posted
Hey everyone, I have a question. I have looked all over the net and my tect book for a record of the first child of black/white parentage. I cannot find anything with names earlier than the 1750's and since I know there were free blacks and interracial stuff going on in the 1600's, I know there must bve one earlier.
Does any one know? or am i typing in the wrong stuff into google? Thanks!
-------------------- “You want to know what marriage is really like? You wake up she's there. You come back from work she's there. You fall asleep she's there…I know that sounds like a bad thing. But, it's not. Not if it's the right person.” ~Raymond Barone Posts: 334 | From: Arkansas | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
M'eyari
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
Don't know if it was the earliest, but one of my African-American classmates traced his family lineage back to a white man and an emancipated slave named Hannah. The white man was a German settler in the 17th century, so I'm assuming that he had his family in the 1600's.
I'll try to find out the family name for you.
Eta: Try searching for the German Virginia Colonies - that's the location my classmate traced his family to.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by When you Wish upon a Kat-Stein: Hey everyone, I have a question. I have looked all over the net and my tect book for a record of the first child of black/white parentage. I cannot find anything with names earlier than the 1750's and since I know there were free blacks and interracial stuff going on in the 1600's, I know there must bve one earlier.
Does any one know? or am i typing in the wrong stuff into google? Thanks!
Perhaps "miscegenation" and "colonial America" might work better.
And anti-miscgenation laws were passed fairly early on in Colonial times. Mixed-race children were more likely the result of master-slave sexual relationships that through "legitimate" unions of whites and free blacks.
As for finding the first record of a birth, good luck to ya! I am not good with that sort of research myself.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moses had a black wife (but Moses wasn't white -- he was brown).
Roman soldiers were stationed far from their native lands (to prevent soldiers from refusing to put down local revolts or revolting with the local population) and they tended to settle down where they were stationed and marry a local woman (Rome encouraged the practice by offering land grants to establish a pro-Roman local population). So Roman there is a high probability that some white soldiers in north Africa would have married black women. Furthermore, blacks were considered "exotic" in Roman times and in demand as prostitutes (and possibly wives).
Sex with slaves started immediately. In the Americas, Columbus offered Arawak (Hatian Indians) women for his lieutenants as sex slaves in 1493. The African slave trade began in 1505 and it is highly likely the first mulatto was born 9 months later...
-------------------- All posts foretold by Nostradamus.
Turing test failures: 6 Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to limit it to America because the class title is "Experiences of Black Americans". I found a whole lotta information about european mulattos, but I'm just hvaing trouble with American. I will try the anti-misengeation (?) search. Thanks!
-------------------- “You want to know what marriage is really like? You wake up she's there. You come back from work she's there. You fall asleep she's there…I know that sounds like a bad thing. But, it's not. Not if it's the right person.” ~Raymond Barone Posts: 334 | From: Arkansas | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One mixed-race family tree that has been extensively studied is that of the Hemings family, because of their link with Jefferson. Sally (who may or may not have been Jefferson's mistress) and her siblings were the children of a slave woman and Jefferson's father-in-law; their mother was, as I recall, mixed race herself, and is likely to have been born before 1750.
-------------------- Yours, &c
Linden Posts: 190 | From: Australia | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But does "America" include the Caribbean in your course's definition? Or just North America? Or just what would come to consitute the U.S.? Because I expect the Caribbean info would be much earlier and more vague (as Jason T. says, Columbian). But mulatto births in the European colonies would be much later and possibly more subject to documentation, but since you're then dealing with settlements that are interacting with long-established Caribbean colonies, there are probably plenty of full-grown mulattos moving around the Northeastern ports (not to mention Spanish Florida). And would you count the offspring of two mulatto parents as a first mulatto birth? Or are you specifically looking for a documented white/black union?
Either way, I'm going to have to hazard a guess that there's no historical documentation of the first mulatto birth on the contintent like you're looking for. We can name the first Pilgrim child and the first-born at Jamestown because of the limited population of those settlements, but once you've got enough people moving around (especially slaves), there's no record kept clearly at that point. I'd say even conjecturing a specific decade in which the first contintental mulatto birth occurred is going to be extremely dodgy (especially if Florida is also being considered and not just the English colonies).
posted
Thanks everyone, I'm just gponna use Logoboros answer (not that everyon's wasn't great!) as the best thing for my paper. I hadn't thought about the massive amount of migration. I guess that would mess up the birth records.
Oh, and for our cass it's really just the USA. I guess they should rename the course. I wish we could use the carribean, but then my paper would be like fifty pages instead of the twenty its at.
Thanks everyone!
-------------------- “You want to know what marriage is really like? You wake up she's there. You come back from work she's there. You fall asleep she's there…I know that sounds like a bad thing. But, it's not. Not if it's the right person.” ~Raymond Barone Posts: 334 | From: Arkansas | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to many sources, the first African slaves in the New World were brought by the Spanish to Hispaniola in 1501. There is probably justification to conjecture that the first mixed race child arrived shortly thereafter. However, most of these slaves came from Spain, not directly from Africa and may have already been of mixed race.
quote:In 1519, the crown granted the first commercial license for the bulk importation of bozales, slaves direct from Africa, to the Indies to "Governor Bressa," the king's mayordomo mayor (senior steward), through his Genoese agents Adán de Bivaldo, Tomás de Forne and Lorenzo de Gorvod.The license gave them a monopoly to bring 4,000 bozales to Hispaniola. Before that date, most of the royal cédulas licensing the importation of African slaves to Hispaniola before 1519 were for one to twenty slaves, primarily for the "personal use" of the high-status Spaniards who had requested them, such as Governor Ovando (three on October 6, 1508), Diego Colón (ten on December 13, 1508), Hernando Colón (one on December 23, 1508), María de Toledo (eight on May 10, 1509), Juan Ponce de León (four on October 19, 1514), and Juan Becerra, "the son of Comendador Bartolomé Becerra" (four on August 2, 1515). Some were for more, however, such as a license dated July 6, 1508, allowing Diego de Nicuesa to bring forty African slaves to Hispaniola. Most of the African slaves who were legally imported to Hispaniola early in the sixteenth century were "ladinos," slaves of African origin or African descent who had lived in Spain--many had been born there--who knew the language and customs, and were Christians. Scattered evidence suggests, however, that many bozales were brought in illegally. Source
"Mulatto" is first found in Enlgish in 1595. The word was used earlier by the Spanish--it comes from the Spanish for "mule" (a hybrid). I am no scholar in Old Spanish, but the word probably predates Columbus and meant any racially-mixed person. Moors and Spaniards, for instance.
-------------------- The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Posts: 4255 | From: Sacramento, CA | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Martha Washington
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
That term mulatto is extremely offensive to many black and mixed race people.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Martha Washington: That term mulatto is extremely offensive to many black and mixed race people.
Slight hi-jack- sorry:
Well... for those who are Caucasion- sometimes it is damn difficult to figure out what "terms" are going offend someone and which are not. It is seriously to the point where I am afraid to use any "term" to describe someone's race because no matter what you do someone is going to be offended. I could start a whole rant on this subject- but I don't want to seriously hi-jack this thread.
-------------------- "My Very Educated Mother Just Said Uh-oh! No...Pluto..."~ Steven Colbert Posts: 3256 | From: Somewhere in Ohio | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
donnerstag
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
What's so "damn difficult" about it? The term 'mulatto' was used and MW pointed out that it is disfavored by the population it aims to describe and indicated the preferred terminology, namely 'mixed race'. It was done all very calmly and without any recriminations. Now you know.
IP: Logged |
posted
Not to play devil's advocate, but in my class, which was titled "Experiences of black Americans" and was 90% black, the term mulatto was used quite frequently by both the instructor and students. I even researched it to make sure it wasn't deemed offensive by the majority.
But if I offended, I really am sorry. Perhaps it is a regional thing?
-------------------- “You want to know what marriage is really like? You wake up she's there. You come back from work she's there. You fall asleep she's there…I know that sounds like a bad thing. But, it's not. Not if it's the right person.” ~Raymond Barone Posts: 334 | From: Arkansas | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is damn difficult because just because THAT particular person thinks the term "mixed race" is OK- the term could piss someone else off- just because the term "mulatto" offends one person- it might not offend someone else- they may prefer the term. The fact is- if the term was obviously NOT used in a derogatory manner- why complain about it in the first place?
quote:Originally posted by donnerstag: What's so "damn difficult" about it? The term 'mulatto' was used and MW pointed out that it is disfavored by the population it aims to describe and indicated the preferred terminology, namely 'mixed race'. It was done all very calmly and without any recriminations. Now you know.
-------------------- "My Very Educated Mother Just Said Uh-oh! No...Pluto..."~ Steven Colbert Posts: 3256 | From: Somewhere in Ohio | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
donnerstag
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
Because I don't think these terms are as shapeshifting as the anti-PC crowd likes to pretend they are, as if everyone had their own unique word for what race they are and woe betide anyone who gets it wrong.
If someone you recently met got your first name wrong, you wouldn't think, "Well, it wasn't done in a derogatory manner--why complain about it?" What you would do is calmly and matter-of-factly say, "Actually, Philip, my first name is ..." Not because you were offended, but because you have the right to expect to be called by your preferred name.
Yes, if it really were the case that every year some new term were concocted to describe various races, etc., I would agree regarding the burdensomeness of PC. But, I've not seen more than two replacement terms proffered in my lifetime. Thus we have 'mixed race' or 'multiracial' for the slew of terms we formerly had (an instance of PC reducing the amount of racial jargon in English!), 'Asian' instead of 'Oriental', 'mail carrier' for 'mailman'. How these simple, long-term substitutions trip people up, I couldn't tell you.
I know of no great wellspring of support in the Asian community to bring back 'Oriental', I've heard no postal employees yearning for the days of 'mailman', and in the CBC link above, the correspondents, while not especially offended by 'mulatto', do seem to find it a little out-of-touch. In short, these new terms are the actual preferred terms, which is to say occasions where you meet someone who insists on the old terms will be few and far between.
My point wasn't to accuse anyone of insensitivity, I don't think any post in this thread could be characterized that way. Rather, I wanted to point out what I consider to be the straw-man argument often deployed against PC; namely, this hypothetical of angry minorities always changing what they want to be called. I only wanted to point out that PC is neither particularly flux nor vitriolic.
IP: Logged |
posted
Any term that identifies people by race will understandably offend many of those whom the term seeks to classify. Mixed race will not abate that offence any better than mulatto. The problem lies with the idea of racial categorization, not the word used to demonstrate it.
When race is the context of a discussion, one has no choice but to make racial distinctions. Those who consent to the context have no reason to be upset by the use of a term that isn’t universally recognized as being offensive.
Posts: 472 | From: Brooklyn | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
donnerstag
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
"Any term that identifies people by race will understandably [emphasis mine] offend many of those whom the term seeks to classify." and "Those who consent to the context have no reason to be upset by the use of a term that isn’t universally recognized as being offensive." in the same post!
Well which is it? Perhaps you'll say something like those who are understandably offended as those who choose not to countenance racial distinctions. But then, "[w]hen race is the context of a discussion, one has no choice [emphasis mine] but to make racial distinctions."
So it seems you either never talk about race or you can use whatever you like, unless it's universally recognized as being offensive, which apparently is every term since 'mixed race' is no better than 'mulatto' because both point to race. But then can 'half-breed' or 'mongrel' be any worse than 'mulatto', as those rely on racial distinctions too?
Your argument's problem is its first premise, asserted as it is without proof. And unwittingly, you furnish your own reduction argument against it.
IP: Logged |
posted
Synonyms cannot solve problematic concepts. If, however, one chooses to discuss the concept, there's little point in taking issue with the terminology, provided that the terminology is not widely used offensively.
posted
I beleive the term "mixed race" is misleading in this case. For example, "mixed race" could mean someone of African and Asian origins, whereas the term used by OP refers to someone who is of African and European origins. Maybe, we shoul call them Euro-Africans, or something like that
-------------------- Nico Sasha In between my father's fields;And the citadels of the rule; Lies a no-man's land which I must cross; To find my stolen jewel. Posts: 4912 | From: VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
donnerstag
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
J Barrows: No, not clear. You yourself recognize that certain terms can be offensive despite being synonymous with less offensive terms. For instance, the term 'African-Americans' and the plural of the term that can be identified by the phrase 'the n-word' refer to the same things. Nobody argues that their connotations are equally inoffensive.
Your argument is patently circular. You're stating that there's no point being offended by a term, unless the term is offensive. Well, yes, marvelous tautology. This doesn't shed any light on whether a term is offensive though.
I can see where you might go with that however and identify a term as offensive if users of that term mean to inspire anger or resentment. But when someone tells you he prefers another term, and you persist in using the disfavored term, what else can you expect other than inspiring anger or resentment?
IP: Logged |
posted
I think most black people would take offense at being referred to as "colored."
And, yes, "mixed-race" is not limited to those people with a combination of European and African ancestry only. I think "multi-racial" is good, myself.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's a difference between "taking offense" at something and simply preferring a different designation. If "colored" were in fact actively offensive (rather than just outdated or out-of-touch), I expect the NAACP would have changed its name by now.
I can understand someone preferring not to be identified by the relatively outmoded term "mulatto," but to even venture to suggest it has the same type of connotation that the n-word has is a pretty wild notion. What's the negative connotation of mulatto?
I think we need to remember that there is a difference between labels that are derogatory (meaning that they function to degrade status or imply inferiority) and terms that are merely unfashionable.
--Logoboros
ETA: Okay, a moment's second thought: I can see "mulatto" falling to the broader category of adjectival terms that are unfairly nominalized. So that so refer to someone as "a mulatto" is to make their racial heritage their primary identification, which is something those in power can do to reduce others to little more than a single trait. And I would say that calling someone "a colored" rather than "a colored person" would be simulateously outmoded and offensive. But I think the latter formulation is merely outmoded. But since mulatto is seldom used only adjectivally, I can see where it's a problem.
But even so, I'm not sure that when talking about broad historical issues (as opposed to dealing with individuals in your own life) that the don't-refer-to-people-by-category rule needs to be so strictly policed. Is it really vital to historical decorum that we discuss the "people of European descent" that owned the Caribbean plantations? Isn't "Europeans" still functionally useful? I can, sure, see that the argument is by no means a no-brainer. But I suppose I feel that sometimes history does rub out individual distinction in favor of broader social/cultural/national/racial/religious categorization, and that this is not really such a dreadful crime against humanity that it must be stamped out.
Posts: 1025 | From: Memphis, TN & Columbia, MO | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Mulatto" was once used as a legal term in re the enforcement the one-drop rule. This makes it offensive, IMHO.
Four Kitties
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, in the context of discussing persons born in North America with each individual parent having exclusively African (negroid) or European (caucasiod) lineage. I beleive mulatto is correct. In such a context, the term is not being used as a derogative but as a descriptive. This word enjoys a dual linguistic status that others such as N****r or W***ck never did nor will.
The OP never intended to refer to all the permutations of lineage covered under the "mixed race" umbrella. Unless there is a current term that describes this class of north americans, then each reference would have to be explained as I did in my firest sentence.
I offer a suggestion that we suspend the semantics lessons, accept the useage of the term in this context and try to answer the questions posed in the OP. Regarding that. . . hellifino.
posted
To clarify: I wasn't suggesting 'mulatto' approaches remotely the offensiveness of the n-word. Rather, I was providing a counterexample to J Barrow's argument that because two words are synonymous (as, extensionally, 'African-American' and the n-word are), the offensiveness quotient has to be the same (which is clearly false for those two terms).
Regarding unfashionability, my argument is when one persists in using a term known to be out of favor, that persistance elevates it from unfashionable to obnoxious. Again, imagine how you'd react if someone insisted on miscalling your first name. At first, you'd presume it was an honest mistake and give your correct name; after subsequent mistakes by the same person, you'd likely suspect some sort of animosity.
IP: Logged |
posted
Kitties, I'm missing your logic here. I can see that the concept behind the one-drop rule is offensive. But that because the original formulations of that concept made use of the term (they didn't coin it), the term therefore inherits the stigma? Because anti-semitic laws and literature make repeated reference to the inferiority of "Jews" does Jew therefore become an offensive term? Just because it was used in the articulation of an offensive concept does not mean that term itself is stained for all time.
Okay, so it can, in fact, happen that an essentially neutral term can become stigmatized through particular usage (although I'm blanking on a actual example). But my argument would be that this is not the case for "mulatto" in common usage.
--Logoboros
ETA: But is obnoxious behavior and offensive behavior the same thing? Maybe we're talking about subtle degrees of difference here, and your righteous citizen would avoid both, but for some reason I feel the need to maintain the distinction. And I think a better analogy might be this: Your name is Richard. Someone says "Hello, Richard." You say "Call me Rick." And they persist in calling you Richard, even when you correct them saying you prefer the shorter form "Rick." Obnoxious behavior? Absolutely. But do you have grounds to be offended? They haven't actually referred to you erroneously. Odds are, you yourself use "Richard" from time to time when necessary. Just because in this case they have decided to ignore your preference doesn't mean that Richard is not still not a reasonable form of address from the perspective of society.
Posts: 1025 | From: Memphis, TN & Columbia, MO | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
donnerstag
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:Originally posted by ParaDiddle: I offer a suggestion that we suspend the semantics lessons, accept the useage of the term in this context and try to answer the questions posed in the OP. Regarding that. . . hellifino.
Well, fortunately, this digression won't detain the OP; early on she made the command decision to take Logoboros's answer.
IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I didn't know I my post would cause so much fuss. I turned the paper in Friday, and ya'll are still talking about it. But essentially I chose the world "mulatto" for the reason that ParaDiddle Stated: it is exclusively for black/white, and those relationships were the focus of my paper.
Oh, I only chose Lgogboros answer not because it was the best, but because my paper was due. But I did worry about using the word, but like I said, since it was used in class I figured it would be ok. Maybe its a southern thing only in that our language is full of "old" words and phrases.
-------------------- “You want to know what marriage is really like? You wake up she's there. You come back from work she's there. You fall asleep she's there…I know that sounds like a bad thing. But, it's not. Not if it's the right person.” ~Raymond Barone Posts: 334 | From: Arkansas | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I think a better analogy might be this: Your name is Richard. Someone says "Hello, Richard." You say "Call me Rick." And they persist in calling you Richard, even when you correct them saying you prefer the shorter form "Rick."
I have a little problem with this arguement. To make this example fit with the rest of the discussion, it seems that it should say, "Call me Rick and while you're at it make sure you call everyone else named Richard, Rick because that is what all Richards want to be called"
There are some terms that are clearly offensive to most of the population (N-word for example) but most terms for race (or religion or politics etc) will be offensive to only a smaller group. It sometimes seems that it is impossible to use any term without offending someone!!
Posts: 22 | From: Alberta | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, there are also problems with simply adopting the "this word is found offensive by [person/group]" when you run into places where this is driven by false etymologies, like in the word Eskimo. I know someone who becomes extremely upset when I use the word niggardly; wherefore I use doubleplus-miserly instead. I believe my intent in doing so may be lost on him.
If I were in a particularly progressive mood this morning I might say something like, "well I find 'Asian' offensive too, because it's yet another word that identifies me as being part of a largely-imaginary cultural construct that has no inherent value," but, eh, I haven't had my coffee yet and I don't really agree with that point anyway.
I'm split on the issue of political correctness. On the one hand I don't want to see linguistic utility sacrificed because certain people are offended by certain words--especially when, in cases like "Eskimo" or "niggardly," people are so talented at getting upset over any damn fool thing they choose. On the other, I really have no idea why so many people are opposed to it as a concept, and in this sense I agree almost completely with donnerstag.
I meet too many people in the course of my affairs who are upset, I gather, that they can't tell the Hilarious One about the Polak, the Kike, and the Negro without people looking at them funny. I kind of roll my eyes at these people. There seems to be among many the idea that we've somehow moved past the era of racial disparity and discrimination into a Golden Age of openness where you can feel free to talk about "gooks" and "sand niggers" without the least bit of derision, and in doing so not face the least bit of scorn.
Maybe it's just where I live.
-Baikal
-------------------- I'm just a typical American boy from a typical American town. Posts: 1463 | From: CU, Boulder Campus | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Baikal: I know someone who becomes extremely upset when I use the word niggardly; wherefore I use doubleplus-miserly instead. I believe my intent in doing so may be lost on him.
Baikal, YOMANK I love that. Can I use doubleplus-miserly?
Posts: 22 | From: Alberta | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Logoboros: Okay, so it can, in fact, happen that an essentially neutral term can become stigmatized through particular usage (although I'm blanking on a actual example). But my argument would be that this is not the case for "mulatto" in common usage.
You are certainly welcome to argue that, Logoboros. I can only go by my personal experience with my family and friends, and they all find mulatto offensive -- both due to its one-drop connotation and its "neither fish nor fowl" connotation. Apparently your mileage varies.
Four Kitties
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I think a better analogy might be this: Your name is Richard. Someone says "Hello, Richard." You say "Call me Rick." And they persist in calling you Richard, even when you correct them saying you prefer the shorter form "Rick."
I have a little problem with this arguement. To make this example fit with the rest of the discussion, it seems that it should say, "Call me Rick and while you're at it make sure you call everyone else named Richard, Rick because that is what all Richards want to be called"
There are some terms that are clearly offensive to most of the population (N-word for example) but most terms for race (or religion or politics etc) will be offensive to only a smaller group. It sometimes seems that it is impossible to use any term without offending someone!!
Thanks- I was going to say that but you beat me to it.
-------------------- "My Very Educated Mother Just Said Uh-oh! No...Pluto..."~ Steven Colbert Posts: 3256 | From: Somewhere in Ohio | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
