> On the Harmons/--ans and paul Heinegg. Heinegg has done a great >deal of research; but he reads many records literally and those records >often never mention someone's Indian identity, that identity for the sake >of documents not being up to the person but to local/county/state >officials. I say, read Heinegg with a grain of salt while trying to avoid >fabricating what's both there and not there, and rely upon family oral >tradition. Especially from about 1750 well into the 20th century, Indians >in VA and the Carolinas, as well as neighboring states, were identified as >Free Negroes or Free People of Color, or Mulatto, or Black. In NC I >understand an Indian couldn't own land but Negroes could; and on eastern >Shore VA the bounty on Indians heads wasn't abolished until 1952(!!). So, >Heinegg's point is.....? Heinegg's point is quite clear to me: When multiracial people are highly integrated into colonial society and not considered to be Indians by their neighbors, then on what basis can we presume that they held an Indian identity? The essentialist conception of Indian identity is an ideology that emerges in the Jim Crow era, and the "one-drop" conception of Indian identity is of even more recent origin. This conception of identity is not relevant to understanding the creole folk communities on the 17th and 18th century colonial frontier. Imposing anachronistic conceptions of identity on the past serves contemporary ideologies, but distorts historical understanding.