**I've been given permission to share this with you *To:* Ruth Keenoy *Subject:* Fwd: meaning of "Creole" To: Les Amis Members From: E.G.Sayad Author Carl Ekberg passed along this definition of "Creole" which applies throughout the Upper and Lower Lousiana Territory of the 18th century, including our Creole Corridor. *Creole* "Creole" is probably the most misunderstood term by lay researchers, as well as by scholars, in matters relating to Louisiana. Generally considered to be of Portuguese/Spanish origin, the word was probably originally Arabic, and taken to Iberia by the Moors prior to the year 900 A.D. In the nineteenth century, some scholars believed it originally meant "servant." If it did not, it verily did come to refer to those who helped support European monarchies by their labors in foreign fields. Whatever the origin of "Creole," our eighteenth century ancestors in Louisiana had no doubt whatsoever of its meaning: Someone, some thing, anything, born, made, or grown in the Mississippi Valley/Gulf Coast colony, as opposed to having been born, made, or grown elsewhere. Descendants of persons born in the colony are, perforce, also considered Creole. Descendants of persons who arrived in Louisiana after 1803, by strict definition, are not, as Louisiana was no longer a colony after the Louisiana Purchase. Race has not a thing to do with being Creole. Witness, however, a contrary opinion published as recently as 1986 by a distinguished university press, written by a highly-praised historian: As we move away from a Eurocentric interpretation of American culture and begin to explore the African roots of /all Americans/ [emphases added], it is important to understand Louisiana creole culture. It is the /most /[emphasis added] significant source of Africanization of the /entire /[emphasis added] culture of the United States.... In eighteenth-century Louisiana, the term creole referred to locally born people /of at least partial African descent /[emphases added]....[i] Such statements are jarring, and they vitiate an otherwise fine contribution to Louisiana history and cultural studies. Based on any collection of colonial Louisiana documents, civil or ecclesiastical, local or in European archives, a Creole could be "pure" white, "pure" black, of any amalgam of the two -- so long as that person was /born in colonial Louisiana/. (emphases added). A person might be of purest African ancestry, and if born in Louisiana, a Creole; of purest Caucasian ancestry, and Creole; or of any admixture of black and white, and Creole -- but only if born in /provincial /Louisiana//(and similar colonies), which is the operative definition. By "Caucasian ancestry" French and/or Spanish ancestors are usually implied, although early eighteenth century German and other non-Latin colonists are often (yet, not consistently) referred to as Creole in records. The author had always believed and (somewhat) still does, that equatoriality had something to do with "Creole" designation. In a lecture at the National Archives in 1975, however, having expressed such a theory, one student remarked that the first Russians born in Alaska were called Creoles, thus shattering an otherwise potentially profound idea. Nevertheless, being "Creole" remains a matter of place and time far more than it is a matter of ancestry, and certainly not of race. Although it has been a point of controversy, this author is convinced, based on eighteenth century usage in civil and church records, that descendants of Canadians were not referred to as Creole. Acadians, most agree, were always, except perhaps in error, distinguished from both Creoles and Canadians. We offer one excellent piece of evidence: The ca. 1770 roster of the Opelousas Post militia, which provides names, martial status, height, and age of 71 men, also reveals their 'nationalities" -- in this case, it seems clear, where they were born, not simply their ethnic identity. Those categories are precisely divided into "French," "Creole," "Canada," and "Acadian," as well as two Italians, and one Englishman.[ii] For a further example, witnesses identifying themselves in civil and criminal legal suits employed the same segregational terms -- French, Canadian, Acadian, Creole (including African-Americans). Other contemporary records are quite as convincing and precise. Just as "Creole" had nothing to do with race, in the eighteenth century, the term had nothing to do with social status. It was not until toward the end of the nineteenth century that, primarily in New Orleans, "Creole" came to imply social superiority in some circles. The main reason, probably, was the Frenchmen's reaction to the steady encroachment of /les américains. /Peoples of the "country" parishes never took to such a supercilious interpretation of the word, and to this day, they do not. Indeed, there was some opprobrium implied in the military and in politics of the eighteenth century, when a person was identified as "Creole." High political and military officers were almost always natives of Europe. We do find some dramatic, although arguable exceptions.. François Saucier, usually referred to as Creole (but of a Canadian father and a mother born near Paris), became one of the leading engineers in French Louisiana; he received his early education in Paris.[iii] Nicolas Chauvin de la Frenière the Younger, born in New Orleans, usually considered to be the quintessential Creole, became a member of the Superior Council; he was, 'though, of Canadian parentage, and also received his legal education in France.[iv] Neither of these men, nor the few others who reached relatively high office, was a typical Creole. To be appointed captain in the local militia was just about the highest aspiration of most Creole men. There is no argument that the word "Creole" has undergone evolution during the last three centuries in Louisiana. If, however, we attempt to study eighteenth century Louisiana history and ancestry, definitions of that word as employed merely during the last two centuries should neither be imposed upon the praxes of, nor hinder the search for the eighteenth century people who handed the word to us. To perpetuate an error is to condone it, and we find no salutary reason for doing so. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1- Virginia R. Dominguez, /White by Definition: Social Classification in Creole Louisiana/ (Rutgers, N.J.: 1986) p..157. For the writer's opinion of Prof. Dominguez' book, see his essay-review in /Plantation Society in the Americas/, edited by Dr. Thomas Fiehrer: "White by Definition: A Critique," (New Orleans: 1989) Vol. II, no. 3, pp. 295-300. 2- /Papeles Procedentes de Cuba, Archivo General de Indias/ (PPC, AGI), /legajo/ 161, as published in Winston De Ville, /Louisiana Soldiers in the American Revolution/, (Ville Platte, LA: 1991) pp. 87-89. 3- Jack Belsom and Winston De Ville, "The Sauciers in 1726: Year of Decision for a Colonial Louisiana Family," /Louisiana History/, vol. XXIX, no. 2 (Spring 1988) pp. 183-189. [iv]- Gary B. Mills, "The Chauvin Brothers: Early Colonists of Louisiana," /Louisiana History/, Volume XV (Spring1974) PP. *117--131.*