THE 'SELF-IDENTIFICATION' PROBLEM: LOSS OF IDENTITY

A loose collecton of thoughts regarding racial classification
as it contributed to the loss of Native American cultural memory,
State of Delaware and environs

"...in 1810 at least one member of the Francisco family "lumped" herself with light-skinned African Americans when she "called" herself a "free person of color."  Paul Heinegg says, "If she thought of herself as an Indian, why didn't she say so?" Paul Heinegg's web page (10/12/2002): caption of photo of identified Indians listed "colored" in census.  We say, "If they thought of themselves as Indians, why didn't they tell the enumerator?: Paul Heinegg: "The census taker entered "N" in front of nearly every other member of the light-skinned Nanticoke community in 1800. It didn't matter what percentage of African, white, and Indian ancestry they had, the census taker lumped them together. It's obvious that it was the "Negro" part of their ancestry that made them non-white (and, therefore, not accepted by the white community). We say, "You make our case. Enumerators listed race as they wished, not as the enumerated family wished." "...drawing his authority from century-old census records that were likely to list Indians as "mulattoes" -- particularly if the census were taken in summertime, as they usually were, Houck notes, (Walter) Plecker embarked on a crusade to re-classify every Native American in the state as an African-American."    Battles in Red, Black and White We say, "In addition to census enumerators, vital records keepers also listed race as they wished. Plecker's campaign is a paradigm for record keeping south of the Mason-Dixon line. " "The uncritical use of social categories from the past as unproblematically translatable to the present is just mediocre scholarship at best." -- Dan Mouer

 

 

How Native Americans Became "W, C, B, M or FCP" NATIVE INTELLIGENCE, a column by Jack D. Forbes, Native American Studies, University of California, Davis "The Federal government began to use "degree of blood" in the latter part of the nineteenth-century, especially in relation to the enrollment of persons before the Dawes allotment commission. The use of "full," "one-half" etc. at that time was both an extension of the previous racist system and also a step in terminating Native Americans. Persons with greater amounts of white ancestry were assumed to be more competent than persons with lesser amounts. In other words, the degree of white blood was much more important than the degree of American ancestry. The white blood entitled an Indian citizen to greater privileges, including being able to have "wardship" restrictions removed, being able to sell property, acquire the right to vote in state and federal elections, and so on. "Thus it may be that many persons chose to exaggerate their amount of white ancestry when enrolling. Persons without white ancestry were restricted persons, with the Bureau controlling their financial lives. It was also expected that when a person became "competent" (white enough) he would no longer be an Indian and that process would eventually terminate a tribe's existence. "Thus the recording of blood quantum is both a product of white racism and of white social science theories of a racist nature, and also a product of a plan wherein Native nations are expected to vanish when the white blood quantum reaches a certain level (above three-fourths, for example). For this latter reason alone, the use of blood quantum is exceedingly dangerous for Native Nations today, although the Bureau and some eastern Oklahoma Indians don't seem to care about this danger."        Indians identified as peoples of primarily African descent From Ned Heite to the Virginia History List (va-hist@vlinsvr.vsla.edu) 19 Feb 1998 "Indians identified as Negroes" Thanks to the Delaware Department of Transportation, our firm has been privileged to study an Indian remnant community in detail. We have shown, I believe, that Indian remnant groups did, in fact, defend their identity, outside established reservations, for at least 300 years. It is obvious from our research that the term "mulatto" in ante-bellum legal records frequently referred to people with no African ancestry. Detailed conclusions of our study can be found HERE. I believe our most important accomplishment was to conclusively demonstrate the logical error committed by modern cliometricians who presume to interpret the census "free colored persons" column as referring to "free blacks." In one census district, at least a quarter of the "free colored persons" lived in households headed by Indians. Thus, one must take with a very large grain of salt any historical studies that have used census records to quantify "free blacks." There are many such studies in circulation, that may be flawed by this assumption. I would very much welcome comments, on-list or off-list   SEE EXAMPLES OF RECORD CHANGES HERE         Indians identified as Indians when away from Delaware   Self-Identification, Loss of Identity and Oral History Some historians and genealogical societies have looked askance at the evidence we have been able to assemble because much of it is based on oral tradition. For instance, the Delaware Genealogical Society (DGS) is conducting a highly laudable ongoing project to record everyone living in Delaware in 1787-1780, "DELAWARE FAMILIES PROJECT." However, these rigorous standards preclude the inclusion of native peoples in the project if they were of poor means, which, unfortunately, most were. In addition to problems with oral history, the recorded history which survives has led some historians to skoff at claims of Indian ancestry by today's descendants of the original people of the Delmarva region because the folks living in the 18th and 19th centuries did not, as they like to say, "self-identify" as Indian in legal documents and tax and census enumerations. Paul Heinegg (email address   p.heinegg@worldnet.att.net)   stated in a communication on the Virginia History list, dated 23 Feb 1998, "...in 1810 at least one member of the Francisco family "lumped" herself with light-skinned African Americans when she called herself a 'free person of color.'   Heinegg's conclusion: "If she thought of herself as an Indian, why didn't she say so?"   We contend that rather than a tan person being asked his/her racial catregory, the person's ancestry was judged by the enumerator based on his personal observation and personal bias rather than by asking, "What race are you?" Answering "Indian" was both socially and politically unwise. Heinegg himself lists on his web site Indians who were classified as C or M. We quote from the captions under a photograph on Paul Heinegg's web site, titled: Indian Families (Almond, Bass, Collins, Cook, Langston, Major, and Weaver.) From Paul Heinegg's web page           13 Oct 2002 Indian Families   "Nansemond Indians, ca. 1900. William H. Weaver is sitting; Augustus Bass is standing behind him. The Weaver family was free in Lancaster County in the late seventeenth-early eighteenth century. By 1732 they were taxables in Norfolk County and taxable "Mulatto" landowners in nearby Hertford County, North Carolina by 1741. By 1820 there were 164 "free colored" members of the family in Hertford County. In the 1830s some registered as Nansemond Indians in Norfolk County." Photo and text from Paul Heinegg,   http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/photos_Indians.htm (2002) The caption was changed by 2008 to read: William H. Weaver is sitting; Augustus Bass is standing behind him. The Weaver family were indentured East Indians (from modern-day India and Pakistan) who were free in Lancaster County by about 1710. By 1732 they were taxables in Norfolk County and taxable "Mulatto" landowners in nearby Hertford County, North Carolina by 1741. By 1820 there were 164 "free colored" members of the family in Hertford County. In the 1830s some registered as Nansemond Indians in Norfolk County. Smithsonian Institution, Nansemond Indians, ca. 1900. -------------------- A message (and response) regarding the 13 Oct 2002 caption cited above from Paul Heinegg's web site : From Linda Eastman <lx2eastman@verizon.net> 9 Mar 2008 Subject Paul Heinegg's website Oct. 2002 Issues of Self-Identification "Nansemond Indians, ca. 1900. William H. Weaver is sitting; Augustus Bass is standing behind him. The Weaver family was free in Lancaster County in the late seventeenth-early eighteenth century. By 1732 they were taxables in Norfolk County and taxable "Mulatto" landowners in nearby Hertford County, North Carolina by 1741. By 1820 there were 164 "free colored" members of the family in Hertford County. In the 1830s some registered as Nansemond Indians in Norfolk County." The above is the material you included under a photo of the Weaver family. In fact, however, when I clicked the link you provided to Paul Heinegg’s website, this is what his text stated: “William H. Weaver is sitting; Augustus Bass is standing behind him. The Weaver family were indentured East Indians (from modern-day India and Pakistan) who were free in Lancaster County by about 1710. By 1732 they were taxables in Norfolk County and taxable "Mulatto" landowners in nearby Hertford County, North Carolina by 1741. By 1820 there were 164 "free colored" members of the family in Hertford County. In the 1830s some registered as Nansemond Indians in Norfolk County. Smithsonian Institution, Nansemond Indians, ca. 1900.” Why did you ignore this significant qualification? He has an addition to his website that identified numerous East Indians in colonial records. I’m interested in the issues, but have no stake in the outcome. I have noticed that Heinegg’s work has received awards because his research was considered meticulous. - Linda Eastman Reply: We had not looked at this page of his since copying it word-for-word onto our page. Apparently our objection was noted by Heinegg and he scrambled to add the East Indian identifier. But that does not address our objection to his one-size-fits-all characterization of any person of color as being African-descended. Heinegg and Ned Heite corresponded via the Virginia History List. Heinegg made the statement that the people of color who were identified as 'mulatto' or 'FCP' or 'black' or whatever, were stating what they believed to be their heritage. If, for instance, a person was listed as 'black', why of course then he thought of himself as African, according to Heinegg. In the paragraph you cite, adding 'East Indian' does not change the argument. Heinegg recognizes the family as being East Indian, whatever that means (could be slave or Carib Indian, not Pakistan, etc.), but also acknowledges their identification as 'mulatto'. To paraphrase Heinegg, "If they thought of themselves as East Indian, why did they not tell the taxman that?" Could it be possible that the taxman came up with the 'mulatto' description all by himself? If so, why then does Heinegg, relying on officialdom's biased views, list ALL of the families we are studying, who have traditions of Native American descent, as being mostly of African descent? That is simply poor genealogical methodology, somewhat akin to a white Australian travelling to another country, seeing a white person, and concluding the person is Australian because he is white. Both Heinegg and the hypothetical Australian are assigning continents of origin and both are operating with about the same levels of light and knowledge. People of color originated from many places in the world other than Africa (unless you are considering the descent of all the peoples of the world from Africa within the past 100,000 to 200,000 years). From now on we will be sure to post screenshots so we will not be accused of the distortions you accuse us of. Heinegg's excellent work is acknowledged. When it comes to describing origins, however, consider this: It takes funding to do what Heinegg & associates have done. Their funding is from organizations interested in identifying persons with African roots. The more African-descended folks he finds, the greater the support for his work, thus in this scenario color = African. -B&R Terry   Why did these folks who we acknowledge today as Indians self-identify as "Mulatto," that is, as other than Indian? Until a provision is made for inclusion of oral testimony, the poor, of whatever national or ethnic derivation, will be excluded from family history studies. A project such as the DGS's--to record everyone--will have failed before it has begun and will, in effect, unintentionally continue discriminatory policies begun centuries before by European colonizers toward Native Americans. In addition, some agenda-driven historians, keen on acquiring grant funds, have interpreted records incorrectly, translating "free persons of color" into "Free African Americans," while other historians and organizations, like the DGS, have rejected any lineage which is not accompanied by primary source documents, the type which tenant farmers of color--our folks--are not likely to have created in their lifetimes. The contributors to this web site take from governmental, church, family, newspaper and other governmental and unofficial records and, where these are not available, oral tradition and oral history to enable our cousins around North America to learn of each other's existence, to share family lore and genealogical data and to give them a handle on "what they are." Loss of Identity: Perceptions How a person is recorded as to color (white or free person of color) was influenced by appearance and other factors, such as economic standing, whether a racial agenda existed in the community and confusionand an assumption that all members of a household must be of the same category. For instance, instructions to enumerators in the 1870, 1880 and 1900 Federal censuses contained the following instructions: Census 1870 & 1880 -- race to be cited as white, black or mulatto. Mulatto applied to all those having any perceptible trace of African blood who were not obviously black. In 1880 some enumerators ignored "mulatto" cited in 1870 and used only "black" or "white." 1900 -- Everyone of Negro descent was to be listed "black." 1910 -- "Mulatto" was OK to use again.   Vital Records See our reference to Virginia official, Walter Plecker, and his campaign to change vital records, specifically mentioning arbitrarily changing certificates containing a '?' in the race field. Economic status How a person is recorded as to color (white or free person of color) was influenced by appearance and other factors, such as economic standing, whether a racial agenda existed in the community and confusion (as when Plecker mentions certificates containing a '?' in the race field, below) and an assumption that all members of a household must be of the same category. For example, William Carty (excerpt) by Lynn Jackson 'Based on the Maryland census records, William Carty was born in Maryland, either in Dorchester or Caroline counties, sometime around 1792. He was white and the son of James McCarty and Barsheba Dean McCarty. He moved to Caroline County, Maryland, with his parents sometime before 1800 and continued to live there until his death. "Based on the birthdate of his first child , William married a woman named Elizabeth (her last name is unknown) sometime before 1813. The Carty Family bible contains a great deal of information about William's family and a family called "Wyatt" so it is possible that Elizabeth's maiden name was Wyatt. "Elizabeth and William appeared in the 1820 Caroline County, Maryland census. William was listed as white but his wife and 3 children were listed as "M."   William's daughter, Henrietta Carty MORGAN, told her son Napoleon Morgan that her mother was a full blood Maryland Indian although she did not know the tribe. It is interesting to note that, in later censuses, William's race was changed to "M" to reflect that of his wife and children. His brothers and their families continued to be listed as "white". This is just one of many indications that race in the 18th & 19th century on the Delmarva peninsula was more about the perceptions of the record keepers than about accurately reflecting the true racial make-up of the community.         DELMARVA NATIVE AMERICAN RESEARCH:   oral history We have encountered professional historians and genealogical societies who have shunned the evidence we have been able to assemble because much of it is based on oral tradition. For instance, the aforementioned Delaware Genealogical Society's ongoing project to record everyone living in Delaware in 1787-1780 and its rigorous standards preclude the inclusion of Native American-descended peoples in the project if they were of poor means, which, unfortunately, most were. In addition to problems with oral history, the recorded history which survives has led many historians to skoff at claims of Indian ancestry by today's descendants of the original people of the Delmarva region because the folks living in the 18th and 19th centuries did not, as these historians like to say, "self-identify" as Indian. Until a provision is made for inclusion of oral testimony, the poor, of whatever national or ethnic derivation, will be excluded from family history studies. A project such as the DGS's--to record everyone--will have failed before it has begun and will, in effect, unintentionally continue discriminatory policies begun centuries before by European colonizers. In addition, some historians have enhanced their acquisition of funding by magnifying the size of their study class, "Free African Americans." They have done this by interpreting extant records incorrectly, translating "Free Persons of Color" into "Free African Americans." Other historians and organizations, like the DGS, have rejected any lineage which is not accompanied by primary source documents, the type which tenant farmers--our folks--are not likely to have created in their lifetimes.

 

 

 

 

MAIN MENU

  EMAIL US

 

 

KUSKARAWOAK & MITSAWOKETT "The History and Genealogy of the Native American Isolate Communities of Kent County, Delaware, and Surrounding Areas on the Delmarva Peninsula and Southern New Jersey"

 

  Copyright 1997-
All rights reserved.
Not to be used for commercial purposes.