So, to start, here’s a preview of Django Unchained:
The movie follows a freed slave, Django (Jamie Foxx) and a
bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) as they first execute a
number of wanted men and then search for Django’s wife, Broomhilda (Kerry
Washington), who has been sold to a particularly cruel slave master.
There are dozens of race-related issues in the film, ranging
from Quentin Tarantino’s liberal use of the n-word to the slave dolls that were being sold in relation to the film to whether or not the film contains messages
of African-American agency and liberation or just reinforces a series of
stereotypes. Related to our class on Thursday,
though, I want to ask y’all about the physical distinguishers and the “science”
of race presented in the film. The pseudo-science attached to racism makes an
appearance. At one point, the plantation
owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), explains the differences between
African-Americans and whites using phrenology.
He notes the dimples in a black slave’s skull as evidence of a tendency
toward submissiveness. Beyond the
phrenology, there are many points in the movie where the characters focus on
the difference between field slaves and house slaves. Broomhilda is, as Django says, too pretty to
be a field slave. He is referencing both
her physical appearance and her skin tone.
This pseudo-science used to justify racism doesn’t seem to
make many modern-day appearances.
However, as we discussed in class, skin color is still the central piece
of our race-based judgments and that doesn’t seem to have changed much since
Bernier and Kant. I had a classmate in
high school whose mother could pass for white, and when she was born, a mix-up
in nurses landed her in the white nursery, where none of her family could
visit. My classmate noted in a
discussion on race that his mother’s lighter skin tone allowed her a number of
privileges throughout her life. Even though nobody outside
the Klan really breaks out a skull to defend racism anymore, the assumptions
attached to that skull seem to remain in the assumptions based on skin color.
I wanted to ask, and I know these are huge questions: what do y’all think has changed or remained
the same with regard to our understanding of race? Kant and Bernier are obviously making moral
judgments in their descriptions of physical difference. What moral judgments do we now attach to skin
tone and physical appearance? How are
the conversations about skin color and identity that we have now related to
those presented by Kant and relayed in Django?
When asking my grandmother, who was racist, why she was racist and how could you distinguish who was acceptable and who wasn't the first thing out of her mouth was how dark they were. This was something that shocked me because I was expecting her to say how they were dressed or something along those lines. I think in her moral stigma of the black race, the darker you are the more trouble you are. Having grown up in a time where this is acceptable and okay, it took a lot for her to fully accept my parents relationship, with my father being black. He changed her mind though, and she now gets to know someone before she judges them.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, when I saw Django I also found that part about using phrenology really interesting because people did actually believe that as a science. Because there is really no difference in the skulls of humans except evolution.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteToday, although racism is no longer openly accepted or deemed politically correct, there are many people who have racist beliefs (both consciously and subconsciously). The effects of racism and the moral stigmas that were attached to race have been passed down and integrated into many aspects of our society; the same can be said for reverse racism as well. Unfortunately, the manner in which race was used to justify and uphold slavery and segregation in the United States continues to show its effects upon the way in which some construe other races. The most obvious way in which this is still exhibited is in the way that some whites continue to look toward racial differences as the cause of fundamentally negative personality traits. In other words, instead of looking at the numerous, interlocking macro level structures/forces of society that can easily lead to the oppression of both groups and individuals, people (whites in particular) continue to see poverty, unemployment rates, lack of education, etc. as a result of flaws in particular individuals/races. For example, although I hate to admit it, I have heard numerous individuals make a claim akin to the following, "The majority of individuals living in poverty are black and it is because blacks are stupid, lazy, self-indulgent, immoral, etc." Obviously, we have come along way in the United States since the times of slavery and segregation, however, when statements such as these can still be heard on a semi-regular basis...it just goes to show that we still have a ways to go before we as a nation/world can truly claim equality for all.
ReplyDeleteAlthough many older generations remain obdurately bigoted, I will have to fundamentally disagree with the generalization you have made about this issue. First, it is extremely difficult to extrapolate from a particular experience to a universal level, or to discuss a macro-level sentiment. Obviously, systematically interrogating the way each region of the United States has internalized racism would fill several books, and would not be appropriate for a short blog post. From my experience, which is again limited in scope, even those who hold racist beliefs do not have a public platform to make such a blatantly unfounded comment like the one you mentioned. I am just curious as to where this sentiment is being expressed. It would seem that those individuals who do hold such beliefs, and do have a public platform to speak, have found much subtler ways to express their racial biases. Also, I take issue with the whole concept of "reverse" racism, within the context of the United States, or any other country with a history of race-based oppression. I was wondering if you could possible elucidate some of these "reverse racist" tendencies, so that I could better understand exactly what you mean. Also, equality shouldn't be the goal. It is kind of like world peace; It just isn't attainable. Equality implies somehow that as a country we can clean our hands of a racist past. It just isn't the case. Racism, slavery, and prejudice are essential parts of America's identity. To ignore that would put us in a dangerously close to repeating the ills already committed. Regrettably, within a Capitalist society, there will always be someone on the bottom. As a country, and a class, it would be more effective to acknowledge the ways in which our own behaviors perpetuate the structures within our society that, till this day, repeat and ossify, oppressive, race-based prejudices, and stereotypes. Also, what do you mean by a "semi-regular" basis.
DeleteFirst off, I'm curious how one can generalize a single American identity. We all share a history and social structures built from the remnants of a slave economy, as well as a number of images and representations which color our perception of others. But the local political and economic forces, and the individual images which contribute to the formation of our understanding of our world are undeniably varied. An American from south central LA is different from an American from rural Arkansas is different from an American born in Turkey. Their conceptions of those around them and the ways in which they approach others can differ in drastic ways. Furthermore, to say that racism, etc. are "essential parts" of an identity is to suppose that these cannot be shaken under any circumstances. Thus, at an essential level, to be an American is to be a racist. I would resist that formulation.
DeleteThis aside, I don't think Katie was attempting to describe an overarching, "macro-level" sentiment. I think she was describing a particular worldview, shared by many, that links the empirical phenomenon of black poverty with the belief that this poverty stems from innate characteristics which are themselves the result of one's "racial"/biological makeup. I don't think it's a stretch to say that a great number of those who hold such a belief are white, and I would agree with her in her claim that this worldview is held without regard for the particular historical circumstances that have shaped our present.
As to public platforms, I think you might be surprised what is discussed on the patio at a party, let alone in the comfort of a home.
To the original post: Phrenology may have disappeared, but the notions that racial inferiority are proved empirically by science have not. At a party once (not on this campus, thankfully), I got into a conversation with a woman about how different languages might structure the perceptions of their native speakers (I was taking Linguistics at the time, so the idea was on my mind). I mentioned how, in Australia, there are aboriginal languages which don't have words for left and right, and that their speakers indicate direction by reference to North, South, East, and West. To which the woman responded: "Wow, I would have thought that the most backwards people come from Africa."
... I'll leave that without further comment.
Attaching moral judgments to outward appearance is obviously constant in our current culture. I think that many moral judgments in regards to race that we see on a day to day basis tend to be very subtle, which is why they persist so strongly. With the history of racism that this country has, it is no shock that it has not disappeared. When I moved to the South for school, I was not prepared for the cultural shock of the differences between where I was from. It's hard to ask where things are racist in our country-because as you pointed out, it is such a big question- but I think on the most seen level it exists in micro-aggressions. When people assume things without really thinking why based on another person's race, gender, or class, it is reflective of cultural biases.
ReplyDeleteAs far as why the physicality of it all is so important, I think that our culture is generally looks-focused. In a much different way, less 'attractive' people are seen differently based on their outward appearance.
Similar to Carolyn, I've had several conversations with my mom about what it was like for her growing up in Memphis during the 60s, and some of the things she has told me is so interesting. She once told me that because of the differences in our skin tones, I would have been treated better by a white person than she would. She also told me that as a little girl, she couldn't try on clothes in department stores because she was black. So my grandmother would have a friend, who was white, take her daughter to the store and try on clothes since my mom and the daughter were around the same size, and my grandmother's friend would just buy the clothes.
ReplyDeleteThat was interesting because I have never had to experience anything like that, but because of the time period in which she grew up, my mom sees racial relations in a totally different way than I do. I honestly didn't actually see "race" the way that I do now, until I came to Rhodes because it was such a big difference from my high school. I never used to really notice a person's race, but now, it's as if you can't get around it because Rhodes is a predominantly white institution.
In regards to the phrenology found in the film, I personally found that Candie's description of the three dimples in the human skull was not so much racism but rather a philosophical defense of that racism as well as scientific support for his current abusive relationship with his slaves. In other words, Candie and other slave owners like him did not believe in this sort of phrenology because he believed black people to be beneath him but rather to provide reason for this racism so as to free himself from any moral obligation or regret to his slaves. As to your question about moral judgments. Depending on a person's education and family background, the moral judgments an individual makes will not only be dependent upon the second person's race but also the first's class, background, and education. In other words, one white person might view a black person quite differently to another white individual due to these differences and as such a find it difficult to deduce the moral judgments of the individuals of one race on the individuals of another because while race superficially unites all of its members it does not declare these same members homogenous in the way think about or interact with people of a different race. Thus I believe racial views to be more dependent upon the non-racial aspects of an individual rather than solely based on the superficial differences in skin color and speech.
ReplyDeleteJust as some of our classmates have mentioned, I too spoke to my parents and grandparents about what it was like growing up in the "Segregated American South". My great-grandfather was a bi-racial male who appeared to be white, therefore, the only time he felt the raft of Jim Crow Laws was either when he was with his darker-complected wife or there 13 children. Half of the children were lighter skinned like my great-grandfather and the other half darker skinned like my great-grandmother. Unanimously, they all agreed that they were treated the same among whites; however, in the African American community, the lighter skinned children were treated better than the darker skinned children. All of this ties back to the field slave and the house slave dynamic. I feel as though skin color has always been more than just white and black. The differences in tone has even caused rifts within the African American community. Still today I can listen to a rap song that places lighter skinned African American females against darker skinned African American females or African American females in general against White American females? It's almost like a continuous cycle. For the life of me I have not been able to dictate what rationally makes a person better or physically more attractive than another merely based on skin complexion---maybe personal preference. Nonetheless, we have to get to the point to where we do not allow these ignorant notions dictate perceptions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Taylor Jackson's statement "we have to get to the point to where we do not allow these ignorant notions [to] dictate perceptions." I also believe that the basis of our moral judgments in current times is proliferated by media representations of race populations. Growing up as a child from Africa, my parents weren't burdened directly by the history of American slavery but they formed their understanding of blacks and whites through the media and the lingering stereotypes that they noticed as they themselves adapted into the country. Their motto for me was pray, stay out of trouble and get a good education. In order to secure that they would let nothing stand in the way of our success. To them, Americans, black or white, were all "trouble", unless they could individually prove themselves good people. As such I do not make moral judgments based on skin color, as I am always looking for the good in people. Although, I do understand that the way my parents defined "trouble" was based of media depictions and not pseudo-science as in Calvin Candie’s use of phrenology suggests. In understanding the role the media plays in building up the stereotypes of black and white individuals we have to take into account that because the black population is a minority, every act of violence or laziness demonstrated by one member of the population will seem like it is occurring at a higher rate than one in the white population. This will result in a pseudo representation of the population. Unfortunately, many people, including my parents, will not care to understand this phenomenon. For them, trouble is trouble.
ReplyDelete