MULATTO and the AMERICAN INDIAN
Where words and definitions are being re-defined almost daily to fit a political agenda, many honorable individuals are caught in an unenviable position of censorship and genocide. If they dare to speak out in contradiction to this new political agenda, they are chastised and ridiculed, called phonies and frauds.
The word Mulatto is such a word. The definition in today’s world describes it as a person of White and Black heritage. Although this is true to a point, it is historically false in it is an oversimplification. From the earliest U.S. Census, the term Mulatto or Free People of Color was used to describing individuals of mixed race, which included mixed-blood American Indians who were subject to tax laws and the U.S. Government,
Colonial and Antebellum eras
Historically in the American South, the term Mulatto was also applied to persons with mixed Native American and African American ancestry.  For example, a 1705 Virginia statute 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, grandchild, or great-grandchild, of a negro shall be deemed, accounted, held and taken to be a Mulatto."
This classification continued into the twentieth century, but it has become a weapon for Progressives in their agenda-driven pursuit in recent years. One of the hardest-hit communities by this new destructive agenda is the American Indian.
From the first contact between the American Indians and those of other races, mixed-blood children resulted. Many of these children grew up in limbo and without a voice but knew their ancestry. By the time of the creation of the United States, they numbered in the thousands. For those that stayed with their Tribes, they were absorbed into the general tribal population and needed no special category or classification and were not counted on U.S. Censuses because they were Sovereign Nations. Not so with those living within the non-Indian communities.
Whereas the Federal Government requires ¼ specific Indian blood to be recognized as such for tribal enrollment. In the American Indian community, we see tribes rejecting legitimate members over personal opinions or vendettas even when providing proof of ¼ or better tribal blood. But we also see newfound Indian communities excepting members with as little as 1/256th blood degree or less, through mere statements of connecting lineal descended to a name on a 1890,1930, or 1950 census roll regardless of blood quantum. This helps boost their tribal numbers for federal dollars.
Along with this relatively new standard for tribal membership, individuals with less than 1% newly found American Indian blood have been given a voice where individuals with as much as 50% American Indian blood have none “example” maybe you are 3/16 th Chippewa, 3/16 th Sioux, 3/16 th Mandan for a total of 9/16 th American Indian but not enough of one to be tribally enrolled, are they less American Indian because of this? They do not show up on Tribal enrollment rolls.
To add to the disparagement is that for the tribes east of the Mississippi by the late 1830s, just about all had moved west of the Mississippi, leaving many tribal members behind. As they integrated into American society, they did not forfeit their Indian blood but only recognized tribal status. The tribal history was handed down from parent to child, grandchild, and great-grandchild, and traditional tribal customs, practices, and heritage were observed. For the U.S. federal census, they became Mulatto’s (free person of Color). They just lumped with all the other mixed-blood races, but as American Indians, their voice was removed.
Between 1790 and 1870, the majority of Mulattos might be considered mixed blood of American Indian heritage. The calcification for Mulatto was free people of color and for the majority of African Americans at the time; were Slaves who had calcification and separate listing of its own regardless of blood quantum for census records. By 1870 after the Civil War, these African/Americans now became Free People of color, which expanded the term Mulatto
calcification by hundreds of thousands.
Using the 1860 U.S. Federal census records of Minnesota, we can clearly show this to be a fact. Joseph R Brown was an Indian agent married to a full blood Sioux woman; he is listed as white. She is listed as Indian, and their nine children are listed as Mulatto. The Minnesota Pembina County census has the vast majority listed as Mulatto, and we know them to be white and Indian. (attachments 1&2)
Another issue that contributes to the confusion is that during the 1880s and 90s on reservations, tribal members were all but required to take white names for Government tacking purposes.
Beginning on the 1900 Federal Census, Reservations and Reservation Boarding Schools were now included. The top half of the census page listed name, age, gender, and were born, and the bottom half listed their Indian Name, Tribe, and even blood degree. (Attachments 5&6)
For political purposes, the term Mulatto has been high jacked to give voice to one race only, denying all other historical races. https://www.census.gov pdf/ev90-19.pdf “Another issue which further complicated the process of enumerating Indian people was counting Indian people of mixed blood. It was decided that persons of mixed White and Indian
blood, living in White communities, who were assimilated would be counted as White”.
Here again, we can show proof that many American Indian mixed bloods were listed as White on the 1850 Minnesota Federal Census. Every name on one of many sheets is listed as White, but except for some of the fathers, all are mixed-blood Indians. We know this from Indian Censuses and official Depositions applying for Land Scrips under the Mixed Blood Land Scrips of 1857 (National Achieve DC and a Treaty Obligation) (attachments 3&4)
With the 1924 American Indian Citizen Act for the American Indian, the Government calculated roughly 300,000 American Indians were living in the United States. Of that number, there were 175,000 self-identified but not enrolled members of any tribe. Of the 125,000 tribally enrolled members, the Act brought them in for counting on the Federal Census and the protection of Federal Laws, which had not existed till then. “The American Indian birthright citizenship issue
wouldn't be settled until 1924 when the Indian Citizenship Act conferred citizenship on all American Indians. At the time, 125,000 of an estimated population of 300,000 American Indians weren't citizens"
We can justifiably assume those numbers to be low as much mixed blood had been listed as White or Mulatto. By the time of fourth and fifth generations later, no longer even knew they had Indian blood. But for many of those families, their history was kept alive through story-telling. Others are just now becoming aware through DNA and have begun looking for the needle-in-the-haystack. Looking at the DNA conclusions on indigenous, most professionals agree that term means to America's (North, Central, and South America) were separating to just what area is all but impossible. By using the word Indigenous, an individual who connects to the southern tip of Argentina can now speak for the North American Indians while at the same time denying actual North American Indians who actually know their heritage.
Kenneth Aslakson, in his May 2007 dissertation paper, which is now cited numerous times, writes Creole's are of mixed Black and White races heritage to receive his Ph.D. status. The question becomes how this determination was brought about and why it is a false conclusion and misleading. Again, we see a distorted picture using less than half the facts and geared towards eradicating and giving voice to one race and sponsored and oversaw by so-called educators. Even in Kenneth's writings, he references Creole's terms, leaving out obvious factual information that does not fit his agenda-driven writings. Have we entered a new policy resembling the 1950's Indian Termination ACT? The difference being, this one is driven by the Education System instead of the Federal Government.
We have now reached the time for some conclusions and the purpose of this writing. Where today's activists (regardless of Race) have for many years manipulated the truth to give voice to an Ideology point of view while censoring opposing opinions as well as the contributing facts, one can only conclude nothing, not a single word coming from their mouths is believable.
As we have clearly shown, before 1870, the vast majority of Mulatto's in the U.S. were American Indians. That classification continued till 1930. It's not clear just when the definition of Mulatto changes to fit a political agenda. Again, we can assume it took place around 1973 when the APA changed its long-held standard from Scientific Research and Data collection into strictly Ideology focus. Incidentally, the definition of Redskins also changed along with this same time frame.
Whereas a tiny but vocal group of non-Indian elite educators and Indian activists are now using these false claims to censor opposing views (including American Indians), truth is more vital today than ever before. With the fabricated and false definition of Mulatto and others to mean Black and White heritage, they use the new definition to attack and discredit American Indians using this false definition. The biggest question becomes, "Why is the Education System working so hard to eradicate the American Indian?"