--part1_4.e61ae6.25c84547_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit And more. Will limit any further forwardings on the subject to the substantive. --part1_4.e61ae6.25c84547_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <va-hist@vsla.edu> Received: from rly-za01.mx.aol.com (rly-za01.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.97]) by air-za04.mail.aol.com (v67_b1.21) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Feb 2000 09:13:06 -0500 Received: from vlinsvr.vsla.edu ([192.131.239.7]) by rly-za01.mx.aol.com (v67_b1.21) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Feb 2000 09:12:58 1900 Received: from vlinsvr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vlinsvr.vsla.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA21722; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:12:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:12:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <000d01bf6cbd$a25bb0c0$ad5b480c@iptiva> Errors-To: eroderic@vsla.edu Reply-To: va-hist@vsla.edu Originator: va-hist@vlinsvr.vsla.edu Sender: va-hist@vsla.edu Precedence: bulk From: "Anita Wills" <alani2@worldnet.att.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <va-hist@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Subject: Re: Indian ancestry X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Virginia History Discussion Group Jim, Your are partly correct, however, Virginia passed a law in 1704 which took away Indian as a racial designation. From that point on they were either black or white. It may not have been a rigid stratification, but many were taken to court if they tried to claim they were Indian. Some census takers would denote Indian on the census records, and many of the Indians called themselves "Mulatto". My ancestors were called "Mulatto" in the 1783 and 1785 census. Some historians say that they were mixed white and black, however earlier records called them "Indian". Many of the children of mixed Indian and white unions prior to the 1700's were considered by the law to be white. This would be an exception to the rule that children took the identity of their mother. I found this in my lineage where some of the family were accepted into the white community and others were called considered black. They lived in the same community and were divided by race, but were cousins etc. This is Virginias' open secret. Anita Wills ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Hershman <hershmaj@gunet.georgetown.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <va-hist@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 05:30 AM Subject: Re: Indian ancestry > You're right about VA developing the either/or racial categories characteristic of colonies settled by Northern Europeans. But the definitions--"One-Drop Rule"--did not turn rigid until the 20th century (VA Racial Integrity Law of 1924). The 18th and 19th century standards were less demanding and in practical terms came down to appearance and community knowledge of family history. Your suspicion that there was a lot more "passing" from the non-white to white castes is well founded. I have always found Carl Degler's book, Neither Black nor White, written in the 1970s, to be a fascinating exploration of comparsions between U.S. and Brazilian racial relations. I recommend it. > > Jim Hershman > Hershmaj@gunet.georgetown.edu > > >>> dhardin@longwood.lwc.edu 01/31 1:38 PM >>> > The more appropriate question should be, "Where are all the Virginia > mestizos?" The greatest problem faced by Virginians of mixed ancestry was > the rigidity in the English system in defining racial categories. The > standard was one drop of non-white blood meant you weren't white and > therefore some "other." In a system with only two categorizations ("white" > and "colored"), persons with Native ancestry were understandibly concerned > with difining a third class. All of this could have been solved by > adopting the Spanish "mestizo," but there is no indication I've ever run > across that that was ever considered in Virginia. Given the apparent ease > with which the Native population was absorbed into the European majority, I > can also undestand the interest of white elites to simply consider mestizos > as white. I've always thought that a sizeable portion of Virginia's (and > the Southern) "white" population has a great deal more Native ancestry than > they'd --at times -- like to admit. Given racial attitudes, it's not hard > to understand the "oversight." I am fairly certain that one of my > GGGrandfathers and perhaps his wife were Native American. That doesn't go > very far to making me an "Indian." Who knows though? Perhaps one day > someone from the Human Geneome Project will discover a genetic tag that > will positively identify those of us with Native ancestry. At which point > I would like to begin arrangements for the back-pay of rent by you > Europeans! ;-) > --part1_4.e61ae6.25c84547_boundary--