As we investigate the social interactions that dictated the
slave markets of the antebellum South, the importance of masculinity and
symbolic paternalism become evident. A sense of decorum and modesty governed
Southern society, which stood in stark contrast to the dehumanizing nature of
the slave markets. However, these markets built Southern society, were crucial
in helping to construct a social hierarchy and sense of identity. The hypocrisy
of the etiquette demanded of slave traders, buyers, and even the enslaved
themselves helped to engrain slavery into the soul of the South.
Masculinity dictated the society of the South. Not only did
buying slaves give the buyer more distinction, it made them more masculine and
white. How good you were at slavery defined your masculinity. This identity
centered on the subjugation of others and turning bodies into profit set the
stage for a southern culture based on a need to own slaves. Those who could
“read” slaves well could enhance their social standing by ensuring that they
bought slaves who would earn them the most profit. Through this process, buyers
tied themselves economically to the slave trade but also based their entire
persona on who they were buying, using slaves as leverage for their own social
standing.
As buyers and sellers were driven to demonstrate their
masculinity within the slave markets, they subjugated the enslaved to its expression.
This came in the sexualization of slavery, forcing eroticism on the enslaved
and creating another level to their domination. In Soul by Soul, Johnson
writes, “for white men, examining slaves, searching out hidden body parts,
running hands over limbs, massaging abdomens…was erotic.”[1]
White buyers and sellers, eager to assert their masculinity, used the
vulnerability of the enslaved to assert authority and power. The unspoken
sexual undertones of the slave market juxtaposed to the decorum demanded in
Southern society showed the hypocrisy of modesty within the slave markets.
Defining black features was crucial within the framework of the slave market,
and the alignment of many black features to sexuality provided another avenue
for white men in power to attempt total ownership.
The objectification and sexualization of black features in
slave markets has reverberated into the present day, seen in the way black
features of characterized in society. Today, black features are commoditized
through objectification, while removing black identity. Hairstyles, body
shapes, and facial features are considered undesirable on black bodies, but the
same attributes are glorified when paired with a white identity, often deemed
as innovative. Individuals and corporations use these black features for
profit, while also maintaining control over what is seen as desirable—defining
black as lesser. The need to assert masculinity and power certainly still holds
true today, as black women are often the targets of this hypocritical view.
From watching celebrities and others who profit from their image, it seems to
be ideal to embrace black features, but not black people, continuing the use of
black individuals for white gain.
[1]
Johnson,
Walter, and Walter Johnson. Soul by soul: life inside the antebellum slave
market. New York: ACLS History E-Book Project, 2005.
Interesting thought here, Zach! The parallel between the exploitation of black features today in popular media and in the antebellum south's slave trade is striking. Like you say, in many ways the exploitation today is similar to how it was then. While black people are no longer lined up at the auction block and sold based on their bodies, the bodies of blacks are still helping wealthy white people profit. In fact, the way today that black body features are divorced from the whole of the body and from blackness is also a form of dehumanizing: black people are not represented as whole subjects but rather as objects that can be pulled apart into their components. Blackness is more than the sum of its people's body parts, so picking apart black image for mainstream consumption is another form of cultural assault. Stripping cultural meaning away from people and symbols is appropriation at best, but looking at this concept through a historical lens, it is clear that this is simply one of the latest manifestations of wealthy whites making money of turning black people into objects in the public eye.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your blog post and JD's reply, it made me think about the argument I've heard before but am hearing again made about the NFL and slavery sharing common characteristics. There is even a book call "40 Million Dollar Slave: The Rise, Fall, and Redemption of the Black Athlete"(2006) by William C. Rhoden that argues how athletes are controlled and can face problems for voicing their opinions. This has always been an interesting debate because at first glance, you do not see commonalities. However, I can understand where people are coming from after seeing pictures from various NFL drafts, and seeing men lined up on a stage, barely clothed, essentially being auctioned off based on how well they perform. Is this commodification? By no means am I arguing that a slave action and the NFL draft are synonymous, but I think it is interesting to see how some commonalities exist. I'm sure the NFL probably gets picked on because other professional sports must have similar procedures (I'm assuming).
ReplyDeletehttp://atlantablackstar.com/2014/12/09/5-ways-the-nfl-combine-reminds-us-of-slavery/3/
After reading this and the comments they made me think of what is currently arising from the protests of the national anthem throughout the NFL. The mentality for those against the protests is that they should just play football and have should not speak on political events using the NFL stage. This carries notes of slavery that they are not allowed to act as anything other then a football player and cannot speak on anything else involving their human lives. Recently, the coach of the Dallas Cowboys has threatened to bench all players who kneel during the national anthem threatening their paycheck and potential standing on the team. Slave holders acted with a similar punishment to slaves who spoke or acted against the order. Threatening there life in the 18th and 19th century progressing to today threatening their livelihood.
ReplyDeleteThis also made me think of how in many underprivileged communities professional sports is their only way out of their current situation. Because they feel school is a lost cause and the only people who get out of their neighborhood are the ones who do it with a football or basketball, it creates a sense of desperation for these up and coming players who feel they must endure this type commodification. Black men make up 70% of the NFL making the condemnation of Colin Kaepernick an act of those in charge, the white 86% above VP level as of 2014, showing their dominance over the black people who depend on them for a paycheck. Just like slavery the NFL is a business first, and the white folks in charge will do anything to keep their property in line in order to continue the flow of cash, including continuing to sell Kaepernick signed footballs for $150 on their website.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/70-of-nfl-players-are-black-men-colin-kaepernick_us_57c7b12be4b07addc4114047
http://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/how-black-gms-are-shaping-the-nfl/63317
http://www.nflshop.com/Colin_Kaepernick/