Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:29:36 -0500
From: A.D. Powell
Subject: The values of the “slave market”
In SOUL BY SOUL: LIFE INSIDE THE ANTEBELLUM SLAVE MARKET by Walter Johnson (an Assistant Professor of Hsitory at New York University), the author describes the stereotypes attributed to slaves for sale:
Dark skinned men: The darkest skin preferred for heavy field work; assumed to be healthier and stronger (more “masculine”) than “light-skinned” or “white” males. The blacker the better as far as field work was concerned.
Dark-skinned women: Assumed to be similar to men in ability to endure hard work; very fertile; not “delicate” or “feminine” like “white” or “light-skinned” women (except for the fertility part).
Light-skinned men: Assumed to be intelligent and suited for skilled labor or personal service; not as strong or healthy as dark-skinned men. Fear that they may be too rebellious or literate often made them hard to sell, especially if the males were “too white” and therefore deemed more likely to run away.
Light-skinned women: Highly prized for domestic and other “personal” (sexual) services. Very expensive, especially when young and attractive. Often described as delicate, fragile, feminine. Some concern when she is “too white” (blond and blue-eyed, for example), but not nearly as much of a disadvantage from the slave dealer’s point of view as “too white” males.
_______
Aren’t these stereotypes still alive? The Seattle Times posted letters in response to the article “White Girl” (in which a black-identified mulatto denounced her cousin for identifying as “white”; she had been reared as “white” by her “white” mother with the unmarried mulatto father frequently absent) that were dominated by “white mulatto” women boasting that they only wanted to mate with the blackest men they could find. There was also one black woman (who appeared on “Nightline”) who boasted that she had bullied her niece (another “white” woman’s daughter) into the same self-hatred. Aren’t these people still dominated by “slave market” values? The most “masculine” slave desires the “most feminine” slave. However, this time the “feminine” slave considers her “owners” to be “black” rather than “white.” How many “black” oriented media, TV shows, movies, etc. seek to sexually unite the mulatto female with the black male? Why? Because the “slave market” values are still in their minds. I have to also back the previous letter suggesting that black males are responsible for a disproportionate amount of sexual harassment. It’s true! Perhaps those males see themselves as the super-masculine beasts and studs that their great-grandparents’ slave traders saw. Think also of the current controversy about supposed “black superiority” in sports – the old slave market values back again.
Look at the stereotype for black women slaves and think “welfare queen.” Only this time, the babies are not valuable property and the fertility that used to increase her value now lessens it. Consider the black women who are always raving about “white” women “stealing” their men. Why don’t THEY seek out non-black mates? They aren’t “feminine” enough – at least they don’t have the confidence to believe they are. If black men aren’t forced to marry them, who will? The old slave market stereotype at work.
“Mulatto” males are, on the average, far more upwardly mobile than “black” males in terms of “class,” professional jobs, etc. That’s why 80% of the “first” or famous “blacks” of the 19th century are not “black” at all. They are also more upwardly mobile than “mulatto” females in terms of “caste” or “racial” identity. Just as in the 19th century, they are more likely to “run away” and blend into the “white” population. In SALLY HEMINGS & THOMAS JEFFERSON: HISTORY, MEMORY, AND CIVIC CULTURE (edited by Jan Ellen Lewis & Peter Onuf), we are told that the black-identfied but very mulatto Hemings family has always been forced to deal, in every generation, with “runaway brothers” or male family members who reject the family’s “black elite” pretense for a “white” identity. The recent “Frontline” propaganda called “Jefferson’s Blood” devoted most of the program to denouncing a Hemings-descended male for “passing” and not giving the “black” stigma to his children. Sociologist Edward Reuter also noted this in his THE MULATTO IN THE UNITED STATES. I’m not surprised, since it is easier for a male to move alone in society and find a job to support himself (in both the 19th and 20th centuries). It is also easier, in general, for males to find desirable mates.
Why is it then that movies, novels, plays, television, etc. usually portray the condemned “passing” mixed-white as female rather than male? In many schools of racist thought, “superior races” are portrayed as masculine, active, penetrating. “Inferior races” are supposed to be feminine, passive, waiting to be violated. The female fits the stereotype that many “black” and “white” people want to present. Remember Susan Kohner (half-Mexican in real life) being beaten up by her Nordic “boyfriend” Troy Donahue (in an uncredited role; he SHOULD be ashamed) in the 1950s version of “Imitation of Life”? She is meant to represent ALL “uppity” mulattoes being beaten down. This wouldn’t have worked with a male. They can’t have a “Nordic” woman beating HIM up, since sex roles are far older and stronger than “racial” roles. Even if he is attacked by another male, his sex demands that he fight back. This is not the passive image of poor “Sarah Jane” beaten, helpless and crying in the mud. The ultra feminine image of the “white mulatta” is also used as a guilt-free “miscegenation” fantasy that is not “really” miscegnation since she is sexually available for violation by the black male (supposedly the ultimate horror for a “white” female) as well as the “white” male. “Sarah Jane” is a more sexually charged figure than the “pure” Nordic Sandra Dee or Lana Turner precisely because the ultimate violation is unthinkable for their “Aryan” highnesses. The audience gets to indulge in “miscegenation” fantasies that can be denied by denying “Sarah Jane’s” whiteness.