Did mulattos have a higher status than native americans in 1901?
American united states
- staisilLv 77 years agoFavorite Answer
Mulattos basically had a higher status as long as they were considered white.
Mulattos often held leadership positions and were trusted by both whites and blacks. As a result some mulattos internalized this attitude of superiority, buying into the white racist structure that privileged whiteness. Many newly freed mulattos moved to the North, and abolitionists used them to gain white support against slavery by noting the physical similarities between mulattos and whites to invoke outrage at the institution of slavery. Some mulattos relied on their white features to win inheritance cases in court. According to Charles Robinson, "petitions for freedom actually came before the county magistrates from biracial offspring prior to … 1662" (Robinson 2003, p. 3). Mulattos would buy their freedom and the freedom of their family members. During the Reconstruction era in the United States, after slaves had been freed, the majority of black leaders in politics, economics, and education were mulattos.
After slavery ended, the need to discourage interracial unions increased as concerns about maintaining racial purity moved to the forefront for southern whites. Robinson argues that "mixed-race people could and did pass as white and successfully join white society by dint of marriage. Southern whites became increasingly alarmed about the potential of ‘invisible’ blackness to infiltrate white society" (Robinson 2003, p. 102). Robinson further notes that "in 1924, the state of Virginia passed the first anti-miscegenation statute that firmly embraced the one-drop rule" (Robinson 2003, p. 101): Citizens of the state were required to register their racial identities, and anyone with any degree of black ancestry was required to register as black.
- HistoryguyLv 77 years ago
In general no. People of any visible African ancestry were considered "black" in the US during the Jim Crow era and had to abide by all the legal rules which were arrayed against African-Americans at the time. If they were visibly black they would also suffer the same social stigma that African-Americans faced. If they were light enough to "pass" then they might be able to pretend to be white and so escape those problems but if they identified, and were identified as, black then they would face stigma. A lighter skinned black person might be marginally less objectionable to whites but was still going to be seen as black. The US at the time did not have a very graded color system such as existed in many Latin American and Caribbean countries where lighter skin tone might mean higher status. From my reading lightness of skin seemed more of a factor within the black community, where high status African-Americans often regarded it as a sign of status, than within the white community who tended to lump all black people together.
- 7 years ago
Well....in a social sense. No. That is where the myth of the fullblood Cherokee great-great Granny princess was born. Mulatto persons were passed off as Native to avoid social and legal repercussions.
Teh descendants of African slaves had already been declared citizens of the US, while Native Americans were not until 50+ years later.Source(s): Ojibwe
- AsdzáníLv 77 years ago
Socially? No. In fact ,Buffalo Child Long Lance, a native American actor in the film "the Silent enemy" (1930) was first celebrated in Hollywood, then banished and blacklisted once it was discovered his father was actually black (his mother was native American)http://www.silentfilm.org/pages/detail/2162
This is why many people who were mulattos would claim to be indian instead, usually claiming "Cherokee" or "blackfoot". And this is why 3 million people today all have the identical family story that great-great grandma was a full-blooded Cherokee. These stories are ludicrously common, and impossible on the face of it. There are only 1/4 of a million real Cherokee today. It is mathematically impossible to have 3 million "Cherokee descendants" simply because there weren't enough ancestors to account for them all!Source(s): Navajo