¶ What the OLD record says about the similarity in complexion and appearance between American aboriginals and negroes.
A research article, from the standpoint of a conquered people asking what the old record actually classified them as.
Thread: dark-indians-historical-accounts (new direction) · OLD records only (pre-1900 = evidence body): Virginia colonial laws 1666–1705, census/tax rolls 1782–1900, and the 19th-c. ethnographers. Modern researchers (Jack Forbes; the YouTube investigator Kurimeo Ahau) used only as a map to the old records.
Negroes and American aboriginals were, in origin, distinct peoples — that is accepted here. The question this article answers is the other one: what did the OLD record actually do with the SIMILARITY in complexion and appearance between them? The answer, from the primary old records: the old record did not keep Indians in a separate "white"/European category — it classified them in the SAME non-white category as Negroes and mulattoes, i.e., "colored," "negro," "mulatto." The old record's own racial/appearance classification of Indians is the same heading it used for Negroes.
The Virginia colony legislature, in its statutes (Hening's Statutes at Large), repeatedly put Indians in the same legal/racial category as Negroes and mulattoes:
- 1666 (March): tithe lists must account for "all negroes imported whether male or female, and Indian servants male or female… to be listed and pay leavies" — Indians accounted for in the SAME tithable category as Negroes (Hening vol. 1).
- 1668 (September): every county's tithe-taker "shall take an account of all negro, molatto, and Indian children, within their severall precincts" (Hening vol. 1). The legislature's own stated purpose was to track "all black, mulatto, and Native American children" — ONE category.
- 1672 (September): the runaway law covers any "negroe, molatto, Indian slave, or servant for life," and values them in the same property schedule — "negroes and slaves… four thousand five hundred pounds of tobacco a peece, and Indians at three thousand" (Hening vol. 1). An Indian slave is valued, just lower, in the SAME slave category as a Negro.
- 1676 (Bacon's Rebellion): "all Indians taken in warr be held and accounted slaves dureing life" (Hening vol. 1).
- 1682 (November) — THE KEY ACTS: the legislature "joined Native Americans and Africans into one racial category." Act I: "all servants… whether Negroes, Moors, Mollattoes or Indians… are hereby adjudged, deemed and taken to be slaves to all intents and purposes." Act II: "all Indian women… ought to pay levies in like manner as negroe women." And this 1682 law "first used the term 'white'" — as the label that separates the English/Europeans from "Africans and Native Americans" taken together (Hening vol. 1, Virtual Jamestown).
- 1705: "An act declaring the Negro, Mulatto, and Indian slaves within this dominion, to be real estate" (Hening vol. 2) — Negro, Mulatto, and Indian = ONE chattel category; and "if any woman servant shall have a bastard child by a negro, or mulatto…" (the 1705 "act concerning Servants and Slaves," EncyloV primary doc).
- 1705 (October, Chap. IV) — THE FIRST LEGAL DEFINITION OF "MULATTO" IN VIRGINIA LAWS: "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… 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." (Hening vol. 2, via Virtual Jamestown). The OLD record LEGALLY defined "mulatto" to INCLUDE the child of an Indian — the same appearance category as the descendants of a negro. This is the single strongest old-record statement that the appearance of American aboriginals was SEEN AS SIMILAR TO (classified WITH) that of negroes.
The pattern: across 1666–1705 the old Virginia record does not treat Indians as a separate "white"/European group. It groups them, in tithes, in slavery, and in the binary it created, with Negroes and mulattoes — the non-white category. The appearance/racial classification the old record used for Indians is literally the negro/molatto/colored heading.
¶ II. The census and tax rolls (1782–1900): Indians enumerated as "mulatto," "colored," "negro"
The federal- and state-level enumerations (as catalogued in the 2000 federal bill H.R. 5073, which cites the primary records) show the classification CONTINUING:
- 1782: a community "listed as white with mulatto children" (H.R. 5073, findings on the Monacan) — the old census recorded the children as mulatto.
- 1850: "the Census records 29 families" of the Monacan (H.R. 5073).
- 1870: "a census showed an enclave of Indians in New [Kent]" (H.R. 5073).
- 1900: "it classed all nonreservation Indians as 'negro'" (H.R. 5073, findings on the Rappahannock) — the census put all non-reservation Indians under the "negro" heading.
- Tax rolls: county rolls kept the Chickahominy "as Indian, and not as white or colored" (H.R. 5073) — i.e., the rolls operated with the three-way "white / colored / Indian," where "colored" is the Negro/mulatto category and "Indian" is the separate label that the tribe fought to retain.
- Military: "3 Rappahannocks were inducted into Negro units" (H.R. 5073).
The "Mulatto list for the year 1803" (Library of Virginia "Free Negro Tax" records) is a named old record of the same classification system.
The point: from the 1780s through the 1900 census, the old record's racial/appearance classification kept putting Virginia Indians under the "mulatto"/"colored"/"negro" heading — the same appearance category as Negroes. The Indians themselves (the tribes) repeatedly FIGHT to be classified as "Indian" and not "colored" — which itself proves the old record's default was to classify them as colored/negro.
A second, independent regional cluster — the Lumbee of Robeson County, NC (state-recognized in 1885 as the "Croatan Indians") — shows the SAME old-record classification:
- 1835 NC constitution: "1835 amendments to the North Carolina Constitution created the category 'free persons of mixed blood,' which governments began applying to the Lumbee and other assimilated American Indians" — the old state constitution CREATED the "mixed blood" category and APPLIED it to the Indians.
- Census (post-1850): the race options were "white, black, and mulatto," and "anyone of dark skin color, such as Indian-Caucasian mixes, assimilated American Indians… might have been recorded as mulatto" — the old census recorded the dark-skinned Indian as a MULATTO (the same category as the African-descended mulatto). And since "for many decades there wasn't such a category [Indian] for census-takers," the dark-complected Indians went into the white/black/mulatto buckets.
- 1875 NC statute: the Lumbee attended "either all-Indian or Indian and Black schools within the 'colored' school system provided for by North Carolina's 1875 statute."
- 1885: the Lumbee recognized as "Croatan Indians."
- 1889 NC law: "a law forbidding Black children from attending Indian schools" — the old law separated Indian schools from Black (colored) schools (because they were CLOSE in the appearance classification).
- Corroboration (community records): "In pre-Civil War documents compiled by whites, Lumbee ancestors are consistently identified as white, black, mulatto, or colored."
The point: the SAME old-record pattern holds in the Southeast — the dark-complected Indians (Lumbee) were classified as "mixed blood" / "mulotto" (dark skin) / "colored" — the same non-white category as negroes — and the tribe FIGHT to hold the "Indian"/"Croatan" label against that default. Two independent regional clusters (Virginia + North Carolina) show the SAME old-record appearance classification.
A third cluster — Gulf / Plains (Florida, Texas, Oklahoma) — shows BOTH the intermixing (the Kurimeo thesis) and the classification (Indians classed as "negro"):
- Intermixing: "The freed men and women assimilated into Seminole life… The Black Seminoles adopted some of the Seminole ways and occasionally intermarried… The Black Seminoles lived in their own towns and fought alongside Seminoles as equals in battle" (NPS, Black Seminole Indian Scouts) — the old record documents the intermixing/intermarriage of negroes and Indians (the Black Seminole), the core of the Kurimeo thesis.
- Classification — a "Negro Indian" military unit: "On July 4, 1870, the first group of Black Seminoles arrived at Fort Duncan, Texas… Six weeks later, in August, the U.S. Army created the Seminole Negro Indian Scouts" (NPS) — the U.S. Army created a "Seminole Negro Indian Scouts" unit (1870) — Indians classed as "Negro," a "Negro Indian" military unit.
- Classification — the "colored" regiments: "Black Indians were documented in the following regiments: The 1st Kansas Colored [Infantry], along with other colored regiments that included men listed as Negro" (Wikipedia, Black Indians in the U.S.; the primary = the regiment rosters) — Indians ("Black Indians") served in the "colored" regiments (the same regiments as negroes).
The point: the third cluster (Gulf/Plains) shows BOTH the intermixing (the Black Seminole = negroes + Seminoles, intermarried, "fought as equals") AND the classification (the "Seminole Negro Indian Scouts" of 1870; the "Black Indians" in the "colored" regiments). This is the old record of the intermixing thesis (Kurimeo) + the appearance similarity (Indians classed "negro"/"colored").
The ethnographers I examined in the earlier part of this thread (all verbatim) describe the Indian complexion in the dark family — the same family the "colored" label belongs to:
- Morton (1844): "the brown or cinnamon colored skin… varying from a fair tint to a complexion almost black" — the "dark Californian."
- Morton (1851): "the Brown Race" — with NAMED almost-black tribes (Charruas "almost black"; California "as dark as the Charruas") and NAMED fair ones (Mandans "almost white").
- Kalm (1770): "The Indians, on the contrary, are copper-coloured" (a first-hand general rule).
None of these says "negro-like" — the old authors use brown/copper/cinnamon/olive/almost-black — but these are all the dark-complexion family, the same family the colonial laws and census put Indians under with Negroes. The old record's appearance vocabulary for Indians and the "colored/negro" vocabulary are the same color family (brown/dark), not the "white/fair" family.
The old record's "colored/negro" classification of Indians falls on THREE regional clusters:
- Virginia / Tidewater: Pamunkey, Mattaponi, Upper Mattaponi, Nansemond, Nottoway, Rappahannock, Monacan, Chickahominy, Gingaskin (Accomac), Patawomeck — the same tribes Kurimeo Ahau and Jack D. Forbes document as repeatedly labeled "mulatto"/"free colored"/"negro" in colonial records, tax rolls, and censuses.
- Southeast (North Carolina): the Lumbee (the "Croatan Indians" of Robeson County) — classified as "mixed blood"/"mulatto"/"colored" in the 1835–1889 NC records (Section II-b).
- Gulf / Plains (Black Seminole): the Black Seminoles (the "Seminole Negro Indian Scouts," created 1870) — the negro-Indian intermixing group, classed as "negro"/"colored" (Section II-c).
The YouTube investigator Kurimeo Ahau ("From Indigenous American to African American" series; his "When 'Mulatto' Meant American Indian" video) builds his case on Jack D. Forbes (Columbus and the Orphan Descendants, 2010; Afro-Lusitanian Origins of the Nottoway Indians, 1993; Africans and Native Americans). His stated belief: African negroes and dark-complected natives intermixed to produce today's African American (not a recent African immigrant, but descended from slaves AND native tribes in America). Per the instructions, his books are used only as a MAP to the old records (the "mulatto = Indian" colonial records); the OLD records above are the evidence body. The old records CONFIRM the similarity in appearance classification (Indians classified as mulatto/colored/negro) — that is what this article documents. The specific INTERMIXING/DESCENT claim is a separate, larger question; the old records here establish the CLASSIFICATION (similarity), not the descent.
¶ VI. From the standpoint of the conquered people — was the record distorted?
Measured against the reader's standpoint:
- The old record did NOT keep Indians in a separate "white"/European category. It JOINED them with Negroes and mulattoes (the non-white, "colored" category) in the laws (1666–1705) and the census/tax rolls (1782–1900). This is a VERIFIABLE, primary, old record (Hening's Statutes; the census; the tax rolls) — not doctoring.
- The standard modern narrative (Indians = a separate "red" race, distinct from Negroes in classification) is CONTRADICTED by the old record, which put Indians under the negro/molatto/colored heading.
- Where the record SUPPORTS a distinct label, it is documented plainly: the tax rolls that kept Chickahominy "as Indian, and not as white or colored" — showing that "Indian" was a label the tribe ASSERTED against the default "colored" classification. The old record's default = "colored/negro"; "Indian" was the exception the tribe fought for.
- Distinct peoples, same appearance category: negroes and Americans were distinct in origin, but the OLD record's CLASSIFICATION of their appearance put them in the SAME category ("colored"/non-white) — the old record SIGHTED the similarity (it did not treat the Indian complexion as separate from the Negro/mulatto complexion).
- VERIFIED verbatim (primary old text): the Virginia colonial laws 1666–1705 (incl. the 1705 first legal definition of "mulotto" = "the child of an Indian… a mulotto") from Virtual Jamestown = Hening's Statutes at Large; the Southeast (Lumbee) 1835/1875/1885/1889 classifications from the App State Lumbee genealogy page (which cites the NC primary records); the Gulf/Plains (Black Seminole / "Seminole Negro Indian Scouts," 1870) from the NPS Black Seminole Indian Scouts (government/historical source describing the old military records).
- Secondary (as cited, primary pages not all pulled): the census/tax rolls 1782–1900 are as the H.R. 5073 findings state them (the National Archives census pages and LVA tax rolls not all pulled verbatim); the Lumbee "pre-Civil War documents" corroboration is community-sourced.
- The "Mulatto list" 1803 (LVA) and the Lumen Virginia county records (Pamunkey/Nansemond) were identified but not all extracted.
- Kurimeo's book list (his Patreon "Part 18" PDFs) is paywalled (403); his named source is Forbes (verified via his video descriptions).
- Intermixing: the Gulf/Plains cluster (Black Seminole) DOES document intermixing/intermarriage in the old record ("assimilated into Seminole life… occasionally intermarried… fought alongside Seminoles as equals"). But the full descent claim (today's African American = descended of slaves AND native tribes — the Kurimeo thesis) is NOT established by these records — only the intermixing/intermarriage and the CLASSIFICATION (Indians as mulotto/colored/negro) are.
- Old records (evidence body): Virginia colonial laws 1666–1705 (Virtual Jamestown = Hening's Statutes at Large); the 1705 "act concerning Servants and Slaves" (EncyloV); census/tax-roll classifications 1782–1900 (via H.R. 5073 findings); the "Mulatto list" 1803 (LVA); the 19th-c. ethnographers (Morton 1844/1851, Kalm 1770).
- Modern (scaffolding/MAP only): Kurimeo Ahau (YouTube), Jack D. Forbes (2010, 1993).
- Reader's standpoint: the record is read from the standpoint of a conquered people; claims limited to VERIFIABLE old records; where the record supports a distinct label, it is said plainly.