Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Sat 21 Jun 2008 10:14:44a, George Shirley told us...
>
>
>>Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat 21 Jun 2008 05:51:43a, Kathleen told us...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri 20 Jun 2008 10:19:51a, Kathleen told us...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, I wouldn't. However, I see no reason why whites would
>>>>>>>necessarily celebrate the end of slavery. We weren't slaves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not *then*. But it's certainly a scourge that might have spread
>>>>>>based on various bogus racial or socio-economic standards.
>>>>>
>>>>>I doubt that would have ever happened in the South where black
>>>>>slavery predominated and there was far more racial distinction than
>>>>>class distinction.
>>>>
>>>>But what happens when racial lines blur? There were slaves whose
>>>>fathers and grandfathers were white.
>>>
>>>For many years I believe there was a law that a certainly very low
>>>percentage of "black" made you totally black. This was true long after
>>>the Emancipation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It was certainly true in New Orleans until well into the Twentieth
>>Century. White and black could not marry, even if the so-called "black"
>>had only 1/64th black blood.
>
>
> Yep, that's the fraction I couldn't remember.
>

I guess the modern day equivalent would be the Cherohonkee - a white
person with a teaspoonful of native american blood going around wearing
buckskin, beads and braids.