A few of the prominent mixed blood leaders, such as Greenwood Leflore (who served in the Mississippi legislature), owned a great deal of "property" including slaves.
There were far fewer full blood slaveholders, though this was probably due more to class and money issues rather than race or acculturation (though the point is debatable). Most of the Choctaw slaveholders in Mississippi (the setting of Tingle's book) were mixed blood members of the tribe who had more interaction with white communities (ie, many went to white colleges, intermarried with whites, even lived in white communities). Yes, there were Choctaw slaveholders - there were also groups of Choctaws ideologically and politically opposed to slavery. But, for the sake of brevity, I will make some generalizations here. Even speaking of particular Choctaw factions or divisions is tricky because they changed/change so quickly over the course of history. It is obvious to me that speaking of the Choctaws as a singular political group, while sometimes inevitable, is a fallacy. Debbie is spot on that the Choctaws were/are not "monolithic." I am a Choctaw who has done research on tribal histories, ethnographies, and literary treatments.
However, I think I can offer a few points of clarification. As I'm coming to this conversation rather late, I suspect that it will probably be relegated to the rarely read archives. I tried to post earlier – we’ll see if it works now.
0 kommentar(er)
