Is the hierarchy
of “blackness” that existed in the trade market and on plantations reflective
upon racial dynamics today? How
was “lightness” and “darkness” perceived? How is it currently perceived?
In Soul By Soul,
Walter Johnson explains that the color of a slave’s skin depended not solely
upon their visible color; instead, the categorized pigmentation of the skin of
a slave was dependent upon the work that the slave did, in addition to slave-owners
perception of the color of the slave. This statement astounded me, as I knew
that blacks were often subdivided into more specific racial categories such as
“mulatto”, “very black”, or “very light”, however I was unaware that the work
or state of a slave, and how slave owners perceived them had the potential to
contribute to their blackness or lightness. Why did the skin color of a slave
have the potential to dictate what type of work they did? Imagine! White people
also have varying pigmentation—some individuals are extremely tan, others have
pale skin, and some might have a more olive skin tone. If the degree of
whiteness that a Caucasian individual exhibits is insignificant, why did the
degree of blackness of a slave carry such momentous weight? Johnson suggests
that it is because it was a social indicator—yet another way to categorize and
dehumanize slaves. On page 159, he states, “The racism in the slave pens,
however, was less an intended effect than a tool of the trade”. I disagree. Racism
in the slave pens served a purpose—it enabled slave owners to create a
hierarchical system within the oppressive system of slavery that already
existed. Such hierarchical systems created an enormous amount of tension within
the slave community, enabling slave owners to maintain even more power. Slaves
were already subordinate to their masters; creating tension within slaves’ community
and forcing them to yield to the meaning that the shade of their skin implied
is wrong. It is absolutely revolting.
Because race is
a social construct, it is intrinsically linked to history, such as slavery,
which created categorical exclusion and differentiation between races.
Society’s perceived implications of race during the periods of slavery have
thus shaped the racial issues that exist in the United States today. On page
155, Johnson writes, “for slave buyers, the bodies of light-skinned women and
little girls embodied sexual desire and the luxury of being able to pay for its
fulfillment—they were projections of slaveholders’’ own imagined identities as
white men and slave masters”. Zuhey
Coria Lopez, a college student writes about how people are categorized by
shades affects dark skinned women. I found her insight to be helpful in
understanding the complexity. She states,
“Light
skin is considered beautiful and as the best way to look because white people
had more power than people of color and were seen as the best. White people
were seen as the ones who did not commit crimes. The advantage for light
skinned minorities caused them to act or want to be white in order to receive
privileges. However, because society views white as being the best, this leads
to internalized oppression. Dark skinned women are not satisfied with the way
they look. Instead of women living a normal life and appreciating themselves
for what they have and look, they worry about their exterior. Since everyone
wants to look beautiful, people of color are willing to change themselves in
order to look better.”
This quote
perfectly captures how blacks are oppressed not solely by color, but also by
their shade of blackness. I wonder if slaves of darker color ever experienced
these feelings? Did lighter skinned slaves feel entitled to “act or want to be
white in order to receive privilege”?
A study done by Arthur
H. Goldsmith, Darrick Hamilton and William Darity Jr. titled From Dark to
Light: Skin Color and Wages among African Americans recently proved that “lightness—possessing white
characteristics as measured by skin shade—is rewarded in the labor market”
(729). One of the most interesting findings was that whites only
earn about 3.1 percent more than light-skinned blacks. Lighter skinned blacks
were found to have around an 8 percent advantage over medium and dark-skinned
blacks (713). This is another example of how variations of color are important.
But are they as important as physical stature, beauty or hard work ethics?
Lopez , Z. C. L.
(2009). Internalized oppression in the u.s. is hard to change, but never
impossible . Retrieved from
http://www2.ucsc.edu/visionaryvoices/Oakes/web_pages/zuhey_coria_lopez/lopez_essay.htm
Arthur H.
Goldsmith, Darrick Hamilton and William Darity Jr. From Dark to Light: Skin Color and
Wages among African-Americans
The Journal
of Human Resources ,
Vol. 42, No. 4 (Fall, 2007), pp. 701-738
Published by: University of Wisconsin Press Article Stable
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40057327
The implications of perceived blackness were very surprising to me, as well. I agree with your argument above, especially your refute to Johnson's statement that the racism in slave pens was not entirely intended. It is so clear that the perceived blackness is just another another way to rank the slaves, thus adding another contributing factor to the oppression.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of Johnson's explanation was very interesting and confusing to me. Johnson described that for dark skinned slaves, blackness implied healthiness (Johnson 140). Therefore, when they became ill, their skin got lighter, which implied weakness or sickness. Johnson states that blackness was different in men and woman (50). The contradiction is interesting, and serves as further support that the oppressors set the slaves up for failure.
Noelle posed the question, "Did lighter skinned slaves feel entitled to “act or want to be white in order to receive privilege?"
I'm struggling to decide on an answer to the question. For one side,
I don't think the slaves wanted to act or want to be white, because of their (good-reasoned) deep rooted hostility towards the race. However, I do think the light skinned slaves felt as if they were better than the dark skinned slaves, as they were closer to fitting many slaveowner's ideal image. On the other hand, I feel that the slaves felt a greater bond within themselves as a whole and would not choose a feeling of entitlement towards whites over loyalty to their own race. I am curious as if the hierarchy within the perceived blackness greatly affected the institution the slaves had built for themselves.
This is a very interesting post, about a concept of Johnson's book that I, too, found to be thought-provoking. The only way that I have studied the spectrum of blackness is while recognizing the power light skinned African Americans have acquired in the past. The example that comes to mind is W.E.B. Dubois, who is known to have received black-lash from fellow African Americans for acting too much like a white man, having the opportunity to receive power solely from the lightness of his skin.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Johnson's book, I was shocked while learning of the thought processes concerning different shades of skin tones. Perhaps some of the slave masters and holders truly believed that associating blackness and healthfulness was a scientific reality, however, this fabricated science was quite a convenient science for them to take to heart. I consider the preference for darker skinned black slaves to be an excuse to make the commodification process easier on the slave holder, for when differences are exaggerated, it is easier to prolong discrimination. Perhaps the more the African Americans looked like their masters, the harder it was for the masters to treat them the way that they did. To see a similar skin tone was to be reminded of the humanity of all slaves. To only purchase the slaves with the darkest skin tones was to turn a blind eye to the equality of the slave that should have been seen despite the color.
I was extremely grateful for the opportunity to discuss some of the information in the original blog post in class, as it answered many of the questions I was grappling with. In class, we left on a note implying that skin tone was an indicator of how much time a slave spent outside, and their capability to work in either the fields (dark), or house (lighter). I, however believe that it had less to do with what their color signified they were capable of, and more to do with the slaveholders perception and desire to maintain "whiteness". The more darker, or different a slave's skin color was to his master, the more oppression the slave was likely to experience. The caveat? Slaves could attain lighter skin color by proving they had good work ethics, by having muscles, by showing loyalty, or by being beautiful. Finding a way to entice slaves to attain more "whiteness" was a tool--yet another form of manipulation and oppression.
ReplyDeleteAs Johnson mentions, variances between the skin tones of black people was another way to subdivide black people in the slave pens. People with lighter skin tones were considered better and more likely allowed to work in the houses because they more closely resembled white people. Slaveholders considered the white race to be beautiful and for the black to be ugly. Because lighter slaves had some white intermingling in their bloodlines, they were considered more beautiful and worthy to be in the house.
ReplyDeleteRemnants of this idea that lighter skin tone is better than darker still linger in today's society. A young light skin black woman who graduated from Rhodes told me of how she had received different treatment than her darker friends in the past. And how she envied her sister because she was even lighter than she was. This was due to the lingering conception that the lighter your skin tone, the more beautiful you are.