APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2000-12 > 0977044958


From: "Marian Douglas" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] query on census data: Does "B" mean Black?
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 10:22:38 +0100


Dear Julia and List,

Now this is getting more interesting; how race was designated in the census
is not a new issue but I think researchers are now finding - and now looking
for - more data to get cases to study what was actually going on "back
then".

Since this is email, and will be archived (for those who do not know from
reading other gen research emails of mine), let me add my research "stance"
is as a Black American with historical mixed-race ancestry: African,
American Indian and European. Both of my parents are African American, and
both of those families have known race mixture, some by choice, some from
enslavement.

Regarding the census data, it looks as if people in the same family (some of
mine for example) could be and were sometimes listed in one or more censuses
with different racial designations; or the same person listed as different
races in different censuses. Those are really interesting cases.

As a baseline to think about these things and consider certain research
methods, I recommend 2 books. One gives an idea of how race mixture was
classified historically in some neighboring countries, and the other refers
to the little-known history of Blacks and Indians (not mutually exclusive)
from the southeastern US region.

The first book is (Swedish historian) Magnus Morner's, "Race Mixture in the
History of Latin America". "But that's Latin America" you may say.
However, few societies are islands unto themselves, and there are both
similarities and differences in the treatment of race identity and social
status in all societies in 'the Americas': North, South, Central and the
Caribbean. Plus, to my knowledge, no one has yet published the book, "Race
Mixture in the History of the US" (smile).

For example, throughout the Americas there are the basic tri-racial
combinations - American Indian ("indigenous", etc.), African and European.
A bit later, Asian ancestry enters in some regions, including parts of the
US, like California, the Chinese in Mississippi, etc. A relative of mine,
not in my 'direct line', is African American with Filipino ancestry.

An excellent book that discusses Blacks and Indians - in the southeastern
U.S. -- not the West or New England - is Katja May's "African Americans and
Native Americans in the Creek and Cherokee Nations, 1830s to 1920s:
Collision and Collusion".

May's book focuses more on Blacks and Indians in Oklahoma after the "Indian
Removal", which is enough ground for one researcher to cover. But it has
limited info on the earlier history before the Removal - which I'm very
interested in, in case anyone else is working on Blacks and Indians in the
earlier Southeastern families and communities.

Katja May is German. The book is published by Garland Publishing, 1996. I
recall she mentions seeing white family researchers coming into a tribal
records office and finding the ancestors they were hunting listed as
"freedmen" (Black), in this case Cherokee or Creek. May says for many of
them this discovery apparently signaled 'end of research'.

In my own family research, I have a case of my 2nd Greatgrandmother (North
Carolina and east Tennessee - Smoky Mountains), Matilda RICE GUDGER, whose
family is said to have been Irish Protestant mixed with Cherokee through a
RICE-(WEATHERFORD?) union. The Weatherford side would have been Indian, and
the female ancestor may have been Agnes Weatherford, plus William RICE
(1750?-June 1835). Apparently at the time, Whites and Indians were not
allowed to marry; this would have been around late 1700s. Does anyone know
if this white-Indian 'no marriage' info is correct? It was true for Blacks
and Whites.

By the time Matilda was born in NC in April 1850, my RICES, of western NC,
_seem_ to have 'returned' to being 'pretty white' (another interesting
research question). Matilda's parents - Mary Ann "Polly" "Pop" RICE and
Hugh WALLIN - were not married, and Matilda was raised in her Mother's
family.

Long story short, around 1869, Matilda started a family - marriage not being
allowed - with ADOLPHUS GUDGER, who was Black. In some census data for
either Buncombe or Madison County (western) NC, Matilda and Adolphus are
listed with their first children. Matilda is listed as "mulatto", which she
was not.
I find this interesting and wonder who chose to list her as "M" and why.

Some of this family history I recount is in my article on my Rices and
Gudgers, in the new Madison County NC Heritage book, volume 2, published
this year. I am finding more cousins from this research, and hope the
research leads to more discoveries, for myself and other related
researchers.

Kind regards,

Marian Douglas
Macedonia and
Kosovo

and


===============
From: <>
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000
Re: [APG] query on census data: Does "B" mean Black?


> Marian
>
> As some one else quoted the choices were W (white) B (Black) and M
(Mulatto.
> B does not automatically mean African American. Some of my husband
ancestors
> who were Cape Cod Indians are listed as Black as were some Portugese,
> apparently because they did not fit the W or M notations.
>
> Julia Coldren-Walker

This thread: