How much interbreeding was there between europeans and natives?

[Captain Grimes]

and for the most part was it consensual or did they take the women as right of conquerers? of course in the west indies with slaves this did happen but how about in india? and other places?
also did any slave owners free and then marry their slaves? as was done in roman times?

[Rudovich]

well, I think this is a bit weird to ask on empire forums(just my opinion), but as far as I know slaves were seen as animals, and treated like them so I don't think a slave master would marry his/her slaves and if (s)he did it might've been a shame for the family.

[SMIDSY]

well, I think this is a bit weird to ask on empire forums(just my opinion), but as far as I know slaves were seen as animals, and treated like them so I don't think a slave master would marry his/her slaves and if (s)he did it might've been a shame for the family.

In the Americas, it was EXTREMELY illegal to marry a slave, partly because they were considered property, but more because of their race. At the time, interracial relationships were illegal.

That being said, if the average guy can get sex from some fine native (ref. HMS Bounty), he's gonna do it, and as much and often as possible.

[Mike in Montreal]

A lot!

Basically every French-Canadian has native blood at some degree yet we do not share as many physical traits as some South Americans do.
I've made a little genealogical research of my family and found many ancestors that share typical "generic" names given to natives upon baptism (ex: Marie Donne = Mary Given). It's quite hard to be sure for certain as these names where also given to abandoned children, orphans and such. On top of this, many settlers changed their names or the spelling of their names, or where given completely different names according to physical traits and such (ex: Legrand: "The tall", which could also have been given to natives).

It would however have been encouraged by the authorities. In 1634-35, Champlain, governor of New France, would have told the Algonquins that "our sons will marry your daughters and we will be but one people".

[Megas Methuselah]

The Metis people in North America were the result of such common unions, who became an entirely new ethnic group that today is categorized in Canada as Aboriginal, together with the First Nation and Inuit peoples. The Metis people would have a drastic and lasting effect on the formation and history of Canada, particularly in the late 1800's.

In the Americas, it was EXTREMELY illegal to marry a slave, partly because they were considered property, but more because of their race. At the time, interracial relationships were illegal.

This is largely a lie. If we're talking about black slaves in the USA, though, it has some truth. As for interracial marriages between Europeans and the First Peoples in the Americas, they were certainly not illegal.

[Captain Grimes]

sorry but this is a history forum is it not?

[dmcheatw]

most of the time is was consensual. central and south america there was a lot more interbreeding than in North america, due largely to the fact that the spanish had differnt goals than the English (spanish always had plans to convert the population in the lands they controlled so they created missions and integrated with natives. english settlers tended to displace the natives they encountered to the west as they single mindedly pursued resources and territory). the french, as traders and trappers, did a fair amount of interbreeding as well, to gain accessibility and standing with natives which helped them be successful traders.

slave owners tend to have sex with their slaves but dont bother to marry them, afaik. i'm not sure, but i dont think there were that many native slaves.

[kesa82]

most of the time is was consensual. central and south america there was a lot more interbreeding than in North america, due largely to the fact that the spanish had differnt goals than the English (spanish always had plans to convert the population in the lands they controlled so they created missions and integrated with natives. english settlers tended to displace the natives they encountered to the west as they single mindedly pursued resources and territory). the french, as traders and trappers, did a fair amount of interbreeding as well, to gain accessibility and standing with natives which helped them be successful traders.

slave owners tend to have sex with their slaves but dont bother to marry them, afaik. i'm not sure, but i dont think there were that many native slaves.

This, according to my studies. I'm not sure exactly why, History, not theology, is my field. Generally / typically Catholics did not consider miscegenation sinful or taboo. So in places like Spanish Cuba miscegenation was a commonplace, and after awhile and outsider might be left scratching his head in determining who are the aristocrats and who are the slaves when both visually appear to be mulattoes. It appears There were exceptions here and there. The Catholic Irish hated the Protestant Scotch-Irish though both are racially Celtic.
The French in Algeria and elsewhere in their African colonies commonly seemed to display a strident racism though Catholic. ( ? )
But Protestants, from English Generals in Acadia, to Dutch Colonists in South Africa, viewed miscegenation as sinful and taboo, and were typically inveterate racists.
I've thrown in a lot of caveats , asides, and exceptions, but this seems to have been the general picture. ( ? )

[Ludicus]

This, according to my studies. I'm not sure exactly why, History, not theology, is my field. Generally / typically Catholics did not consider miscegenation sinful or taboo. So in places like Spanish Cuba miscegenation was a commonplace, and after awhile and outsider might be left scratching his head in determining who are the aristocrats and who are the slaves when both visually appear to be mulattoes...

Good post

I'm not sure exactly why

Miscigenation was prevalent in all Portuguese (and Spanish) overseas settlements and was attributable to the chronic imbalance between the males and females.
Talking about religion, many overseas colonialists became less narrow and intolerant than their metropolitan brothers. I would say that sexual and domestic interactions between the colonialists and the natives became an essential part of the expansion.

[kesa82]

Miscigenation was prevalent in all Portuguese (and Spanish) overseas settlements and was attributable to the chronic imbalance between the males and females.
Talking about religion, many overseas colonialists became less narrow and intolerant than their metropolitan brothers. I would say that sexual and domestic interactions between the colonialists and the natives became an essential part of the expansion.

Dare I say this ?

At various times, in various places, it has seemed that women actually generally tend to be a bit more conventionally orthodox in perspective, ethnocentric, unabashedly and matter-of-factly uncompromising and unambiguous in judging others by class, status, race, etc.

For example, typically 51 - 53% of dues-paying members of the NSDAP ( Nazi ) party were .... female.
According to exit polling, the voting strength of the Nazi party in Weimar days was a lower-middle class wife, in her 30's, with two children.

Hollywood habitually represents the impetus behind uncompromising racism, and hidebound bigotry, in male form.

I do not find it to be really so simple as that, that if we castrated all the males or locked them up we would have social harmony , equality, and fraternity, and world peace.

As you suggested, to meet their social, practical ( and sexual ) needs, the conquistadors were obliged to compromise. And so they did. Distinctions like " Master" and "slave " not necessarily withstanding.

But the Puritans brought their wives and other women folk along with them in a body. And was it perhaps in some measure THEY who would not stand for it ?

[Hannover]

Sir Willam Johnson had a native wife named Molly Brant, De Peyster and Caldwell of the 8th Regiment of Foote purpotedly took Iroqouis wives.
Many Tribes of the Americas also took captives many were adopted by tribes nad they married into families. Mary Jemison in Genessee. Many tribes of the Mowhawk valley assimilated into white culture. French and English trappers often took wives in tribes as bargaining chips or protection for deals. ie. Sacagawea.
I read an intresting article about the coraltion between yaws and syphilis and how hypothetically in started as a skin diseases in the new world and came back as a STD due to Europeans who were fully clothed (the Christian thing to be) would only expose two parts of their bodies, hands and gentials.
http://www.archaeology.org/9701/news.../syphilis.html.

[Ludicus]

As you suggested, to meet their social, practical ( and sexual ) needs, the conquistadors were obliged to compromise. And so they did. Distinctions like " Master" and "slave " not necessarily withstanding.

But the Puritans brought their wives and other women folk along with them in a body. And was it perhaps in some measure THEY who would not stand for it ?

Probably.
In 1636, in Macao, there was one white woman. In the Portuguese East or West Africa, a white woman was a rarity.Emigration to Madeira and Azores was predominatly by couples, but for all other destinations, emigration was predominantly male.Altough married woman accompanying their husbands -and even single woman - were on ships to India and Brazil in the 16th century; the number of white woman slightly increased in the 17th century.
In India, Albuquerque, from 1500 to 1515 promoted a policy of mixed marriages, and this communities used the Portuguese language and favored its expansion. Overseas Portuguese found themselves tranplanted in host societies from which they drew their women/domestic values/culture.
In my opinion, the conflicting trends of evangelization and europeanization on the one hand and acculturation of Portuguese into local societies on the other - both trends porsued more strongly by the Portuguese than any other European people (except possibly the French) - led to the blooming of a series of hybrid cultures -from Brasil to Macau, from Cape Vert to Zambezi.
Edit: Marry Christmas!

[masterbaker]

Just watch Pocahontas Grimes, it will tell you everything.

[Ludicus]

South America, Brazil

Intermarriage among different ethnic groups has been part of the country's history, and most Brazilians can trace their origin to European, Amerindian, and African ancestors.

Ethnic groups in Brazil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But legal slave marriage was a fairly unusual aspect of Brazilian slavery- however slave marriages were recognized by the Roman Catholic Church.

and for the most part was it consensual

Yep.

[Jihada]

The British in India often married local women but this became less common in the 19th century
Subordinate posts in the East India Company were not nominated by directors or bonded. From the 18th century, Eurasians and some Indian-born Europeans were recruited for service on the railways, police, public works and the post office. Marriage between male Europeans and Indian or other local women was normal before the 19th century and their descendants had preference in these jobs. Only with the arrival of European women was intermarriage frowned on. The Eurasians then lived in an awkward limbo between the races. Some Anglo-Indians who stayed on also became impoverished.

from
http://www.aigs.org.au/britind.htm

[Dr. Croccer]

Depends on the region and country in question. The Spanish and Portuguese wanted to turn natives in the Americas under their control into little mirror images of themselves, hence why they encouraged active conversion and intermingling with the natives, to the point of enforced marriage and conversion. The French in America were relatively tolerant of the natives, and many of them even ''went native''. The Dutch and English in North America regarded them as pests to be eradicated and/or converted. I don't think there were many cases of inbreeding. This also had a lot to do with the difference in kind of colonists. The Iberians generally had a lot of single, young men who colonized their colonies, and often took native concubines, whilst the majority of Northern Europeans in the Americas were complete families, if not communities of, often deeply religious, people who saw the Americas as their promised land, and ergo the natives as pests. The French were somewhat in between, many of them were lonely pioneers who had no problems with fratrenizing with the natives.

In Asia it was a bit different. The Iberian policy here was largely the same: turn natives into good little Catholics, which led to complications as they enforced their culture on people who didn't want it and fought back. The Dutch and Brits, who were led by trading companies who cared only about efficiency, had an active policy of not annoying the natives. Like with the Iberians in the Americas, the bulk of Northern European immigrants to Asia were single, young men who came them for profit and work. Many of them 'went native'', and took many native women. It wasn't untill quite far into the 19th century, with deeply religious Victorianism rising in the former, which was comparable to the Iberian Catholic conversion zeal, and the Ethical Policy being implemented in the latter that the Dutch and Brits took serious steps to turn their Asian subjects into little versions of themselves.

[british_general]

Well there was rape but thats not counted as interbhreeding

[british_general]

Well there was rape but thats not counted as interbhreeding

Sorry,I mean interbreeding
P.S. interbhreeding sound like a funny word though

[british_general]

there was rape but nothing else