Mulatto - Meaning..
Has anyone seen the subject of Mulatto in the *wikapedia* online? This is NOT a good source at all for information, as anyone can say anything they want in there, true or false, or edit anything already there.
Someone has begun trying to make everyone think that an Indian and white mix was called Mulatto. Many people who claim relation to my ancestors, but who don't WANT to acknowledge African ancestry, in spite of the DNA results so many of them have gotten showing African ancestry, have jumped on this *new definition* of Mulatto and are spreading it all over the net as if it is a fact.
Someone else is pushing that notion as well by the name of Gabe Gabehart...He's even using a blog to spread misinformation about who was a Mulatto..
My 5th g-grandfather, John Aaron Drake ,Jr. (among others, but John is who has been targeted) was Mulatto. There is nothing anywhere to indicate that he was NOT actually Mulatto as we know the word. We have his actual marriage record that states he was Mulatto..
Gabe Gabehart wants to argue with the record, saying John Drake was Indian and white *Mulatto*, with no Negro blood, and he and many others try to use the 1705 VA law as basis for their false assertion that Indian and white mix was *Mulatto*.
The law as written states that.."the child of an Indian, and the child, grandchild and great-grandchild of a Negro"..is Mulatto.
We already know that originally, a person called Mulatto was half Black and half white, and was named such due to the *Negro* blood. That was it. It was a derrogatory term used on people who were considered so much livestock, and they were not considered livestock due to their white blood.
This *new* law of 1705 appears to me to be adding Indian and Negro mix, and 1/4 and 1/8 Negro mixed with anything as who to be called Mulatto, instead of just the original half white half Negro mix.
Gabehart is telling people that *the child of an Indian* is a Mulatto..That doesn't make sense, not without including something else, which the law does not expressly do...The child of an Indian would be Indian, unless the other parent was something else..The subject of the law was Mulatto..There is NOTHING written in it about *white* persons, and there is nothing in it that should lead a reasoning person to believe it was implying that the child of an Indian *and a white person* would be called Mulatto..
In my mind, Gabehart and others are Afro-phobic and are taking this 1705 law and it's **not specific enough for some people** wording and using it to change history, and to try to erase a whole segment of many people's ancestry, which is African.
This would not concern me if others would'nt read his false assertions and believe them..Then again, anyone who would just take stuff they find online as gospel aren't interested in the truth anyway.