To be invisible or exoticized: The NYT’s article on Michelle Obama’s family history
by Guest Contributor Tami, originally published at What Tami Said
The Obama family’s ascendancy to the White House and the national spotlight causes quite a conundrum for black folks who pay attention to how black lives are discussed by media and the mainstream. On one hand, suddenly people notice that black people exist, particularly the black middle class, black bodies, black hair, black families, black professional women, black marriages… After years of being ignored, it feels kinda good to be visible. On the other hand, suddenly people notice that black people exist, particularly the black middle class, black bodies, black hair, black families, black professional women, black marriages…And all of these seemingly mundane things are now treated as fascinating discoveries. They are weighed and breathlessly reported by media, and analyzed and remarked upon by consumers of media. After hundreds of years as part of American culture, blackness is still seen as “other”–sometimes exotic, sometimes dangerous, sometimes strange.
Lots of black women have round butts!
Black people have funny hair!
Black churches sure are different!
and now…from The New York Times…
Black descendants of enslaved Africans have triumph, tragedy and non-black ancestors in their histories!
In an NYT article published yesterday, Rachel L. Swarns and Jodi Kantor share Michelle Obama’s family history as uncovered by the newspaper and genealogist Megan Smolenyak. The article zeros in on the story of one of Michelle Obama’s female ancestors named Melvinia:
Of the dozens of relatives she identified, Ms. Smolenyak said, it was the slave girl who seemed to call out most clearly.
“Out of all Michelle’s roots, it’s Melvinia who is screaming to be found,” she said.
When her owner, David Patterson, died in 1852, Melvinia soon found herself on a 200-acre farm with new masters, Mr. Patterson’s daughter and son-in law, Christianne and Henry Shields. It was a strange and unfamiliar world.
In South Carolina, she had lived on an estate with 21 slaves. In Georgia, she was one of only three slaves on property that is now part of a neat subdivision in Rex, near Atlanta.
Whether Melvinia labored in the house or in the fields, there was no shortage of work: wheat, corn, sweet potatoes and cotton to plant and harvest, and 3 horses, 5 cows, 17 pigs and 20 sheep to care for, according to an 1860 agricultural survey.
It is difficult to say who might have impregnated Melvinia, who gave birth to Dolphus around 1859, when she was perhaps as young as 15. At the time, Henry Shields was in his late 40s and had four sons ages 19 to 24, but other men may have spent time on the farm.
“No one should be surprised anymore to hear about the number of rapes and the amount of sexual exploitation that took place under slavery; it was an everyday experience, ” said Jason A. Gillmer, a law professor at Texas Wesleyan University, who has researched liaisons between slave owners and slaves. “But we do find that some of these relationships can be very complex.” Read more…
Later, we learn of Melvinia’s son Dolphus Shields:
Sometime before 1888, Dolphus and Alice Shields continued the migration, heading to Birmingham, a boomtown with a rumbling railroad, an iron and steel industry and factories that attracted former slaves and their children from across the South.
Dolphus Shields was in his 30s and very light skinned — some say he looked like a white man — a church-going carpenter who could read, write and advance in an industrializing town. By 1900, he owned his own home, census records show. By 1911, he had opened his own carpentry and tool sharpening business.
As an amateur genealogist, I love reading stories like this–these quintessentially American stories that are left out of American history (unless it is February). I enjoy hearing about how black people triumphed post-slavery. Make no mistake, as a whole, we did triumph. Dophus Shields was one of many African Americans who rose from bondage and illiteracy to land-owning and self-sufficiency. The story of Melvinia and her family feels familiar. It is familiar. I have uncovered many similar tales in my own family research. (Some posts here and here and here and here.) I have heard countless similar stories shared by other family historians.
Which brings me to my ambivalence. The story of Michelle Obama’s ancestor is, in essence, the story of most ancestors of enslaved Africans. Yes, some details and locations change. But most black genealogists can find ancestors labeled “mulatto” on old census records (as Dolphus Shields was), mostly because sexual oppression and rape of black women was a fact of the American slave system. (And, however “complex” one wants to call these relationships between enslaved and slave master, it’s hard to call these partnerings consensual when one party OWNS the other.) And there were other interracial pairings beyond those that happened in bondage. Other facets of this story are familiar as well–migration, advancement out of poverty to working class and beyond, entrepreneurship, achieving literacy, overcoming racist society. These are hallmarks of the black American history–American history.
So, why does Swarns’ and Kantor’s article seem to treat the story of Michelle Obama’s family–one that seems so common as to be unremarkable–like a fascinating oddity? Why is Melvinia’s tale so juicy and titillating? Why do readers find this story so uniquely amazing and inspiring? Comments to the article include gushing about inspiration and comparisons to Irish and Italian forebears, and the usual complaints of “why can’t we get over race” since this story proves that it doesn’t truly exist. While several NYT readers did point out how typical the Shields story is, many had reactions like this one:
The Obama story just grows and grows and becomes more complex and more interesting for our Country. All I can say is WOW.
Oh, those wacky Obamas with their weirdly “complex” lineages! Wow? Really? I cannot think of reading a similar account of the family tree of a white First Lady where Americans were encouraged to marvel at her “complex” Scots-Irish or French or German or English heritage or an ancestor’s journey from immigrant to business man. A story like that is, to the mainstream, “normal,” an illustration of the American Dream. The stories of African Americans, even those whose families have been here for hundreds of years, provoke amazement.
So, I am torn–just like I have been over the months as the media and mainstream have pulled apart and parsed Michelle Obama’s (and by extension other black folks’) body parts, from tresses to gluteus maximus. It’s nice to be noticed, for once, I guess. But it pains to be treated like some rare, exotic, oddly-plumed, big-butted, mixed-pedigreed, once-caged bird.
Is that the only choice black people have–to be invisible or exoticized?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Bohemian Writer wrote:
As a black, multicultural woman (father’s Ethiopian, mother’s Afro Cuban). It seems that is often the single 2 categories you get placed in. It’s either: A-OMG where are you from? Can I touch your hair? Is all of that hair yours? or B-you are absolutely ignored by coworkers as “oh, the exotic black chick”.
I know that the word “Exotic” carries a lot of weight with it. It is described as “Other” but what kind of “Other”? I know that in my dating relationships, I’ve had guys (mostly non-black guys) tell me how they liked my skin, my hair, etc. etc. & it felt like I was a peacock at a petting zoo sometimes.
Yet at the same time, I’ve felt a lot of animosity from other fellow black folks just because of the difference in heritages. On that note, I feel like the media is always trying to dig up something that they can and we can clearly see that the Obamas’ being in office is the easiest target. Michelle is an anomaly, why? Because she is the First Black Lady in office (I really dislike the term African-American) & thus, she is a mystery to the mostly marginalized media in that you can’t really put her in a box.
I’m done.
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 11:30 am ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:
Is that the only choice black people have–to be invisible or exoticized?
but look… the Obamas ARE the first non-white/Black/Mixed First Family, so naturally there’s a lot of excitement and curiosity over Michelle Obama’s ancestry.
At the very least, they are paving a path for politicians of color. Maybe in 10, 15 years the excitement will die down…
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 12:05 pm ¶
ana wrote:
Hi.
I’m considered white (I do have one Native American ancestor several generations back, although no one can tell from looking at me). Coming from that perspective, I just wanted to pipe in on this conversation because I feel like there is no good way (for a Caucasian) to respond.
Yes, I have lived my whole life in a predominately white community where I only know one or two minorities. Yes, it is interesting to me when I learn about the background of my Puerto Rican coworker. Yes, I want to know more.
But you know what? I don’t ask, because I don’t want to be considered racist for taking an interest or picking him out specifically.
I think there is a stigma for a lot of people when it comes to race. It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. I’d rather be “damned if I don’t” than face questioning for any remark I might make. I’d love to have more minority friends and expand my horizons, but the community I live in is simply absent of them.
I get really upset when I read things like this. Frankly, I think people have an interest in the family background of most famous people. The fact that Obama is the first African American to be elected president of the USA is really interesting to me. I don’t want to deny that I’m interested in knowing more about the Obama’s family history. I really am moved by his story and by the amazing work he has been doing. And yes, I voted for him!
I just don’t know how you expect me to respond? Not have an interest, have an interest? Well I’m tired of being made to feel guilty for something my ancestors did. The truth is, I am interested, and I’m not denying it.
Ana
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 2:19 pm ¶
Lotsajargon wrote:
Perhaps the “excitement” is that suddenly these things *can* be publicly talked about. Having a black president has finally provided an opportunity to openly share curious questions. This is a great thing. Public conversations about race have been mostly silenced by the dominant voices of the PC gatekeepers.
It is not exoticizing to ask about or be curious about hair of a different texture, unless that difference leads to generalized conclusions about a person’s “race”. A readheaded person in Asia, for example can expect many questions about their hair color and texture.
Most people on a very human level are just curious about others. Providing an opportunity to ask these questions can, and I think should, be read as a growing level of public comfort with difference.
Our president has made it possible for many to express their curiosity. If this leads to a story about Michelle Obama’s slave ancestry that is great–when was the last time anyone wrote in the NYT about the history of slavery?
In any case I’m sure it is just a phase. The real challenge will be to see if we can move beyond the curious questions toward a more nuanced understanding. I think, however, that we should be optimistic. In any case, I am more concerned that Obama won’t get healthcare reform pushed through–and that will be a setback for all of us.
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 2:21 pm ¶
usha wrote:
This might be me going all shiny-eyed pollyanna, overlooking obvious problems with the NYT article, and I did notice a few ~squeaky~ bits when I read it, but my honest takeaway was that I teared up, and I hoped, somewhere, all her ancestors KNOW what she has accomplished and are able to feel proud of her, and proud of us as a country too.
I certainly hope all of my unknown relatives in the distant times know.
So, I’m cutting a little more slack than I might somewhere else.
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 2:41 pm ¶
pixilated wrote:
how about neither exoticised nor ignored, but have all people’s histories treated with exactly the same amout of respect/attention/excitement/whatever. yeah, i’m asking for a lot, i know. but i can always hope can’t i?
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 3:43 pm ¶
n wrote:
Well, I’m torn. I don’t want it to be exoticized. But its nice to see this story told like the stories of the other first families are told. And not as something to hide or be ashamed of, but as a testament to how far she has come.
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 3:50 pm ¶
Tami wrote:
Ana,
I’m not sure what this has to do with “what your ancestors did” as we are discussing a modern-day New York Times article.
There is nothing wrong with an article about the First Lady’s heritage. My problem is with how Michelle Obama’s heritage is framed. That her story was presented as an amazing anomaly reflects how little the majority culture knows about American history as it relates to black people. That is what frustrates me. Anyone who is aware of this country’s founding and history should not be surprised at Michelle Obama’s background.
Also, it is normal to be curious about other people. It is important though to remember that people are, well, people. You may be curious about me, but you don’t have a right to my story or my body to quell your curiosity. Does that make sense?
It is okay that the woman I passed at the Steak and Shake a few months back was curious about my natural black hair. She likely had never seen hair like it. It is not okay that she reached out and grabbed my hair, because it looked cool.
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 4:09 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
@Ana: let’s reverse and put it this way. If you described your genealogy story to a black person — let’s say that you describe one Native American ancestor, that you’d traced a couple other ancestors to European countries, that you thought you might be descended from one particular famous American (in other words, a typical genealogy narrative for a white American) — and then that black person responded to your story with slack-jawed astonishment and claims of “wow, that’s so exotic!”… then how do you think you’d feel?
Maybe not insulted, per se. But it would feel… very weird.
Tami’s article is not about saying what white people should and shouldn’t do. She’s just pointing out a certain structural knowledge inequity when it comes to which genealogy narratives are “normal” and which ones aren’t.
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 4:13 pm ¶
Margari Aziza wrote:
I thought the article was interesting and it did point out that this was not uncommon for Black Americans to have white ancestors. But I think it is interesting how much attention gets placed on the white or nearly white ancestor, as opposed to the just as complicated stories of the unambiguously black family members. Would they have published Melvinia’s life story if she didn’t have a mixed race son? Only a small percentage of Black Americans could pass as white, yet you’d be surprised how much attention they receive in literature and film. It was a common trope to talk about racial boundaries and notions of proper place for Black people. I just wonder how much of this story was guided by our continual fascination with the “exotic” mixed raced individuals.
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 4:42 pm ¶
DigitalCoyote wrote:
Seriously. Mrs. Obama’s family history isn’t all that uncommon. I will say that I take the opportunity to needle obnoxious non-PoC folks with how my family was here before theirs when they talk about how much more “authentically American” they are than me.
I think part of the “fascination” is rooted in willful ignorance: a lot of white people seem to conveniently forget that rape or other sexual acts that were not completely of one’s free will were part and parcel of slavery. Just because we aren’t pale doesn’t mean that those ancestors just up and disappeared like they never existed. It makes it a lot harder to treat us like “those” people if there’s a good chance we’re related.
I think the other part of it has to do with the need for the dominant culture to disassociate with the past, that “I’m not responsible for what my ancestors did” thing. From that perspective, we (black Americans) jumped from the Civil War to the Civil Rights movement and makes it easier to believe that we’re just waiting on the government to “save” us.
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 6:06 pm ¶
blueelm wrote:
I just wondered over here from boingboing and what an interesting blog this is!
I get asked all the time what race I am. I have no idea how to respond. I love geneology though and through one of my lines am related to some fairly interesting people. I think though it’s a matter of how well you know who you’re talking to/about. It’s one thing for me to be having a conversation about familial histories with another person and show interest in their story. It’s another thing to pick out one aspect that is different from mine and dwell on it as if that is the sum total of that person’s identity. It’s also something different to foist that into the arena of general discussion.
The sad thing is, to me, that almost all of our ancestry is interesting. I tend to think though that only openly discussing it will help. In time, it seems, if people heard the same story enough they’d realize how common it is in one way and also how diverse people’s ancestry really is.
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 6:16 pm ¶
tj wrote:
As someone who self-identifies as African American, I don’t see how but am not surprised why people are so shocked that “Black” people are mixed. I mean, u can’t find a Black person who isn’t in this country. My dad is Afro-Cuban and my mother is descended from African slaves (triracial to a certain extent-because of a white slave master and a native American great grandmother who may have been passing for NA, but more than likely white).
Yep-and all that means is that I am Black. That’s right. I love that about being Black-it is an umbrella racial group.
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 6:28 pm ¶
Moviegirl wrote:
@Ana. Hey if you want more POC in your inner circle then just talk to them but your first contact should not be “so tell me about being black” that won’t go over well. People love to talk about themselves they go on and on about the most mundane things. If they never bring up a subject neither should unless you can say for sure you’re a friend, I.e. You’ve been to that person’s home a number of times. POC just want to go on with their lives. If they have a vote Nader button then by all means ask about Nader but we don’t have buttons that say ask me about what shampoo I use (and you know what I mean). It can be highly irritating.
I read the article and I must say I stopped when they said her ancestor didn’t “know” herself bec she might not have known her parents. I thought it was very condenscending. Just bec she didn’t know her parents doesn’t mean she didn’t know herself. It just means she didn’t know who they were not who she was.
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 7:05 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:
Personally, I find pretty much anyone’s history highly interesting. I love to sit with people- anyone, really- and listen to them rap about anything from when their ancestor immigrated to what their kitchen looked like. So reading Michelle Obama’s story is certainly fascinating to me on that level. Also, it is fascinating in that for a lot of young black people, they don’t even know where they began. I have a vague picture, but if I knew that my ancestor Dolphus owned his own home and had a business, I might die of excitement! Many of us don’t have brushes that paint pictures that vividly.
That said, I can agree that the media does treat Obama stories, in relation to race, and even everyday things like cooking a meal, like shiny sparkly things that have just fallen from the sky. I mean honestly- did you think that we just stopped being slaves one day and just magically assimilated into society? Jfc, it’s like we suddenly sprouted thumbs and started walking upright or something.
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 10:50 pm ¶
mysskay wrote:
@ana
i appreciate your comment. you know institutionalized racism, at least in America, is hard for everyone. if you really want to learn more pick up a book, get recommendations on books (try to expand which authors you deem respectable), take a class and get involved in things that include people of all backgrounds (churches, volunteer orgs, where you shop, gyms, public events, who you invite to your home, the radio station you listen to, the strangers you approach for directions, etc). you are going to get a variety of responses to this issue because everyone is coming from a different lived-experience, but dont let that discourage you. while we can’t assume knowledge to be innate, we also can’t forget people have to learn somehow. a lot of the comments directed toward you, i do agree with so i’m not going to repeat them. except for one, the one about people being human. that’s why i have given my above suggestion. its about expanding your circle of comfort and embracing other cultures (culture really speaks louder than race in my opinion). when you attend an event or next time you’re at work, look around, who’s missing? open your critical eye to the way things are ‘normally’ conducted. ask critical questions? demand the same equality for you as everyone around you. you walk into this arena already belonging to one team. so you need to learn to get over feeling guilty, just accept it as part of the territory, but then learn to push past it and focus on solutions. no one can make you feel guilty about the past, unless you know you did something, no one can make you feel guilty. however, as you learn more, if you don’t do anything about what is happening now then you you have a right to feel guilty. don’t leave it up to mainstream or some community of color to tell you everything you need to know, you’re going to have to take the initiative and realize there’s a lot to learn; you may find some of it overwhelming, so be patient.
through a genuine interest you will learn more than you possibly can reading blog comments.
you can hit me on twitter if you have further questions @mysskay
Posted 13 Oct 2009 at 12:09 am ¶
Shauna wrote:
I think that Ana’s opinion is representative of a lot of Americans’ views and I really liked Tami’s response.
I think that what my be confusing is whether Tami is criticizing the NYT article, or reactions to it/how society generally views it when they read it. I think she is doing the latter. So I feel that: A NYT article about the family history of the first African-American is great. Oftentimes our history classes talked in vaguities that MO’s story makes fascinating with specifics. However, people being ignorant about African-American history is disappointing (although I never cease being disappointed by levels of ignorance in general). Knowing that others read this article and see African-Americans as being strange is disappointing.
But I’d be interested to hear if some feel that the NYT article supported this exoticizing, or if the mere fact of it contributes to exotification.
Posted 13 Oct 2009 at 3:41 am ¶
Tami wrote:
Shauna,
I’m criticizing a bit of both. Most problematic are responses to the article from people who, unfortunately know so little about American history and black people’s place in it that this all-too-common story becomes something to marvel at, be astonished by.
I also think NYT contributed to that a bit. The story has an air of “isn’t this amazing!” to it. From the language about MO’s ancestor’s story “begging to be told,” to the hyperfocus on Dolphus’ “whiteness,” to the bit about Melvinia not being ble to know herself because she didn’t know her parents (As if separation of children and parents was uncommon during slavery). I sense this air of wonderment in the NYT piece.
Posted 13 Oct 2009 at 7:03 am ¶
RCHOUDH wrote:
I agree with Margari Aziza’s comment that American MSM seems most interested in Black American stories that involve ancestors of white or part white heritage. I still come across articles now and again focusing on Barack Obama’s Irish ancestry, which I thought was pretty well known in America up to now. Meanwhile I have yet to come across any detailed articles focsusing on his Kenyan ancestry and side of the family.
Posted 13 Oct 2009 at 7:19 am ¶
Celeste wrote:
Yes, why is it that the story around the biracial ancestor gets so much emphasis. That always bothers me.
Posted 13 Oct 2009 at 11:46 am ¶
Ron wrote:
MSM media must play to its audience. The NYT audience does not want to know about the nuances of American history as it relates to AA. AA will have to create their own stories which focuses on our “black ancestry” in a way which is palatable to non-blacks. For example, whites do not want stories in which a white character is portrayed negatively via AA. However, American history in its essence will do just that.
The MSM does not want to alienate its audience. The only way this ends is by changing demographics and niche marketing.
Unfortunately, this is a zero sum game in America between Blacks and Whites. If MSM focuses on the black side of MO ancestry then it deemphasizes the cultural existence of whites.
People use the phrase white privilege but that phrase does immediately encompass the unseen. The unseen is cultural and racial identity.
The identity of a people is more important than almost anything. The feeling of familial bonds and group belonging is very strong among humans. So stories have to be brought in a way in which the audience can identify with it on a cultural and racial level.
So the NYT has to balance these forces.
Posted 13 Oct 2009 at 12:11 pm ¶
Luis wrote:
You’d think these people never watched the Cosby Show. Old news, NYT, old news.
Posted 13 Oct 2009 at 12:59 pm ¶
Lisa J wrote:
I agree with your post very much and know of some stories in my own famiily that have a few white sheep. I feel like so much of our behavior is looked at as odd or it is pathologized in someway.
On a lighter note, Girl, you cracked me up on this line.
“It’s nice to be noticed, for once, I guess. But it pains to be treated like some rare, exotic, oddly-plumed, big-butted, mixed-pedigreed, once-caged bird.”
I almost chocked on my pretzel.
Posted 13 Oct 2009 at 2:41 pm ¶
louise wrote:
It irks me that this is international news, the fact that she has a white fore-father of somesort will probably be used to explain her brilliance. Instead of her being brilliant of her own accord. why is the white ancestor of more importance than anyone before or since????
it’s a rhetorical question, the general media are douches!
Posted 13 Oct 2009 at 4:04 pm ¶
sofie wrote:
is it standard terminology for genealogists to use words like “pedigree” and “strains” in reference to someone’s lineage? it just seems dehumanizing…
Posted 13 Oct 2009 at 7:40 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
Tami–
I am not trying to be flip here. If you were doing a profile of Michelle Obama, and wanted to talk about her family history, how would you do it? What, specifically, would you have done differently than the NYT piece?
Posted 13 Oct 2009 at 9:04 pm ¶
Flora wrote:
even in Italy, this news was given paramount importance on every tv news and newspaper…
like if to “diminish” her black credentials…and yes, as someone said above, to imply that her brilliance is due to her only white ancistor (and what about all the other black ones? )
Unbelievable as it may be, the coverage given to the news shows at least the profound ignorance of white culture when it comes to black history…
Posted 14 Oct 2009 at 6:42 am ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:
It shocks me just how little so many white folks know about slavery in America and its impact on today’s society, be it through oral history, geneology, etc.
Actually, I take that back. I’m not surprised. There are way too many white folks that don’t have any positive interation (by choice) with black people. Or they say they live in a bad area and only bad black folks (the ones that feed stereotypes) live near them; therefore, that white person requests time to be amazed at a black person that is polite, well-groomed, well-spoken, has good credit, owns a home and is gainfully employed. LOL.
Posted 14 Oct 2009 at 10:59 am ¶
AC wrote:
Honestly?
You don’t (and shouldn’t!) have to be invisible or exoticized in the end, but if you want to not be invisible, unfortunately you have to go through the whole “oooh, WOW, that’s so amazing that (thing that is totally un-amazing to anyone who knows better)!!” phase. It’s unavoidable. Should’ve happened a long time ago, even.
Because going through this period of us dopey, clueless, but (usually, at least) well-meaning white folks figuring this shit out has to happen if we’re ever gonna, you know, figure shit out. We’re self-centered dumbasses, yes. We’re like teenage girls just discovering testicles – you gotta put up with the initial poking & giggling and twisting like those “stress balls” they sell at new age stores at the mall before we get past it. The hymen of dipshit racial cluelessness, if you will. There’s gonna be some awkward, painful squirming before we get to the part where everyone’s enjoying themselves, and I think as a nation we’ve been putting that off for way too long.
Posted 14 Oct 2009 at 11:50 am ¶
Tami wrote:
Jess,
As I mentioned, I am more perturbed by reaction to the article than the article. but if I were writing the piece, I would take care to eliminate passages that position this family history as a unique or rare one. I also might stress how representative this story is of the histories of other black Americans–which, based on reactions, is “news” to the majority of Americans.
Posted 14 Oct 2009 at 4:19 pm ¶
Christie wrote:
It *it* embarrassing and dissapointing how little white people know about the typical family background of Black Americans. I hope this article will go some way towards fixing that problem. I would say it’s a step in the right direction.
I (a white American) knew nothing besides what I had watched in the miniseries Roots, years ago. Then a few years ago I was searching for friends to help with their family histories (I was crazy about family history and wanted to research anyone’s I could). I ended up researching the family history of a black man I know at work. Without giving details, there were a lot of similarities between his family’s history and that you describe here. I was very interested to learn that, after slavery ended, there was a period of a few decades when Blacks were freer, before whites’ behavior took another turn for the worse (in the 1920’s was it?).
But the thing that gave me the most sadness was the virtual disappearance of records of this man’s family, previous to 1870. I could not trace them before 1870, despite the vibrant evidence of their lives in census records from 1870 onwards. The best I could do was to find that so-and-so white slave owner (with the same surname) had had 10 male slaves and 5 female slaves, or similar, but without even knowing if I had found the right slave owner or not. Basically, from 1870 onwards this man’s family were treated by the record-keeping authorities as humans, and their humanity shines through the records as it does with people of all races. According to the records, before 1870 they were nothing – just property. Going backwards in time was rewarding and interesting (for him and for me), *until* 1865. Hitting the year 1865 was like hitting a dark, terrible wall. I know this is common knowledge, but for me it was not, and I can only blame my education.
Posted 15 Oct 2009 at 8:59 am ¶
Jess wrote:
Tami, that helps. Thanks.
I must say tho, maybe I am just a clueless boob, but the reactions to the piece you mention didn’t bother me. Why not? Because a lot of people are clueless and I never, ever expect that anyone will know the same things I do, even if I feel they should.
Science geeks like me are used to this, I think. You just stop expecting that people aren’t ignorant of things, you know? I think basic logic is really important, for instance. But most people don’t use it or operate that way and behave (to my mind) irrationally. I also got used to it raised in a very left-y family, which viewed history a bit — uh, differently.
The soft bigotry of low expectations?
Posted 16 Oct 2009 at 7:42 am ¶
Medusa wrote:
tj-
I just want to point out that there are hundreds of thousands of African immigrants to America, most of whom have no white ancestry.
Posted 16 Oct 2009 at 8:04 am ¶