southeast end of Jefferson Street. The Methodist Episcopal Church North was erected in 1867 on Alexandria Pike on property that had belonged to the Spilman and White families. It was razed in 1935. The Griffey Hotel with its long veranda facing across the valley, stood on West Main Street west of Jefferson. It was a very popular place in the early days of Alexandria as the county seat. It was run by William Griffey and his wife, Dorinda Brown. On court days a crowd would assemble there to feast on the wonderful home cooking of Dorinda Griffey whose "cornbread was better than cake".
The oldest place still standing near the heart of the town, is the old log cabin built by Daniel Thatcher. It is now covered with clapboards and is opposite the Campbell County High School. It was owned by members of his family until 1934 when William Thatcher died. Later Daniel built another log cabin across the road from his first one and slightly to the north. At this farm which he called "High View Farm", he had a distillery, the mash of which he fed to his cattle and pigs. Here Daniel lived until his death in 1813. He gave his first cabin to his son, Daniel Allen Thatcher and his wife, Eliza Reiley. Today this farm, part of the original purchased by Daniel in 1806, is owned by Jack Thatcher.
In the early days of the life of town there were three churches; the Baptist, the Methodist, and the Christian. On April 17, 1820, a number of persons met at the home of William DeCoursey to form a Baptist Church. The first minister was Rev. Absalom Graves. The first Methodist Church was built of logs and on William Reiley’s property. The minister of the Christian Church challenged the minister of the Methodist Church to a debate on the correct method of baptism. The debate went on for three weeks and proved to be a draw. During this time, however, all the chickens and turkeys in the county were eaten, so they finally decided to go home and each baptize in his own way.
The second oldest road established in Kentucky was the Old State Road from Newport to Winchester through Alexandria, Falmouth, Cynthiana, and Paris. It was established by an act of the Legislature in 1836. In 1846 commissioners for this road were named; Henry E Spilman, William Griffey, Benjamin D Beall, Fred Brown, and John Thomas. It was over this Old State Road to Lexington that the stagecoaches made their colorful and adventuresome trips for years. Toll gates were setup on the Alexandria Pike, the Licking Pike, and Persimmon Grove Pike. The last of these closed down in 1922.
The first courts met at Wilmington, on the Licking, 22 miles from Newport, but in 1827 a law was passed fixing it at Visalia. In 1840 it was moved to Newport as it was the center of the county. That same year Kenton County was formed out of part of Campbell County, and the "center" idea prevailed and Alexandria became the county seat. The construction of the county courthouse began in 1840, made out of red brick which was burned at the brick kiln owned by the Spilman family. The Rev. James Jolly, minister of the Alexandria Baptist Church is said to have done most of the work himself, having been a mason and brick layer by trade. The first term of the County Court was held in the old brick Baptist Church starting Monday, May 25, 1840. The first court held in the courthouse was on December 26, 1842. On November 14, 1845, the heirs of Frank and Rebecca Spilman deeded the courthouse property to the town of Alexandria.
The Alexandria Fair is an old institution. The Agricultural Society of Campbell County was organized in 1856 for the benefit of the farmer. Once a year the farmer was able to display his stock and farm produce at the Fair. Many sales and exchanges were made, premiums were given for the best animals, and all handiwork made by the housewives. From the Fair, the band went to the homes of some of the officials of the Fair and serenaded them. Luncheon parties and dances were held. The first Alexandria Fair was held at the fair grounds October 14, 15, 16, and 17, 1856. Among the first officers of the Agricultural Society were, George W Reiley, Richard Tarvin Baker, Edward Morin, Alexander Caldwell, Edward Spilman, James Shaw, Charles Muran, and H K Rachfo

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Robert K. Thomas Letter: On Saponi Collins Family

On Saponi Collins Family

Robert K. Thomas Letter
By: Scott Preston Collins ·

This is a site that is dedicated to Robert K. Thomas since he died in 1991, and they graciously have collected his writings offering them to the public to read for free. They are a must read to be sure.
Letter from Robert K. : On Collins Being Saponi
This is from a letter received from Frankie Blackburn,
Co-researcher with Brenda Collins Dillon

"For more than two centuries, the Sappony have made their home in the High Plains, an area of the central Piedmont straddling the North Carolina–Virginia border. They represent a band of Sappony who remained in this area between Mayo and Blewing Creeks and the Hyco River when a large band of the tribe moved north and joined the Iroquois in 1753." NC Museum of History

April 13, 1999
Dear Cousin
It was great to hear from you. I received your letter and pedigree
chart on Saturday and another letter today. I too, was disappointed that the
editors of the Appalachian Quarterly did not include my address with the
article. I am sure I would have heard from more people, since they did inform me
that all copies were sold out! Who is the “Paul” you speak of? Is he in Indianapolis? I have corresponded with a Paul Collins of Indianapolis. He said the lady on the front of the Appalachian Quarterly was his grandmother. He is also a descendant of Griffin Collins Sr.

I am convinced that Griffin Collins and David Collins are very closely related. In Lewis Collins’ pension application, he said that he “went to his fathers house in
Montgomery County, VA in the 1780’s“. Some of the Collins living there at
that time were John, John Jr., and David. I was convinced that David was
Griffin’s father, but now I am not sure, as it may be Lewis. Lewis and Griffin
are always found living in Close proximity to each other. I do believe that
David and Lewis are brothers and sons of John. I am also convinced that this
Collins family is of the Saponi Tribe. There is just too much evidence to ignore.

 I am in contact with a professor at Vanderbilt University. He is writing an article for the Appalachian Journal, which is published in Boone, N.C. He says that he will prove that our Collins men are remnants of the Saponi. He also says he will
rebuke Dr. Kennedy’s theory on the Melungeons. He asked to use a picture of my
grandfather (Collins) and my great grandfather (Bowling) in his article, and I
obliged. He is not sure if they will use the photos, but it will be interesting
reading for sure! I can’t wait to read it. I will send you a copy as soon as I
get one myself. At the end of this letter, I have copied a transcribed letter,
It was submitted by a Ms. Kerri Conley  that was written in 1980. This proves that folks have been musing over the “Saponi Connection” for some time now. We need to try and get in contact with Kerri Conley to find out if there is an original with Robert K. Thomas' signature.

Yes, I know what you mean about some of the Collins researchers. There is one who will only research David Collins, and will not give out one word of information on any other Collins he has run across in his research. I am all for sharing and searching together. I believe if enough of us put our heads and information together, we can solve this great “mystery” surrounding our family. I also joined (and have since left) the Melungeon e-mail List. It is a forum for people who are researching the Melungeons to share ideas and family information. It is supposed to be used to research the origin of the Melungeons, but some of the folks are just too radical and end up in a big fuss. I just gave up on it and continue to do my own research, with the help of others. I would someday like to write a book on our family, but right now, work and family will not permit such an undertaking.Here is the letter written to a lady in *****, VA in 1980, submitted by Keri Conley:

12, 1980
Dear Mrs.******
I am writing to you to thank you and your husband for your kindness to me when I was in Coeburn last month. I am now finished with my survey of the Indian groups in the southern Appalachian area and am back in Michigan. Since you seemed interested in the history of the Collins family in your area, I will pass along to you what I know of their

As far as I can determine, all the Collins of Northeastern Tennessee, Southeastern Virginia, and Eastern Kentucky are descendants of one household of Collins who resided in Orange County, N.C. in 1760: a family of Saponi Indians. I know that it must be “mind-boggling” to imagine that the thousands of Collinses in your area are all descended from just one household, but such is the case. Further, this is not so amazing as it sounds.

 It is common among pre-Revolutionary American families. For instance, all the Carters in the South are descended from three brothers who came to Virginia in the late

Let me start at the beginning , with the Saponi Indians.

 The Saponi were an advanced tribe who originally lived on the Roanoke River about where it crosses over into North Carolina from Virginia. In the late 1660’s, they moved
further west to the area of modern Clarksville, VA. Here they allied with the
neighboring Tutelo and Occanuki Indians. All of these tribes spoke similar
languages, a variety of language akin to modern Sioux of the Dakotas. In the
1670’s, they got into a war with Virginia whites, the so-called Bacon Rebellion,
and moved west to the Yadkin Valley around modern Winston Salem. In the early
1700’s, the Saponi started migrating east, returning to their original homeland.

In 1714 Governor Spotswood of Virginia established Ft. Christanna
near modern Lawrenceville,VA and convinced the Saponi, Occanuki, and Tutelo to settle there. In about 1722, the Tutelo left and joined the Iroquois in New York and during the Revolution, fled to Canada where they now live on the Six
Nations Reserve near Brantford, Ontario. The Occanuki were absorbed by the
Saponi in this period. About 1728, the Saponi became involved in a war with
the Tuscarora and Nottowa Indians who lived further east. They fled from Ft.
Christanna, and went to live with the Catawba in South Carolina.

In the early 1740’s, the Saponi left the Catawba country and started north. By 1740, Collins and Bowling (Scien, Bolling, etc.) were common family names among the Saponi. One band of Saponi headed north to the Iroquois area and were adopted by the Cayuga and Seneca. There are descendants of the Saponi now on the Caltaraugus’s reservation near Buffalo; some of them named Collins. [We need to find these Collins among the reserve.] Another band of Saponi stopped in North Carolina and settled on the plantation of Colonel William Eaton, near what is nowHenderson, N.C. The Saponi had fought with Eaton in the wars with the Ohio Valley tribes. Eaton’s plantation was on the frontier and the Saponi were, no doubt, his protectors.

Around 1750, several tribes further east --- the Nansemond, Yeopin, and Poroskite --- lost their lands and began to fragment into individual family groups. These Indian families began to migrate to the frontier and settle near the Saponi. In 1760, Eaton died and the frontier had moved on. The Saponi lost their land base then and also began to fragment into individual families, and move west. In 1760’s, I can pick up the Collins in Orange County, on the frontier, west of Hendersonville, N.C. By 1790, many of these Indian families, including the Collinses, had “bunched up” in the counties of extreme northeastern North Carolina. Then in the 1790’s, they spread all over Northeastern Tennessee, Southwestern Virginia, and over into what is now Letcher and Knott Counties, Kentucky. Many of them , like the Bollings of Wise County, became prominent families in their areas.

Then, in the 1830’s, Virginia became one of the more consciously racist and deliberately elitist states in the Union. First,  most poor whites were disenfranchised by a property value requirement; most Virginians west of the Blue Ridge, as well as the poor further east, could not legally vote in Virginia. Further, a new legal category included citizen Indians, free blacks, and all non-whites. These “free colored” could not vote, bear arms, travel freely, etc. In southwest Virginia and neighboring parts of Tennessee, the more established Indian families “weathered the storm”.

The Bollings in Wise County, redefined their status as being descendants of
Pocahontas and John Rolfe, thus escaping the free colored category. Other
families who were less wealthy, darker, and concentrated in one area, got caught
in the free colored category; and, thus the Melungeons of southern Wise County
came into existence.

By 1840, the situation became intolerable for some Indians in Southwest Virginia, and they began to head for Kentucky, a less repressive social and legal atmosphere. In the 1840’s, three Collins families moved into Kentucky, into Letcher County. In the 1850’s, two Collins families moved to Johnson County, just south of Paintsville (Grandpap William Collins and brother). {Frankie’s note here: This is where my 2nd great grandparents Griffin and Rachael Collins went also, and were listed as Mulatto on Johnson County census records} These Collinses were very Indian looking and dark. They must have been almost full-blood Indians.

In Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina, Indians were just another variety of “n----r” in the 1850’s, but Kentucky was much more liberal, at least in regards to Indians.
By World War I, the situation had changed. Being Indian had almost a romantic prestige about it, and many families like the Collinses in Kentucky, had become successful mainstream citizens. It was at this piont that the Melungeons began to be seen as possibly being part black, in order to explain their low rank and exclusion.

Of course, the Collinses did not stop in Johnson County. The lower Big Sandy drainage and Southern Ohio is full of Collinses who migrated to those areas from further south in Kentucky and Virginia after the Civil War. [Where are all these Collins?]

Not all the Collinses headed west in 1760 after Colonel Eaton died. Some few went south to what is now Robeson County, North Carolina, and became part of the modern Lumbee Indians in that region. The history of the Collins family is both remarkable and fascinating. They are almost an “ethnic group” all by themselves. There are Seneca Cayuga Collinses in New York [Again we need to find these Collins families], White and Melungeon Collinses in east Tennessee and Southeast Virginia, part-Indian Collinses all down the Big Sandy and into Southern Ohio, Lumbee Indian Collinses in North Carolina --- all, at least distantly, related and all descended from two or three households of Saponi Indians in 1740.

 Someone should write a novel about your family; at least, you should rent a stadium and have a family reunion. What an “outfit”! I hope this brief sketch of the Collins family history repays you for your kindness to me, some small measure.

Robert K.Thomas
1980, submitted by Keri Conley:
12, 1980

Network Analysis Reveals ‘Super Entity’ of Global Corporate Control

In the first such analysis ever conducted, Swiss economic researchers have conducted a global network analysis of the most powerful transnational corporations (TNCs). Their results have revealed a core of 787 firms with control of 80% of this network, and a “super entity” comprised of 147 corporations that have a controlling interest in 40% of the network’s TNCs.
global netweook analysis of corporate control, strongly connected core
Strongly Connected Component (SCC); layout of the SCC (1318 nodes and 12,191 links). Node size scales logarithmically with operation revenue, node color with network control (from yellow to red). Link color scales with weight.
[Note to the reader: see the very end of this article for a ranking of the top 50 'control holders']
When we hear conspiracy theorist talk about this or that powerful group (or alliance of said groups) “pulling strings” behind the scenes, we tend to dismiss or minimize such claims, even though, deep down, we may suspect that there’s some degree of truth to it, however distorted by the theorists’ slightly paranoid perception of the world. But perhaps our tendency to dismiss such claims as exaggerations (at best) comes from our inability to get even a slight grip on the complexity of global corporate ownership; it’s all too vast and complicated to get any clear sense of the reality.
But now we have the results of a global network analysis (Vitali, Glattfelder, Battiston) that, for the first time, lays bare the “architecture” of the global ownership network. In the paper abstract, the authors state:
“We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure* and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic “super-entity” that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers.” [emphasis added]
* This “bow tie” structure is similar to the structure of the WWW (analyzing for most influential/most trafficked websites); see diagram below.
bow tie structure of global corporate control
A bow-tie consists of in-section (IN), out-section (OUT), strongly connected component or core (SCC), and tubes and tendrils (T&T).
Data from previous studies neither fully supported nor completely disproved the idea that a small handful of powerful corporations dominate much or most of the world’s commerce. The researchers acknowledge previous attempts to analyze such networks, but note that these were limited in scope to national networks which “neglected the structure of control at a global level.”
What was needed, assert the researchers, was a complex network analysis.
“A quantitative investigation is not a trivial task because firms may exert control over other firms via a web of direct and indirect ownership relations which extends over many countries. Therefore, a complex network analysis is needed in order to uncover the structure of control and its implications. “
To start their analysis, the researchers began with a list of 43,060 TNCs which were taken from a sample of 30 million “economic actors” contained in the Orbis 2007 database [see end note]. TNCs were identified according to the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) definition of a transnational corporation [see end note]. They next applied a recursive search algorithm which singled out the “network of all the ownership pathways originating from and pointing to these TNCs.”
The resulting TNC network includes 600,508 nodes and 1,006,987 ownership ties.
Bow-tie structure of the largest connected component (LCC)
Bow-tie structure of the largest connected component (LCC) and other connected components (OCC). Each section volume scales logarithmically with the share of its TNCs operating revenue. In parenthesis, percentage of operating revenue and number of TNCs
In terms of the connectivity of the network, the researchers found that it consists of many small connected components, but the largest one (encompassing 3/4 of all nodes) “contains all the top TNCs by economic value, accounting for 94.2% of the total TNC operating revenue.”
Two generalized characteristics were identified:
1] A strongly connected component (SCC), that is, a set of firms in which every member owns directly and/or indirectly shares in every other member. The emergence of such a structure can be explained as a means of preventing take-overs, reducing transaction costs, risk sharing and increasing trust between “groups of interest.”
2] The largest connect[ed] component contains only one dominant, strongly connected component (comprised of 1347 nodes). This network, like the WWW, has a bow tie structure. What’s more, they found that this component, or core, is also very densely connected; on average, members of this core have ties to 20 other members. “Top actors” occupy the center of the bow tie. In fact, a randomly chosen TNC in the core has about 50% chance of also being among the top holders, as compared to, for example, 6% for the in-section. [emphasis added]
“As a result, about 3/4 of the ownership of firms in the core remains in the hands of firms of the core itself. In other words, this is a tightly-knit group of corporations that cumulatively hold the majority share of each other.”
In examining the details of this core, the analysis also showed that only 737 top holders accumulate 80% of the control over the value of all TNCs (in the analyzed network). Further,
“…despite its small size, the core holds collectively a large fraction of the total network control. In detail, nearly 4/10 of the control over the economic value of TNCs in the world is held, via a complicated web of ownership relations, by a group of 147 TNCs in the core, which has almost full control over itself. The top holders within the core can thus be thought of as an economic “super-entity” in the global network of corporations.” [emphasis added]
Concerning the implications of this super entity, the researchers asked two fundamental questions: First, what are the implications for market competition, and, second, what are the implications for economic stability?
Regarding the first question, the authors  assert that no matter the origin of the SCC, due to its high degree of TNC network control, “it weakens market competition”.
It is clear just from the history of anti-trust laws in this country (the U.S.) that concentrated ownership stifles free market competition and innovation, reduces over-all employment, and leads to excessive pricing.
some major TNCs in the financial sector.(source: Orbis 2007)
Zoom on some major TNCs in the financial sector. Some cycles are highlighted. Note: data for this analysis comes from the 2007 Orbis database -- prior to the 2008 financial crisis, thus, firms such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros. are included.
In regards to the second question, the researchers note that “the existence of such a core in the global market was never documented before and thus, so far, no scientific study demonstrates or excludes that this international ‘super-entity’ has ever acted as a bloc.
However, there is historical data — such as within the airline, auto and steel industries — supporting this possibility.
“…top holders are at least in the position to exert considerable control, either formally (e.g., voting in shareholder and board meetings) or via informal negotiations.”
Additionally, recent studies (Stiglitz J.E., 2010, Battiston S. et al, 2009) have shown that densely connected financial networks are highly susceptible to systemic risk. Despite the fact that such networks may seem robust in good economic times, in times of crisis however, member firms tend to enter ‘distress mode’ simultaneously. This was seen recently in the 2008 (“near”) financial collapse (note: 3/4 of the network core in this analysis are financial intermediaries).
Calling their findings “remarkable”, they suggest that because “international data sets as well as methods to handle large networks became available only very recently, [this] may explain how this finding could go unnoticed for so long.”
While the researchers acknowledge that verifying whether the implications of their findings “hold true for the global economy” is beyond the scope of their current research, they assert that their unprecedented attempt to uncover the structure of corporate control is “a necessary precondition for future investigations.”
The paper, The network of global corporate control (Vitali, Glattfelder, Battiston) was published July 26, 2011, on
End Notes:
The Orbis 2007 marketing database comprises about 37 million economic actors, both physical persons and firms located in 194 countries, and roughly 13 million directed and weighted ownership links (equity relations).  This data set is intended to track control relationships rather than patrimonial relationships. Whenever available, the percentage of ownership refers to shares associated with voting rights. Accordingly, we select those companies which hold at least 10% of shares in companies located in more than one country. Overall we obtain a list of 43,060 TNCs located in 116 different countries, with 5675 TNCs quoted in stock markets.
The definition of TNCs given by the OECD states that they “…comprise companies and other entities established in more than one country and so linked that they may coordinate their operations in various ways…”
Diagrams: (source) The network of global corporate control (Vitali, Glattfelder, Battiston) 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Top 50 Control-Holders Ranking:
{source: the following is quoted directly from the research paper]
This is the first time a ranking of economic actors by global control is presented. Notice that many actors belong to the financial sector (NACE codes starting with 65,66,67) and many of the names are well-known global players.
The interest of this ranking is not that it exposes unsuspected powerful players. Instead, it shows that many of the top actors belong to the core. This means that they do not carry out their business in isolation but, on the contrary, they are tied together in an extremely entangled web of control. This finding is extremely important since there was no prior economic theory or empirical evidence regarding whether and how top players are connected.
Shareholders are ranked by network control (according to the threshold model, TM). Columns indicate country, NACE industrial sector code, actor’s position in the bow-tie sections, cumulative network control. Notice that NACE codes starting with 65,66, or 67 belong to the financial sector.
Rank , Economic actor name, Country, NACE code, Network Cumul. Network position, control (TM, %)
1 BARCLAYS PLC  GB 6512  SCC 4.05
3 FMR CORP  US  6713  IN  8.94
4 AXA  FR  6712  SCC  11.21
6 JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. US 6512 SCC 14.55
9 UBS AG  CH 6512  SCC 18.46
10 MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. US 6712  SCC 19.45
12 DEUTSCHE BANK AG DE 6512  SCC 21.17
17 NATIXIS   FR 6512 SCC 24.98
20 LEGG MASON, INC. US 6712 SCC 26.92
27 INVESCOPLCGB 6523 SCC 30.82
28 ALLIANZSE DE 7415 SCC 31.32
29 TIAA US 6601 IN 32.24
31 AVIVAPLC GB 6601 SCC 33.14
33 DODGE & COX US 7415 IN 34.00
37 CNCE FR 6512 SCC 35.57
41 INGGROEP N.V.  NL 6603  SCC 36.96
46 BNPPARIBAS  FR 6512 SCC 38.56
48 RESONA HOLDINGS, INC.  JP 6512  SCC 39.18

Repost this article
WP Greet Box icon
Hello there Facebook friend! If you like this article, please help spread the word by sharing this post with your friends.
Related posts:
  1. First Global ‘Camera Trap’ Study Reveals Threatened Mammal Species’ Lives, Damaged Habitats
  2. World’s Biodiversity Loss Not Slowing, Major Analysis Finds [Video]
  3. Social Network Data Predicts Disease Outbreaks [VIDEO]


95 Responses

Your Reply

  1. Edward Kerr1 day ago
    Please accept my apologies. I simply wanted to report the issue of fed snooping on those who would denigrate the bank. I see that you have truncated to article nicely and highlighted the only point that wanted to convey. You assessment of the overall article is about the same as mine. Like you I have little sympathy for the Lib/Paul issues and positions. I am a strong proponent of more regulation of the markets and I certainly am an ENVIRONMENTALIST to the core.
    So, thank you for having my back and also the keen perception to have identified the point that I wanted to make.
    With best personal regards,
  2. HI Folks
    Here’s a rather intriguing video clip from the BBC (some thought it was a hoax by one of the Yes Men).
    It’s a bit shocking in its honesty (re: who rules the world?):
    He doesn’t really offer much new advice, but he may be helping to trigger a run on the stock market in Europe.