Ethnic Notions

The degree to which society has been willing to speak for African Americans from the moment they became Americans never ceases to amaze me. Whilst maintaining ever-insulting misrepresentations, I have found that America’s systematic approach to black racism has also been incredibly cunning. Our past has been tainted with a medley of inaccurate and hyperbolic portrayals of African Americans, each adjusted to accommodate the historical circumstances, resulting in an often paradoxical hodgepodge of characters. For those who missed the Ethnic Notions movie night, this may be a convenient summary.

Jim Crow is probably the black imitation with the most name recognition. Playing a fidgety, dancing caricature meant to impersonate an old handicapped black man, the actor by no means put any effort into accuracy… but alas, his impression impacted the public perception of African Americans indefinitely. Simultaneously, minstrel/Sambo-type characters reinforced the notion of slavery by depicting African American laborers as happy servants. The version of this character I found particularly interesting was “Mammy”, essentially a plump auntie figure who is both happily obedient and fiercely loyal to her white household. What I learned from Ethnic Notions was that she is intentionally not illustrated as a sex symbol so that she will not pose a threat to the mistress. At the same time, she is the matriarch of “her own people”, which while I might add is a stark contrast to women of the “civilized culture” who are designed to remain subservient, it is also an affront to the masculinity of black men. In essence, the general trend of these compliant black characters was to represent harmless menials, thus justifying the institution of slavery.

Before the Abolitionist movement really gained momentum, the media was careful to depict slaves as docile and faithful in order to effectively validate their debasing servitude. Once freedom became a possibility, this was completely reconstructed into two main manifestations. More civil of the two was Zip Coon, an arrogant, ex-slave who bore a flamboyant appearance and equally frivolous speech. His failed attempt at respectability was aimed at mocking the supposed failure of newly freed blacks to adapt to their liberation. Presented in a much more unpleasant format was the “brute”. Too primitive to even deserve a characteristic name, the brute image was especially popular during the Reconstruction era and was intended to demonstrate not only that blacks were incapable of adapting to their freedom, but that they were also incapable of self-control. In the apotheosis of scientific racism, the brute justified a reversion to slavery as well as the killing of African Americans.

In the three centuries since these stereotypes were first introduced, African Americans have been pigeonholed into various roles based on the particular oppression they are facing at any given point in time. For example, the brute image, however prevalent during the Reconstruction Era, would have never been employed during the slave era because it would have suggested that the slaves wanted to be freed and not, as we believed, happy Sambos. I think it is important to remember that between the Sambos, minstrelsy, Jim Crows, Zip Coons, and brutes, this compartmentalization of African Americans has not only been an injustice but also regularly contradictory within itself. So if you’re gonna be racist, at least be consistent.