| Steven Pony Hill | 6:08pm Jan 26 |
Here is a PERFECT example of why NO-ONE should use Paul Heinegg as a source…
“LOCKLEAR FAMILY
Jacob Lockeleer, born say 1636, was a Frenchman who arrived in Virginia without an indenture and was bound to Edward Diggs, Esquire, for four years. He completed his indenture in York County, Virginia, on 24 April 1660 [DWO 4:86, 89]. He may have been the ancestor of the Locklears who were early residents of Lunenburg County, Virginia, and Edgecombe County, North Carolina. They were taxed as mixed-race in Bladen and Granville counties, North Carolina, in the 1760's. In 1895 Mrs. Mary C. Norment in her book, The Lowrie History, claimed that Bettie Locklayer was "a half-breed Tuscarora Indian woman." In the twentieth century they were among those light skinned people in Robeson County who were called "Lumbee Indians." However, it is more likely that they were already a mixture of African, European, and perhaps Native American when they came to North Carolina. Certainly, their white and African American neighbors considered them "free Negroes." William Chavis charged "Thomas Lockery ... Free Negro" with trespass in Granville County court in 1770 [CR 044.928.15].”
[Sample pulled from Heinegg’s website www.freeafricanamericans.com, a favorite source for Eastern band of Cherokee members who testified against the federal recognition of the Lumbee tribe]
While I think it is highly possible that the Locklear actually do descend from the French LaClair family (say “La-Clair” five time fast and you will easily see how it changed to Locklear when recorded by the mainly Scottish and English settlers of mid-Carolinas), Mr. Heinegg does his usual ‘bending’ of facts by inferring connections that cannot be documented (his research is rife with these inferences). First, a clear connection between Jacob Lockeleer of mid-1660’s York, VA (if that’s even how it’s spelled on the actual document…Mr. Heinegg is quite liberal with his name interpretations on source documents) and the Locklears of North Carolina of the mid-1700’s cannot be made, inferred, or even suspected when 100 years of time separate them and no documentation exists connecting them. Second, he assigns “a mixture of African, European, and perhaps Native American” to the Locklear ancestry without providing any evidence whatsoever. Heinegg makes his own agenda quite clear by his choice of language in this simple sentence…right after quoting a 1800’s primary source who clearly identifies the Locklear ancestry as White and Indian, he quickly dismisses any notion of Native, or even a purely White-Native admixture, and even goes so far as to add in an African element without any supporting facts. Finally, Heinegg completes his paragraph by once again taking liberties with spelling to associate “Lockery…Free Negro” with the Locklear family (if indeed it even is spelled Lockery…with Heinegg’s track record it could have been Rockersly, Lockerby, Lodeny, etc).
Mr. Heinegg married an African-American woman, and I suspect, when met with bristling racism from either his white family, or his bride’s African family, he set out on an obsessive agenda to prove that his wife’s family was not 100% African, that White-African intermarriage was commonplace since the founding of America, and that numerous ‘white’ families also had Negro ancestry. Unfortunately this otherwise noble quest has been tainted by Heinegg’s twisted need to prove that EVERYBODY in America is a “mulatto.”
“LOCKLEAR FAMILY
Jacob Lockeleer, born say 1636, was a Frenchman who arrived in Virginia without an indenture and was bound to Edward Diggs, Esquire, for four years. He completed his indenture in York County, Virginia, on 24 April 1660 [DWO 4:86, 89]. He may have been the ancestor of the Locklears who were early residents of Lunenburg County, Virginia, and Edgecombe County, North Carolina. They were taxed as mixed-race in Bladen and Granville counties, North Carolina, in the 1760's. In 1895 Mrs. Mary C. Norment in her book, The Lowrie History, claimed that Bettie Locklayer was "a half-breed Tuscarora Indian woman." In the twentieth century they were among those light skinned people in Robeson County who were called "Lumbee Indians." However, it is more likely that they were already a mixture of African, European, and perhaps Native American when they came to North Carolina. Certainly, their white and African American neighbors considered them "free Negroes." William Chavis charged "Thomas Lockery ... Free Negro" with trespass in Granville County court in 1770 [CR 044.928.15].”
[Sample pulled from Heinegg’s website www.freeafricanamericans.com, a favorite source for Eastern band of Cherokee members who testified against the federal recognition of the Lumbee tribe]
While I think it is highly possible that the Locklear actually do descend from the French LaClair family (say “La-Clair” five time fast and you will easily see how it changed to Locklear when recorded by the mainly Scottish and English settlers of mid-Carolinas), Mr. Heinegg does his usual ‘bending’ of facts by inferring connections that cannot be documented (his research is rife with these inferences). First, a clear connection between Jacob Lockeleer of mid-1660’s York, VA (if that’s even how it’s spelled on the actual document…Mr. Heinegg is quite liberal with his name interpretations on source documents) and the Locklears of North Carolina of the mid-1700’s cannot be made, inferred, or even suspected when 100 years of time separate them and no documentation exists connecting them. Second, he assigns “a mixture of African, European, and perhaps Native American” to the Locklear ancestry without providing any evidence whatsoever. Heinegg makes his own agenda quite clear by his choice of language in this simple sentence…right after quoting a 1800’s primary source who clearly identifies the Locklear ancestry as White and Indian, he quickly dismisses any notion of Native, or even a purely White-Native admixture, and even goes so far as to add in an African element without any supporting facts. Finally, Heinegg completes his paragraph by once again taking liberties with spelling to associate “Lockery…Free Negro” with the Locklear family (if indeed it even is spelled Lockery…with Heinegg’s track record it could have been Rockersly, Lockerby, Lodeny, etc).
Mr. Heinegg married an African-American woman, and I suspect, when met with bristling racism from either his white family, or his bride’s African family, he set out on an obsessive agenda to prove that his wife’s family was not 100% African, that White-African intermarriage was commonplace since the founding of America, and that numerous ‘white’ families also had Negro ancestry. Unfortunately this otherwise noble quest has been tainted by Heinegg’s twisted need to prove that EVERYBODY in America is a “mulatto.”
Take a DNA test and it will prove it for you. My own family which descended from one of these families only wanedt to embrace the Native part of their heritage (they are racists). I tried for years to convince them otherwise. Now the DNA proves it for them. We are white by 'looks' but there are talisman that will always show ethnicity and Native and African ethnicity talisman are different although many try to say they are the same.... but they are NOT. And, again, your DNA doesn't lie.
ReplyDeleteDNA may not lie, but idiots can interpret it the wrong way. No one has answered me when I ask, "Why aren't the FBI and police forensics experts using this great tool to catch criminals?". Why? DNA genetic genealogy is junk science and only good to further agendas.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHeinegg says clearly: "He *may* have been the ancestor of"... The "may" indicates that there is not a proven link, but it is a place to do further research.
ReplyDeleteHeinegg has done a good work. I think his "agenda" is to show more clearly that there were free people of color in colonial times. And for there to have been so many mulattoes listed, guess what, a lot of white people were mixing it up with Indians and black people. It is what it is.
I agree with the author of this article. Paul Heinegg's work is racist against Native Americans and amounts to cultural genocide. His book tries very hard to discredit Native American tribes and communities without evidence. DNA does not determine race in any way shape or form. Unfortunately ignorance of the public and greed from those selling DNA kits = false information. There is no such thing as "native DNA".
ReplyDelete