I read somewhere that the reason the race stops being documented was 
a result of the Mexican Independence. Much like the American 
Independence in which "all men are created equal", the Mexican 
Independence established similar laws.  Thus, it became illegal to 
note the person's race.  The year when the law was put into practice 
will vary from parrish to parrish, but, it would be in the early 
1820's.

Maria Cortez

--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Puentes <makas@n...> wrote:
> 
> 
> alice wissing wrote:
> 
> > Alberto,
> >  
> > There is a table in the book "Governance & Society in Colonial 
Mexico 
> > - Chihuahua in the Eighteenth Century" that contains the number 
of 
> > baptisms occurring in El Sagrario Parish broken down by race.  
In 1780 
> > there were 66 mulatos, and in 1790 there were 0.  It's as if 
they 
> > disappeared during a decade.
> 
> One thing I've noticed and seem to think it had reference to the 
> struggle for Independance from Spain. . . But at a certain time 
period 
> the records in Jalisco seem to stop indicating people by race. 
Those 
> that were mestizo, mulato, espanol, indio etc are seen in the 
records as 
> just people. I'm not sure of the date but somewhere in the early 
1800's 
> this absence of referring to race occured. Maybe what you are 
seeing is 
> a gradual move from the "importance" of establishing race to the 
more 
> politically correct or "preference" of the people to not have race 
play 
> such an important part. Just a thought.
> 
> > One thing we can be certain about, it was not socially and 
> > economically advantageous for our ancestors to identify 
themselves as 
> > mulatos.  Maybe the priests realized that and gradually phased 
out 
> > using the term.  
> >
> > Joseph, if you're out there, many years ago I tried telling a 
> > "sister" I worked with how I thought I was black because of my 
frizzy 
> > hair, and it really annoyed her.  A word of advice to everyone:  
Be 
> > careful about flaunting your newfound heritage around blacks - 
they 
> > could think you are ridiculing them.
> 
> I understand what you are saying but I wouldn't dream of sharing 
that 
> without the proof of a DNA study. Its not like I show them the 
records 
> first but I make reference to them as my evidence.
> 
> > Alice 
> >