Mulatto: Less than Human

Julianne Jennings

Race is not simply about the physical description of human variation. Since its origin in Western science in the eighteenth century, race has been used both to classify and rank human beings according to inferior and superior types. Although race as a concept developed in the West during the age of Enlightenment, prominent Enlightenment thinkers—Carolus Linnaeus, Johann Blumenbach, Lewis Henry Morgan and Samuel George Morton, among others—greatly influenced European ideas about economics, government and science as well as race. Concepts of race eventually spread to many parts of the non-Western world through international commerce, including the slave trade, and later colonial conquest and administration—which have used it as a tool of social division, even among “mixed-race” peoples.

For centuries, a great amount of blood-mixing has occurred, creating “Creole,” “Mestizo,” and other “colored” populations of the New World colonies and possessions of Europe. But what do these labels mean? Haitian anthropologist, Antenor Firmin observes “that human beings have always interbred whenever they came in contact with one another, so that the very notion of races is questionable. Indeed, if not for this fact of the essential unity of humanity, it would be difficult to explain the eugenic crossbreeding that have made the planet sparkle with more human colors than there are nuances in a rainbow”.

According to Paul Broca, who founded the society of Anthropology of Paris in 1859; believed blacks and whites do not belong to the same species. “The union of a Negro and a white woman is very often sterile or infertile, whereas the union of a White man and a Negro is always fecund,” and has to do with the length of the “Ethiopian” penis, which is greater than the length of the Caucasian vagina. So the sex act between a Caucasian man and Ethiopian woman is easy, while the act between an Ethiopian man and Caucasian woman is difficult, painful and most often infertile.” And from this notion, the term “Mulatto” is derived.

The etymology of the term Mulatto comes from the Spanish and Portuguese word mulatto, which is itself derived from mula (from old Galician-Portuguese, from Latin m?lus), meaning mule, the infertile offspring of a horse and a donkey. Countering the racist idea of a racially mixed couple, the term Mulatto was applied to their offspring (a hybrid considered less than human—the dysgenic consequences of race mixing). Mulatto denotes a person with one white parent and one black parent, or more broadly, a person of mixed black and white ancestry. Contemporary usage of the term varies greatly, and the broader sense of the term makes its application rather subjective, as not all people of mixed white and black ancestry choose to self-identify as mulatto. Some reject the term because of its association with slavery and colonial and racial oppression, preferring terms such as "mixed", "biracial", and "African-American" (in the United States). Mulattos may also be an admixture of Native American, South American native and African Americans according to Henings Statutes of Virginia 1705, which reads as follows: “And for clearing all manner of doubts which hereafter may happen to arise upon the construction of this act, or any other act, who shall be accounted a mulatto, Be it enacted and declared, and it is hereby enacted and declared, That the child of an Indian and the child, grand child, or great grand child, of a negro shall be deemed, accounted, held and taken to be a mulatto.

Today those who are mixtures of Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Black Africans are called Zambos while those who are mixtures of African American and Native American are called Black Indians (another subjective term) and sometimes are solely classified or self-identify as African American.

The 1790-1930 Federal Censuses gave this technical definition for persons listed as “Mulatto: A person of mixed race, part black and part white. Someone even came up with different “levels” based on how much black blood a person had (Quadroon for 1/4 black, for example). Generally speaking, a “Mulatto” is someone of medium dark skin, or even “yellow” skin as described in some old records. In the early years of the census there were not enough race codes to cover every possible race; so many people listed as “Mulatto” were of some other origin. So keep in mind, that those listed as “Mulatto” could be mixed Black-White, White-Indian, Black-Indian, or a combination of all three, “Tri-racial”. This doesn’t even account for those who might be dark skinned, but some other origin like Melungeon, “Black-Dutch,” as you can imagine this was a catch-all category on early census records. In 1790, anyone considered “Mulatto” would have been listed on the “Other" columns. In 1800 through 1840, they would have been listed in the “Free Colored” columns. In 1850 and later, they would have been listed with a race code of “M” in the “Color” column. In many cases you will find these same people listed as “White” on some other census records.

It is obvious blacks and whites have been in constant contact with one another based on the numerous racial definitions of the federal census, and fecundity of mulattoes is a well-known fact. Dr. Fluehr-Lobban in her book provides an excellent example of this, “The Dominican population of Hispaniola offers initial proof that among both first generation mulattoes and subsequent generations the unions of mixed-race persons are as fecund as those between “pure-raced” people.” While the traveling theory may focus on the movement and location of those who travel, the attention here is on the people, whose bodies, territories, beliefs, values and customs have been traveled through, first beginning European explorers then conquers to early Enlightenment philosophers and by those who continue with racist thinking. Of the small amount of human genetic variation, eighty-six percent exists within a local population. There is more variation within a particular race than there is between different races. Race is not biological, but racism is real. These perceived “racial” differences justified colonial control, slavery and the social inferiority of today.

Anyone who adheres to Enlightenment theories is choosing to ignore irrefutable evidence to the contrary. As Englishman John Heywood stated in 1546, well before the Enlightenment, “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

Julianne Jennings (E. Pequot-Nottoway) is a Ph.D. student at Arizona State University.

You need to be logged in in order to post comments
Please use the log in option at the bottom of this page




beaver's picture
Most indigenous cultures around the world, including Indians, had no word for various races - even those that lived in multiracial environments. The Europeans saw - and continue to see - race everywhere. The American Anthropological Association said in an official statement a few years ago that race as a construct is non-existent and only imaginary. Americans are too obsessed with race - in a very unhealthy way. And unfortunately Indians are starting to melt into the American society, so race will be a big issue to us brainless Indians too in the future.
fshearer's picture
This is a great article! I'm going to share this with my family. I have never thought about race this way. Thank you for this thought-provoking piece. I look forward to reading more of your writing. =)
ponyhill's picture
I think it is worth mentioning here that the racial classifications found on early American census records were NOT the result of percieved skin color, nor in the majority of cases, based on some visual racial judgment by the census enumerator. The vast majority of census forms were left blank within the 'race' column until compared with the county tax rolls, where the 'racial' taxation status would be entered on the census form. Let me explain further: from the time of the Rev War until well into the 20th century the census was NOT designed to be, nor used as, a document of racial classification. The census was designed to simply estimate the amount of tax revenue a county, state, or federal government could expect and also to equate the amount of governmental representation necessary for districts, counties, states, etc. What taxation status certain races (or persons of varying racial mixtures) fell under would vary from state to state, and thus federal census enumerators usually relied on local tax rolls to quatify the expected 'racial tax' on families reflected in the census form. For example: an individual of 1/4 or more Native American blood living in Virginia or North Carolina would legally fall under the taxation and regulations of the "Free Persons of Color" and later the "Mulatto" regulations of that state's tax code. That same person, having been taxed and reflected on U.S. census forms for numerous years as a "M" could then move to Tennessee where the same "Mulatto" tax codes were more restricted to persons of African ancestry, and that same indivdual would be taxed, and appear on the census, as "White" from then on. Racial classifications that appear on early U.S. census schedules has little to do with what ancestry that individual had, and reflected even LESS what race the indivdual may have claimed at the time. To appear as "Indian" on these same census schedules was no small feat, as census enumerators were given explicit instructions that for a person to be clsssified as an "Indian" for the purpose of the census, was to be "a person of unmixed Indian blood, recognized as such in their community, non-taxed and living within the confines of a known Indian reservation." Here's the strange twist of history...census enumrators were further instructed that if they encountered an Individual who fulfilled the requirements of being an "I" then they were NOT to be recorded on the census at all!
whenrocksdance's picture
Thank you for this interesting and enlightening article on the term "mulatto" and it's effect on people of Native American decent. I as a direct Native american descendant can relate because some of my Native American ancestors where "misclassified" as "Mulatto" not only on census records but death records as well. In the southeast where racial politics and Jim Crow attitudes often wreaked havoc on the few scattered remnant Indian families it was difficult to maintain one concept of "Indianness". Where one was forced to chose an identity or side along color lines, something our people had no concept of before the arrival of Europeans. If a person of color of mixed ancestry was politically connected or financially well off or had ties then they could move up a level from Mulatto to white. There were mixed race black and Natives who performed this social feat. Another matter was at the census takers descretion. As in the case with my family " A white historian" who knew of my family said they were neither black nor white but Indian and Mulatto was used as the term "for Indian" at that time. In the southeast "Indian" had become obsolete. The erasure of Indian meant no one could come back to claim the land. Make them something else and leave them confused. I believed that confusion of identity was meant to cause so much conflict in the future about who and what is Indian and that is what we have now. There were families who where of White/black mixed extraction who tried to pass as white or Indian or people who self identified as Indian who may have had no ancestry or intermarried with Indian families. With this we find ourselves here hundreds of years later trying to untangle the meaning of the word of this word "Mulatto" in the divisive society we call America.
daveashelman's picture
This was a good essay, and I am also a Ph.D. student at the State University of New York. I am also a Seneca (Iroquois), mixed-"race" person. The article misses two key points: One, it fails to mention the shift AWAY from the "Enlightenment" theories of Race (which were clearly wrong) in Emile Durkheim's "Rules for Social Methodology", which clearly started the movement AWAY from Race Classification in 1895. The article mentions Paul Broca as a perpetrator of racial classification, but Durkheim's work has been interpreted as an attack on Brocanian racial theory. Second, the article fails to address at all, the racism occurring in Indian Country, amongst a group of people (as one commenter stated) who has never had racial classifications. It addresses only racism in the "other" pre-1859. A lot has changed in both Indian Communities and Sociology since then - especially with works from Durkheim, Franz Boaz, and AR Radcliffe Brown, who promoted ANTI-Racist analysis in Anthropology, and established clear ethics in Social Sciences. As an overview of Anthropological history Pre-1859, it's informative. But incomplete in relationship to today's world of racism both within, and/or outside of Indian Communities.
daveashelman's picture
Reading your earlier article about your personal experiences, it reads like an ethnography - similar to my experiences as a mixed-blood. My Ph.D will be in Social Psychology, and my MA was in Sociology (Goffman's Frame Analysis). My focus in my dissertation combines Goffman's Frame Analysis with Durkheim's Social Solidarity to explain behavior in "out groups"...which definitely includes us mixed-blood Indians; creating a new "frame". Thant being said, I learned (both as a scholar and as a "white indian") that there are a lot of negatives that our society has to offer. But there are also a lot of positives. And as a scholar, it's important to give a complete picture (frame) by including the positives with the negatives and vice-versa. You are absolutely right!! Our education, and our eventual teaching will sooth some very sore wounds that society has left us. I'm inspired by both Goffman, who fought to get people to listen to him his entire life, and by Durkheim, who worked to teach his students the ethical way, only to see most of his students die. But 100 years later, Durkheim is still in print, and 50 years later so is Goffman, both being foundations in Sociology and Anthropology. And now I'm also inspired by you, who is on the exact same path as I am on (albeit different but similar fields), knowing that it IS possible to educate the masses. Nya'weh (Thank you)
globe's picture
If I may include an observation I have regarding the objectionable nature of the "Redskins" term, besides its horrific historical context, I believe it is the term's emphasis on a physical racial characteristic that contributes much to its being so objectionable. In almost every case where a group is defined according to a physical attribute it is considered derogatory and dehumanizing. I wanted to add this to the discussion because this term hails from the era and mindset noted above where discussions of race, breeds, pedigrees, and physical characteristics alleged to result from combinations thereof, comported with one's legal status and rights under the law.
jennings5089's picture
Then you're going to love my next article in ICTMN on "Happy President's Day: A Native American Perspective! Here's just a teaser about George Washington and the origin of the term redskins: George Washington... In 1779, George Washington instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack Iroquois people. Washington stated, "lay waste all the settlements around...that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed". In the course of the carnage and annihilation of Indian people, Washington also instructed his general not "listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected". In 1783, Washington's anti-Indian sentiments were apparent in his comparisons of Indians with wolves: "Both being beast of prey, tho' they differ in shape", he said. George Washington's policies of extermination were realized in his troops behaviors following a defeat. Troops would skin the bodies of Iroquois "from the hips downward to make boot tops or leggings". Indians who survived the attacks later re-named the nation's first president as "Town Destroyer". Approximately 28 of 30 Seneca towns had been destroyed within a five year period.
globe's picture
The US Capitol is aptly named after Washington and Columbus, who with the support of church and then the state -- practiced annihilation of indigenous peoples. They are now honored with the name of the Capitol city. It's nice to know the Washington monument is shut down this year due to earthquake damage. An interesting aside is that apparently one of George Washington's major business enterprises was the production of whiskey, by 1797 his distillery near Mt. Vernon was the largest in North America, this mill produced 11000 gallons of whiskey by 1799, the year of Washington's death.
whenrocksdance's picture
Thank you Julianne and Mr. Ashelman for both perspectives. In my personal experience as a Mixed blood Native American I have to say that though there are many challenges, stereotypes, ,mis-education and preconceived notions of Native people and their history I have had many positive experiences that have out weighed the negative ones. I believe that many forms of "Racism and Non-tolerance" towards any people of a different cultural or Religious background is a learned behavior as it was theorized that we are all born with "Tabula Rasa" (Tabula rasa is the epistemological theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception). I have spoken with people who already have a preconceived notion of Native people or make remarks that indeed would be offensive as I am sure many Native people have experienced. How can we expect people to know about Native history when then they do not even know American history and are ignorant to many aspects of world history? How can I expect anyone to understand the experience of a Native american descendant from the southeast or Northeast Like Julieanne Or myself who's history is somewhat different from our brothers and sisters from let's say the west? The fact that a Native American from Alaska may be mistaken for a Oriental or Asian, or a Navajo may be mistaken for a Mexican, or A Cherokee can be mistaken for a European, or a Pequot can easily be mistaken for a African American! Yes there is alot to face. No two tribal histories are the same or experiences are the same. I believe but one thing is for sure Native people have a common struggle and that is the preservation of our Identities and histories also educating others about who we are. When I found out that my son's school had a Native American month and was asked by the school to give input I contributed what I could to enlighten the elementary children which included various tribes including my family history. Prior to that they had non-native people coming in to do presentations because they could not get a Native Person to do the presentation. Also after contacting the closest Native organization and making an offer to get someone who may have been able to get a contract with the school to do the presentation in the future no one came. So I stood on my feet for hours speaking to the children doing activities, speaking and educating the minds of these young children about Native peoples. I continue to educate others any chance I get. I have had much positive feedback. Also my son who is ten years old has been put in the right direction when it comes to preserving and sharing his history. This discussion of the term "Mulatto" and the effects it has had on Native descendants is one that we can hopefully become enlightened on. I would like to add this brief excerpt that will give more of a historical insight of how the amalgamations of Native people played out and the Mulatto term and it's use in the Southeast: "As an American aspect of the War of the Spanish Succession at the beginning of the century, fighting developed between Carolinians and their Chickasaw allies against the Spanish in Pensacola, and locally this was called "Queen Anne's War". The Goose Creek men that we met in the last chapter continued their mischief in the l8th century. In 1704 the Barbadian, James Moore, and 50 Goose Creek men led 1,000 Creeks, Yamasees and Apalachicolas against the province of Apalachee. Missions and Franciscans alike were burned and Moore returned to Carolina boasting of having 4,000 women and children as slaves and an additional 1,300 who voluntarily joined with him. In addition, he killed or enslaved 325 men, not including the captives taken by his Indian allies. Perhaps 200 Apalachees escaped and f led westward to Mobile, where French padres put them in new missions and a few sought refuge near St. Augustine. Moore and his Creeks and Yamasees charged on into Florida, ravaging Timucuans, burning their towns, plundering livestock and taking captives. Pensacola, 500 miles south of Charleston, suffered a similar fate and even the Keys were attacked by the Indians in canoes. Unable to protect them because of involvement in Queen Anne's War, Spain shipped hundreds of the Florida Indians, including the remnants of the Calusas and Tequetas, Apalachees, Guales and Timucuans, to Cuba. (Ref. 267) In the meantime Carolina had some Indian troubles of its own. The Tuscaroras, of Iroquoian stock, occupied much of North Carolina's Tidewater and they had been traditional enemies of the Algonquian tribes. Probably because white colonists were allying themselves with the latter, the Tuscarora suddenly turned on the whites in 1711. For 2 years full scale war raged with the Tuscarora fighting both the colonists and some of the Algonquian tribes, who were supplied by Virginia and North and South Carolina authorities. Finally some 1,000 Tuscaroras were taken captive and sold. In 19714 a still more destructive war erupted, one somewhat erroneously called "the Yamasee War". Actually there were many natives in addition to the Yamasee, including Lower Creeks, Guales, Apalachees, Savannahs, Cherokees, Yuchis, Cheraws, Catawbas, Waterees and Waccamaws who attacked the whites. Some played greater roles than others. Many of these tribes were components of the old Chiefdom of Cofitachiqui and in a way this was the native response to the commercial empire of the Goose Creek men. Losses on both sides were high - 400 colonists perished, some 6% of the white population. On the Indian side, many of the participating tribes simply became extinct. Port Royal remained deserted for years. Generally disorganized, the colonists revolted against proprietary rule in 1719 and claimed South Carolina a royal colony. Even before their war on the colonists in 1711 the Tuscaroras were the most powerful nation in the North Carolina Tidewater and for years they had fallen on their weaker neighbors and sold captives to the Virginians and North Carolinians. Slave raids, wars and especially diseases eventually swept away almost all Timucuans, Appalachees, Tequestas and eventually even the Yamasees. Some Lower Creeks remained in Florida, destroying and mixing with aboriginal remnants of other tribes and by the latter third of the 18th century - these Indians became known as Seminoles. The Creek Chief Cowkeeper, who settled in the Gainesville region, according to some, is the progenitor of the Seminole nation. (Ref. 267) (See also page 1015) Europeans customarily branded slaves and this was carried on in the United States. In 1716 commissioners in charge of the Carolina Indian trade sent branding irons to agents in the back country to mark deerskins and captives, alike. The latter were marked on the face, shoulder or arm. Through this 18th century tens of thousands of southern Indians were enslaved and most of these were women and children. Indians worked for whites as wage laborers, tilling fields, rounding up cattle and as domestics, hunters and artisans. pamunkey women worked as maids. Many female Indian servants murdered their offspring, either to escape a whipping, an increased period of service or perhaps just to keep their children from growing up in an alien world. The men sometimes carried peltry for 200 or even 500 miles for the Goose Creek men. In excellent physical condition, some of these Indian men impressed the colonists by keeping up with a man on horseback for 10 or 20 miles, apparently without fatigue. They learned new occupations such as serving on board oceangoing vessels and learning to care for and ride horses. Each village was apt to have a resident factor, an Englishman or more likely a Scot, but some factors were Indians, mestizos or occasionally blacks. The natives' appetite for trading goods and drink exceeded their ability to pay and they were frequently in debt. (Ref. 267) At the beginning of the century Anglicans redoubled their efforts to send missionaries among the Indians to learn their languages and establish schools. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (SPG) was founded for that purpose in 1701. The Archbishop of Canterbury was a founder and colonial governors and commissaries were members, as were laymen on both sides of the Atlantic. Inevitably there developed a close association between SPG and English imperialism. There was little distinction between extending the flag and spreading the faith. A search was made to find a lingua franca which could be comprehended by most southern Indians. An Algonquian tongue spoken by the Savannahs (Shawnees) was considered, but the Muskhogean Yamasee was better as it could be understood throughout much of the south as a second, if not a first language. Schools were established, including one in connection with William and Mary College, but there were never many in attendance and little was really accomplished. In the long run the SPG was most successful with Mohawks in upper New York, where missionaries did conduct services in the Mohawk language. We have mentioned the Yamasee rebellion in the latter half of the century, after which those Indians were implacable enemies of the British as long as any of them survived. The SPG was shocked. (Ref. 267) After 1715 the two largest Indian tribes adjacent to South Carolina were the Creeks and Cherokees and there was some attempt to Christianize them. A German, Christian Priber, a versatile scholar and lawyer conversant in several languages, went to live among them, dressed as a native, learned their language and tried to establish a socialist community on the frontier. He educated the Indians, explaining how traders' scales, weights and measures worked so that the British colonists assumed he was a French agent trying to turn the natives against them. They sought him out and imprisoned him. Except for the Floridas, which Britain acquired in 1763 and held for 20 years, Georgia was the last southern colony, founded in 1733, more than 60 years after the birth of Charleston. After 10 years of Trustee rule, Georgia's white population was at most 3,000, but on the eve of the Revolution, Georgia contained 18,000 free whites and almost as many slaves. The original trustees did have ideals,- however, including the prohibition of drinking, the outlawing of Negro slavery and some restriction on the size of land holdings. This did not keep the Georgians from using Indian slaves, however, and by 1750 the trustees legalized all types of slavery. James Oglethorpe was the only trustee who actually went to Georgia and he appointed Charles Wesley his secretary for Indian affairs and John Wesley as an ordained missionary of the SPG. John decided to go into the Chickasaw country to learn their language and customs, but various complications kept him from accomplishing that and his ministry was not successful. Oglethorpe persuaded the Yamacraw chief, his wife, nephew and a handful of others to return with him to England in 1734, where the Reverend Samuel Smith instructed them in the Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Commandments. This was about the extent of the Georgia conversion. We shall return to the traditional history of the American colonies, the problems in the "Old Northwest", the French and Indians War and finally the American Revolution at a later time, but feeling that school texts have overlooked much material about the southern Indians and their relationships with the whites and imported Africans, we shall devote a few additional paragraphs to these subjects. At times the Indians cooperated with the British, as when Creeks, Yamacraws and Cherokees helped Oglethorpe in battles with Spanish troops, who attacked St. Simons Island in 1742. Natives crewed the scout boats used for communications along the chain of sea island forts and they raided Florida, killing or capturing unwary Spaniards, Yamasees and Negroes. At other times the Indians fought the colonists, but in between there was considerable merging of red, white and black races. In this 18th century Creeks constituted one of the largest racially heterogeneous tribes. Other more or less "pure-bred" tribes, such as the Catawbas, had existed, but now there were only a few hundred of them left and the Catawba language had been lost. Various Catawbas conversed in assorted tongues belonging to several different language families. The first mention of the term "Seminole" was in 1771 and it was probably taken from the Spanish cimarron (wild) which became simanoli in Chickasaw. Lower and then Upper Creeks drifting into Florida formed the nucleus of the Seminole "nation", with a few remnants from earlier days - Calusas and Tequestas. (See also page 1013). There never was a unified Seminole nation and those Indians then, as today, did not necessarily understand one another. The Lumbees of southeastern North Carolina offer an even more bizarre grouping. Numbering still some 40,000 today, they constitute one of the largest tribes in the United States, but actually they are an aggregation of diverse remnant tribes and also blacks and whites, having geography more than anything else in common. There is no Lumbee language. It is thus apparent that the mixtures that developed among the southern Indians was not entirely one of intermingled tribes, as the whites mixed with the natives on a much grander scale than some care to admit. A considerable numb er of colonists married Indians and reared families and then, of course, the packhorsemen and factors, living for extended periods among the Indians, formed unions with native women. Many of the tribes had cultures which condoned premarital sex for the young Indian girls. Such a large mestizo population emerged that great numbers of 18th century "Indian" chiefs had such names as McDonald, Perryman, Colbert, Brown, etc. It wasn't long before the natives and the whites and mestizos living among them began to insist that they owned their lands outright and that in every respect they inhabited a sovereign, independent nation. Attempts were made to reestablish centralized states, yet no chief spoke for a unified Cherokee or Creek nation and colonists repeatedly took advantage of this to obtain lands. Many of the tribes were ethnic melting pots. The terms Creek and Muskhogee did not even appear until this century. Creek or Muskhogee, the primary language, in all probability was not a first language or perhaps even understood by a majority of the Creeks. Lower Creeks, a major part of the confederation, themselves composed of different ethnic groups, for the most part spoke Hitchiti, which was unintelligible to those speaking Creek proper. At any time, in the last century or through this one, whenever whites destroyed Indian granaries and cut down their corn, the effect was devastating. Survivors fled to the woods, where many starved, as they were not as at home in the woods as their hunting and gathering ancestors had been. The Cherokee Chief Vann was driven from his village during the revolution and was forced to scratch for subsistence in the wild. All of these Indians were basically agriculturists. Although small amounts of wheat and rice were grown, maize remained the staple and was prepared as cornbread and hominy, or after being boiled with oak and hickory ashes, was drunk as a kind of soup, which the Creeks called sof kee. Late in the century sweet potatoes were developed. Fields were fenced and cattle, horses, sheep, goats, hogs and chickens were available. The Upper Creek Chief Wolf owned 200 head of black cattle and Indians in other villages had even larger herds. A few years after the Revolution, William Augustus Bowles brought a large supply of munitions and presents for the Creeks from the Bahamas, but they had to come to the coast to get them. They had no difficulty in assembling more than 100 pack horses outfitted with saddles and halters had led them nearly 400 miles overland to pick up the goods. Of course, horse stealing became as prominent as raising, buying and selling. (Ref. 267) Although scalping was a long time custom among Indians, the usage increased after white contact and was more prevalent around the time of the American Revolution than ever. Mississippians were not true cannibals, but for ritualistic purposes at times did eat human flesh. Like the Indians, British colonists also drank yaupon tea and some was even exported to Britain and France. Europeans took over a great many Indian medicines and cures and a considerable portion of southern white and African folk medicine is of aboriginal origin. The Indians were also the source of many new words such as moccasin, matchcoat, terrapin, opossum, raccoon, chinquapin, chum, hominy, pone and tomahawk. The terms for racial hybrids have been confusing. A 1705 Virginia statute says that a mulatto is the offspring of whites and non-whites, that is - the child of an Indian and a white, or the child, grandchild or great-grandchild of a Negro and a white. A South Carolina missionary in 1715 baptized as a mulatto a girl whose mother he reported as an Indian and father as a white trader. At other times "mulatto" seemed to mean Negro-Indian mixture, but finally the term zambo was used for that hybrid. A significant percentage of the Yamasees themselves were zambos and during this 1 8th century that tribe became increasingly noted for its Negroid features. In spite of the statutes, Africans and Indians intermingled, learned each others' languages, intermarried and at times made common cause against whites. Mestizos properly may mean Indian-White, but has also been used for all kinds of combinations. (Ref. 267) Regarding slavery, the status of white convicts arriving in Chesapeake Bay whose terms might be up to 14 years or even life did not differ greatly from that of chattel slaves. White, black and Indian slaves were all marketed and employed with little distinction, except for the one difference that most Indian slaves were female. The male Indians would run away and were difficult to manage, so most of the field hands were young, male blacks. All the slaves were kept together in compounds and it was inevitable that much mixing took place. At times Indians owned African slaves and vice versa. The 1725 census in St. George Parish, South Carolina discloses that the Indian Nero possessed one Negro black slave and the Indian Sam Pickins owned six. In turn Negro Robin Johnson owned 9 slaves, all of whom apparently were Indians. Alexander McGillivray, a mestizo Upper Creek, died in 1793, leaving a considerable estate, including 60 Negro slaves." America: A.D. 1701 to 1800 - Jack E. Maxfield