Feature

What a Tangled Web We Weave: The Children of Colonization

Colonial powers have often formed sexual relationships with colonized peoples in order to strengthen their domination of colonized lands. Colonization did not limit itself to occupation and settlement of land and physical space, but extended in varying forms to the subjection of cultures, languages, and peoples. Critical analysis of colonialism requires assessment of the degree to which settlers colonized the bodies of the peoples who occupied colonized spaces. Sexual relationships (whether consensual or not) between the colonizers and colonized were often constructed, restricted, and rendered in ways that propped up colonial hegemony and reinforced colonial systems. ‘Miscegenation’, or mixed-race relationships, affected those in the relationships and their communities, as well as the offspring of these relationships. The ‘mixed-race’ children of colonizers and colonized peoples were subject to unique and varying experiences that reflected the attitudes of a particular colonial society towards race and racial hierarchy. This is evident in the experiences of the children of Spanish, French, and British colonization in South America, Indochina, and Africa.

Spanish America and the 1789 Court Case of Dona Margarita Castaneda

Spanish America offers an interesting example of European settlers’ colonial categorization of space and people.1 The 1789 court case of Spanish woman, Dona Margarita Castaneda, reveals the place of mixed-race individuals in this colonial society.2 Castaneda’s birth was mistakenly recorded in the baptismal records of mixed-blooded people (libra de castas) instead of the book of Spaniards (libro de espanoles).3 When Castaneda married, her husband went to court to have her declared a ‘true’ Spaniard, so that her offspring would not be ‘tainted’ by racial impurity.4 This was important in New Spain in the late eighteenth century, because ancestry documents of parents and grandparents were required for entrance into universities, guilds, noble orders, and other social organizations, and legitimate inheritance.5 The court did not examine Castaneda’s physical characteristics, rather they used testimonies and interviews to assess her ‘social body’.6 These statements indicate that Spanish identity was neither fixed nor defined by physical characteristics, such as skin colour. None of the four witnesses in the case spoke of Castaneda’s physical traits, but they focused on her conduct as a Spaniard.7 Only full-blooded Spaniards had access to the clothing, jewelry, and associations Castaneda claimed.8 Further, her accent was interpreted as revealing no mixed heritage.9 Thus, categorization in the multiple castes of New Spain was not a function of skin colour.10 One’s caste was a function of one’s social body, occupation, wealth, purity of blood, integrity, and place of origin.11

Spanish American Casta Paintings

The Spanish clearly defined the castes of new Spain. Although they were not based entirely on racial characteristics, attitudes about race are evident in the ways miscegenation was represented in Casta paintings.12 These paintings, mostly from eighteenth-century Mexico, depicted racial mixing in colonial Spanish America.13 They conveyed discourses of power and status in the Spanish empire.14 Susan Deans-Smith suggests that “the colonial subject was portrayed as a racially mixed but productive cog in Spain’s imperial machine,”15 which viewers criticized, admired, or distrusted.16 The different ‘racial mixtures’ of the paintings — Spanish-indigenous (‘mestizos’), Spanish-black (‘mulattoes’), black-indigenous— were most often presented as a man, a woman, and a child in sectioned off groupings.17 Those depicted were often not separated by ‘race’ but by the occupations associated with that ‘race’.18

Spanish men were most commonly depicted as professionals, merchants, or men of leisure; black individuals and ‘mulattoes’ were shown as coachmen; indigenous individuals were shown as food vendors; mestizos as tailors, shoemakers, and masons; and ‘mulattoes’ and mestizas were presented as cooks or spinners.19 Overall, the paintings functioned as an aestheticization and idealization of subordinate peoples, Christobäl Lozano, Nº 4. Mestizo. Mestiza. Mestiza., ca. 1771–1776, oil on canvas, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. emphasizing productive labour, consumption, and commerce in New Spain where “the new generations of colonial subjects — the children — [were] the future of the Spanish Empire.”20

Miguel Cabrera, De español y mulata, morisca, ca. 1763, oil on canvas, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. Miscegenation and escalating political conflict in Spanish American colonies was reinvented and represented as an orderly, idealized, colonial society.21 Some colonial authorities who saw the paintings noted the importance of marking racial differences and hierarchy with portrayals of subject peoples as productive, civilized, educated and employed, overcoming their ‘natural’ inclinations towards vice, idleness, and inferiority.22 Others saw the paintings as slanderous and defamatory towards the ‘white race’, and examples of the dangers of muddying the waters of racial purity.23 Today the paintings act as powerful reminders of unequal colonial relationships, especially evident in ‘racial mixing’, racial hierarchy, and “Spain’s ability to shape representations of its colonial subjects.”24

Abandonment and Child Removal in French West Africa and Indochina

French colonialism, specifically in West Africa and Indochina, also reflects specific ideas about miscegenation that affected the treatment and reception of mixed-race offspring. The French colonial conception was that race was a biologically determined characteristic, but despite perceived divisions of humanity into separate species, many French polygenists advocated for intermarriage in certain circumstances. This was most often motivated by economic or social benefits for the white minority. 26 For the French, an idea persisted that it was possible for the ‘superior’ white blood to overpower the lesser blood, elevating the entire population quality.27 Historian Alice Conkin notes that, although these views had lessened by the 1870s and mixed populations were viewed with aversion, French men were never prevented from going to the colonies and engaging in relationships and metissage (‘cross-breeding’) with the native women while there (especially if there was a lack of European women in the colonies). is important to note, however, that as a whole most fathers did not recognize or register their children, often depriving them of citizenship and legal status. upon returning to France and their French families.30 Even if love factored into the relationship, fathers continued to see themselves as colonists and thus relationships were permeated by connotations of colonization.31

The French state perceived a responsibility to these “morally abandoned” métis children they saw as orphaned, unrecognized, and abandoned to their maternal families. security, the French government undertook to ‘civilize’ and educate these abandoned children.33 The French Society for the Protection of Mixed Race Children articulated their sense of duty in 1910: “It is patriotic, not to mention humane, to take the hands of our miserable children, to raise them in national environment, inculcate in them the love and respect for our dear France… and the defence of the patrie.”34 Many French colonial communities opened separate schools for métis children, and offered opportunities for graduates in colonial administration.

From 1870 to 1975 in French Indochina, the colonial government and non-governmental charities removed, by force or persuasion, over 4,000 fatherless mixed-race children. their mothers again, and were culturally isolated as the French government attempted to transform them into French colonists. population, but to bolster the white population through ‘civilizing’ the children and placing them in elite colonial positions. consent before taking the children.39 French authorities offered stipends as support, but ultimately forceful removal was determined necessary for the ‘good’ of the children.

As in Canada, the United States, and Australia, in Indochina some mothers “consented to sending their children to institutions while many others vehemently resisted.” wanted their children to have what they perceived as high quality care, an elite education, and social privileges that they were not able to offer from their own position in the colonial hierarchy. thought that they would be able to get their children back if they changed their minds.43 Often, the result was that children were put into the elite schools alongside white French children, given middle class opportunities, and time at summer camps, all part of the grooming process to place them as loyal colonial officials. world.

about miscegenation that affected the treatment and reception of mixed-race offspring. The French colonial conception was that race was a biologically determined characteristic, but despite perceived divisions of humanity into separate species, many French polygenists advocated for intermarriage in certain circumstances.25 For the French, an idea persisted that it was possible for the ‘superior’ white blood to overpower the lesser blood, Historian Alice Conkin notes that, although these views had lessened by the 1870s and mixed populations were viewed with aversion, French men were never prevented from going to the colonies and engaging in relationships and metissage (‘cross-breeding’) with the native women while there (especially if there was a lack of European women in the colonies).28 It is important to note, however, that as a whole most fathers did not recognize or register their children, often depriving them of citizenship and legal status.29 Most fathers abandoned the mothers and children Even if love factored into the relationship, fathers continued to see themselves as colonists and thus relationships were permeated by racial and power

The French state perceived a responsibility to these “morally abandoned” métis children they saw as orphaned, unrecognized, and abandoned to their maternal families.32 Perceived as a threat to colonial The French Society for the Protection of Mixed Race Children articulated their sense of duty in 1910: “It is patriotic, not to mention humane, to take the hands of our miserable children, to raise them in national environment, inculcate in them the love and respect for our dear France… and the defence of the Many French colonial communities opened separate schools for métis children, and offered opportunities for graduates in colonial administration.35

From 1870 to 1975 in French Indochina, the colonial government and non-governmental charities removed, by force or persuasion, over 4,000 fatherless mixed-race children.36 These children often never saw their mothers again, and were culturally isolated as the French government attempted to transform them into French colonists.37 As in other French colonies, this removal was not to eliminate the mixed-race population, but to bolster the white population through ‘civilizing’ the children and placing them in elite colonial positions.38 These removals were not forceful at first, as French authorities wanted maternal French authorities offered stipends as support, but ultimately forceful removal was determined necessary for the ‘good’ of the children.40

As in Canada, the United States, and Australia, in Indochina some mothers “consented to sending their children to institutions while many others vehemently resisted.”41 The mothers that consented merely wanted their children to have what they perceived as high quality care, an elite education, and social privileges that they were not able to offer from their own position in the colonial hierarchy.42 Many often Often, the result was that children were put into the elite schools alongside white French children, given middle class opportunities, and time at summer camps, all part of the grooming process to place them as loyal colonial officials.44 If the children embraced their fathers ‘whiteness’, they could move up in the colonial

The Antebellum Southern United States

In the Antebellum South of the United States, interracial relationships and mixed-race children were seen and treated much differently than mixed-race offspring in Spanish America, French Indochina, and West Africa. The primary concern for Americans was the white-black relationship, with the greatest taboo being a relationship that produced ‘mulattoes’ and threatened the colour line.45 An 1860 census suggests ‘mulattoes’ consisted of 10.4 percent of the slave population, and 36.2 percent of the free black population.46 This number may have had a large margin of error, however, as census takers had no definitive criteria to distinguish mixed-race identity.47 Traveler’s accounts suggest that these numbers could have been much higher; Alexis de Tocqueville notes after his 1831 and 1832 visits that “In some parts of American, the European and negro races are so crossed by one another that it is rare to meet with a man who is entirely black, or entirely white.”48 It is likely that mixed-race individuals were more concentrated in cities than in planation districts, however.49

Antebellum life paid special attention to ‘mulattoes’, and often a marked bias was expressed favouring mixed-race individuals over black slave.50 Many accounts refer to mixed-race people being preferred as house servants and plantation tradesmen, and being given better educational opportunities, food, clothing, shelter, and freedom of movement.51 Traveler’s accounts describe

“handsome little mulatto boys” and “beautiful quadroon girls,” and suggestions that white fathers had given the children charm and intelligence, while their mothers gave them good physical structure.52 Many affirmed, however, that no matter how attractive or smart the ‘mulattoes’ were, they would never be considered equal to the ‘pure-blooded’ white.53 These mixed-race children were seen as threats to the slave system and dangerous reminders of the oppressiveness of slavery.54 Mulattoes were constant reminder of miscegenation, despite the fact that “white men [exploiting] black women… was the ugly reality.”55

François Bernard, Group Portrait of Creole Children, 1872, oil on canvas, New Orleans, https://louisianadigitallibrary.org/islandora/object/hnoc-lph:419. Thomas Jefferson himself had a ‘shadow family’ with Sally Hemings, a mixed-race woman who was one of his slaves, yet he himself saw race-mixing as a threat to society.56 In an 1814 letter, he writes “the amalgamation of whites with black produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character can innocently consent.”57 There was a general fear that the American system of slavery could not handle a sliding scale of colour prejudice, and required a rigid colour dichotomy to maintain its colonial power.58 Fathers of mixed-race children rarely acknowledged their mixed race children or relationships, Jefferson included, preserving notions of white family perfection in spite of obvious evidence.59 Sometimes, mixed-race slave children were freed by their fathers, but without recognition of their parentage.60

The legal system forced enslaved mixed-race children to minimize or deny their black mothers if they wanted to claim rights through their fathers wills (if they were even included in it), by presenting themselves as if they had no other parent.61 Further, despite rare occasions of so-called ‘heroism’ by fathers including their mixed-race children in their wills, each act was “infused with the villainy of slavery.”62 Could there even have been consenting mothers when they were slave and slave owner, in a condition of extreme domination based on race and gender? Once freed, most children lost all connection with their fathers, and encountered extreme difficulties, discrimination, and rejection in both black and white communities.

“Mulatto ex-slave in her house near Greensboro, Alabama, May 1941.” Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, Photographs and Prints Division, The New York Public Library, Fair use.

Canada’s Métis Children and the Residential School System

Canada’s colonial history holds unique experiences of non-white and multiracial individuals that reflect wider colonial attitudes of the period. Early on, French experiences with race and race mixture resulted in French missionaries and other colonial representatives being encouraged to intermarry with the Indigenous peoples of Canada, influenced by the colonial desire to tap into local knowledge, expertise, and access to the fur trade.63 Through this, their metis children served as integral go-betweens, as “children of the fur trade.”64 Metis women especially were especially essential to the fur trade, being sought after as marriage partners for fur trade managers because of their close relationships with local First Nations and Metis communities.65

As colonizers increased their hostility, exploitation, and aggression, the Indigenous populations began to be seen more as ‘threats’ to the settlers, whose goal was to dispossess the Indigenous peoples of their lands. Networks of residential schools in Canada were set up in efforts to assimilate indigenous Canadians through generational eradication of culture and language through schooling.66 In an 1879 report for the Canadian government, Nicholas Flood Davin proposed that individuals of mixed descent could play a central role as “the natural mediator between the Government and the red man, and… his natural instructor.”67 Although there was opposition for the inclusion of metis children in the established residential school system, as they had not been included in the Indian Act, some argued that they should be admitted “so that they should not grow up upon reserves an uneducated and barbarous class.”68

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada asserts that there was no single experience of métis or ‘half-blood’ children in residential schools, but often these children felt discriminated against by the other, ‘full-blooded’ students.69 One mother recalled, “My kids, they didn’t like school because they were mistreated. Probably because they were halfbreeds. They would laugh at them and things like that.”70 One man, Raphael Ironstand, recounts his experience being bullied for his ancestry in a Manitoba residential school: “The Crees surrounded me, staring at me with hatred in their eyes, as again they called me ‘Monias,’ while telling me the school was for Indians only. I tried to tell them I was not a Monias, which I now knew meant white man, but a real Indian. That triggered their attack, in unison. I was kicked, punched, bitten, and my hair was pulled out by the roots. My clothes were also shredded, but the Crees suddenly disappeared, leaving me lying on the ground, bleeding and bruised.”71

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission emphasizes the importance of remembering the métis experience in residential schools, which is often overlooked.72 Although Canadian Federal government policy was never consistent concerning métis children, they were often rejected by their peers in the residential school system and also by the white colonial community and administration as a whole, who saw them as a threat to Eurocentric ideas of racial and cultural superiority that had to be neutralized.73

Colonialism’s Children - A Global Phenomena

These stories and experiences of mixed-race children of colonialism are only a short glimpse of a larger picture of colonial authorities’ use of children as currency to be circulated in families, institutions, and social structures.74 The struggles of these mixed-race individuals in gaining acceptance and community within their multiple heritages, yet often never receiving complete integration in either, reflects racial attitudes and hierarchies that persisted throughout the colonial era, even today. Further examples of colonialism’s children include Australia’s ‘stolen generations’, Anglo-Indians, multiracial communities in the Caribbean, Amerasians of Vietnam, and more. Colonial governments used child removal as a strategy of governance and addressing political and demographic dilemmas.75 Whatever the aims and motivations of different colonial administrations, the upbringing of mixed-race children was a “priority through which [colonial authorities] sought to manage colonial subjects and shape and maintain the social order.”76 It is crucial to remember these children who in their mere existence shaped and challenged colonialism’s racialized social structures.

Alyssa M. Broadbent (she/her)

History major, Sociology concentration