I posted the query below on several genealogical mailing lists several days ago, but neglected to post it on these lists. I am doing so now. In retrospect, I might have worded the query more precisely to reflect my true intent, but I will not change the wording and am posting it here exactly as in the original posting on the other boards. I do this because the query has elicited a surprising number of thought-provoking responses. For those of you who have seen the message and responses on other boards, please forgive the duplicity. I'm assuming a new 'audience' for each list, though I know that many of you (like myself) subscribe to more than one of the lists. Those of you who want to call me a few nasty names may feel free to do so, and then move on. :-) Thanks. Jon G. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are any of you wise souls aware of any pejorative/derogatory connotation in the usage of the terms mulatto (mulato) and mulatta (mulata) in the U.S or anywhere in the Americas (North, Central, and South America)? The term originates in the Spanish and Portuguese (meaning 'of mixed breed'), derived from mulo (mule), which derives from the Latin mulus. For those that don't know, a mule is the offspring of a donkey and a horse, i.e. a mixed breed. I feel that the association with the mule is merely representative of the aspect of mixed-breeding, rather than an association with the jackass/mule/donkey kind of thinking - in other words similar to a 'mixed-breed' dog. My thinking is that the usage of the word has always been 'descriptive', rather than pejorative, such as the usage of the term 'coloured' under apartheid in South Africa, and the term 'colored' as was used here in the States until recent decades. Descriptive, implying the mixture; there are many other terms that we all could think of that are unquestionably derogatory. I'm in a discussion with a person who insists that the term is derogatory in origin and associates the term with the somewhat simplistic thinking (from *my untrained perspective*) of 'the white slave masters raping our grandmothers', when indeed the mixtures in the Americas, to my understanding, evolved from not only that, but from many other sets of circumstances, e.g. black slaves mating with white indentured servants, and many situations too numerous to mention here. I read on one of these genealogical forums in the last few weeks or so that the latter was indeed more common than the former (I can't remember exactly where I read it, nor the 'credentials' of the person making the statement, but I seem to recall that it was a 'scholar' in this area). I *am not* a scholar in this area. I'd welcome input from all of you, most especially from those of you in academia in this area or with training/backgrounds in these issues. I may indeed be wrong. I do realize there are 'mixed camps' and disagreement in areas such as this, but I'm more interested in the scholarly/'real' aspects as opposed to the emotionally charged such as 'the white slave master taking advantage of our grandmothers'. I'm interested in scholarship and truth, and not in emotion. Thanks in advance to all of you for all replies. Jon G. Sorry about my excessive wordiness - it's an obsessive/compulsive thing!!