Americans Get The Light/Dark Skinned Black Women Thing Entirely Wrong

American exceptionalism is a powerful cultural idea of course. It’s even a true enough reading of history at times. One where it’s not is over slavery except in one or two details. Slavery was a commonplace throughout human history. Guinea – as it was then called – was a source of slaves into the Arab world at least for a millennium before any European got involved. One of those details where it was indeed different is in something Jefferson Davis himself noted, that by the time of the Confederacy the vast majority of American slaves had been born there, that natural increase. That was indeed the exception of slave portions of society anywhere – near all requiring a constant influx of newly enslaved to maintain population.

But, you know, history isn’t quite how slavery is talked about in the US. There’s rather more myth to it than reality. Take this for example:

Colorism – the prejudice based on skin tone – has stunted the romantic lives of millions of dark-skinned black women, including me. We are not as valued as our lighter-skinned counterparts when seeking romantic partners, our dating pool constricted because of something as arbitrary as shoe size.

That part is true. But this part isn’t:

Like other systems of racial inequality, American colorism was born out of slavery. As slave masters raped enslaved women, their lighter-skinned illegitimate offspring were given preferential treatment over their darker counterparts, often working in the house as opposed to the fields. This order has since been perpetuated by systemic racism and internalized by black people. It remains alive even now, insidiously snaking into my life. I have many memories of being degraded because of my complexion, the most piercing is from middle school: two girls giggled in my Georgia history class during the showing of a documentary about slavery. As the film explained the origins of skin tone prejudice, one girl – biracial, hazel-eyed, and the only other black girl in class – whispered that she would have been a house slave, but that I would have been a field slave.

That is to claim, again, an American exceptionalism that isn’t there. For darker skin has long been associated with certain traits:

Dark skin still not only comes with the expectation of lower class but lessened beauty, not to mention uncleanliness, lesser intelligence and a diminished attractiveness.

Indeed so. Note what is not being argued here by me, that such prejudice exists or does not. It’s the cause – and the prevalence or solely Americanness of it – which is.

For a decent clue think about that house and field distinction. Leave aside the melanin content for a moment and think of melanin development. Those who work outside, in the fields, will be darker than those who don’t have to. This is as true of those with Wolof, Mandingo, genetic heritages as with Anglo Saxon, or Hindi, or Khmer. The poor who labour in the fields will be darker of hue – not through genes, but environment – than those who leisure indoors. Thus a lighter skin is a market of an enhanced socio-economic status. Which is why we get skin whitening creams across much of the sub-continent. Why Jane Austen characters worry about their bonnets, the absence of which might lead to the terrors of freckles.

And note too what happened when work moved indoors and thus those Northern factory workers (I speak of the UK, but the US would do as well) were pale. Add in jet travel meaning that the rich could go warm for the winter – what then became that marker of socioeconomic status? A tan. This changed in, in societal terms, the blink of an eye – certainly under a generation. We also see that same mimicking in reverse, not the whitening creams but the tanning salons.

Is there colorism? Sure there is. But it’s not caused, as is being argued, by slavery, not even genes. It’s something that has been common – as with slavery itself of course – across human societies and history. Richer people were lighter in skin tone thus lighter skin tone was a marker of being richer. Simply because poorer people worked out in the Sun, richer didn’t.

Why else would redneck have been a description of a poorer section of society if this were not so?

6
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
PattimworstallTDQuentin VoleQ46 Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Q46
Guest
Q46

Cosmetics to lighten skin tone are popular in Africa because lighter skin is associated with higher status indoor, professional classes. On the other hand there is long time, discrimination against mixed race, lighter skin, individuals, there. In the US these products were initially introduced and promoted to lighten skin tone, but in practice not used for this, instead to even out irregularities in skin tone between darker and lighter patches and used by men as well as women. The marketing director of one cosmetics company whom I knew, told me according to their market research, skin tone be it lighter… Read more »

thammond
Guest
thammond

Nor is it an American problem. The Dalits have been seen as darker skinned in India for centuries, and the prejudice against darker skin exists all across southern Africa though it then stops at the San. As for the lighter skinned son of daughter of the slave owner, it’s far more likely they were favoured because they were a child of the slave OK owner rather than because of the lightness or otherwise of their skin.

Quentin Vole
Guest
Quentin Vole

One of those details where it was indeed different is in something Jefferson Davis himself noted, that by the time of the Confederacy the vast majority of American slaves had been born there, that natural increase. That was indeed the exception of slave portions of society anywhere – near all requiring a constant influx of newly enslaved to maintain population.

So does that imply that US slaves were (in general) better treated than had been historically the case?

TD
Guest
TD

Frederick Douglass’s autobiographies make for interesting reading.

timworstall
Guest
timworstall

Yes, it does. Although people absolutely hate the argument being used. For it was indeed used by Jefferson Davis – and others – to justify continuance.

Who uses a fact for what doesn’t change the fact though.

Pat
Guest
Pat

May I posit that female slaves, like female non-slaves, favoured high status men, hence rape was rarely necessary – except as an excuse for the women.