A look at “mixed blood” in antebellum Louisiana
JC
A Million Nightingales is Susan Straight’s new novel about Moinette, a girl born to a slave woman raped by a white sugar broker who was visiting the plantation. The book takes a look at what it meant to be “mixed blood” in antebellum Louisiana:
…castes are so well established that every drop of mixed blood is measured in a vocabulary whose musical tones — sang mêlé, mulâtresse, sacatra, griffone — belie the sexual violence that created them. This is the world that Moinette, 14 years old at the start of the novel, grows into.
The New York Times gives it a pretty good review, but I definitely want to check it out for myself!
“A Million Nightingales” joins a growing literature on the mixed-race experience in America, from Danzy Senna’s picaresque “Caucasia” to Zadie Smith’s “On Beauty.” Straight has given this body of work a historical foundation, a point of reference in the past. But her novel is, besides, a powerful and moving story, written in language so beautiful you can almost believe the words themselves are capable of salving history’s wounds.
Dave wrote:
Looks interesting. Just like MMW isn’t a big fan of fetishization or “tragic mulatto” depictions, I’m not a big fan of narratives that focus on mulattos that resulted from slave rape to the exclusion of mulattos that resulted from love unions in the pre-Civil War United States. It’s certainly a part of the story to be told, but there seems to be disproportionate narrative emphasis in our culture on the slave rape contribution to eurafricans in America today. I’d like to see more depictions of love unions between free blacks and free whites in U.S. before 1865, including between free black women and free white men.
For a positive web community with over 100 active members for people with european and african, black and whited heritage, family, friends, and supporters, please visit http://www.mulatto.org
Posted 18 Mar 2006 at 2:14 pm ¶
Dave wrote:
I’d like to add that this part of the article/book:
“The book takes a look at what it meant to be “mixed blood” in antebellum Louisiana:
…castes are so well established that every drop of mixed blood is measured in a vocabulary whose musical tones — sang mêlé, mulâtresse, sacatra, griffone — belie the sexual violence that created them.”
I think to a degree uses the history of sexual violence, only PART of the history of white-black love unions in the United States and Louisiana prior to 1865, as a weapon against identifying names such as mulatresse, that folks have and continue to use in an empowering way. Identifying as a mulatresse (or any of the other names) is completely separable from the concept of sexual violence, or “caste systems”. It can be a completely positive form of identification, or as positive as identifying as eurasian, mestizo, arab, or latino, in my opinion.
Posted 18 Mar 2006 at 2:21 pm ¶
simon wrote:
dave, since you’re so eager to read narratives about love relations between free black women and white men during thr pre-civil war period, why don’t you write the book yourself. Or did your research run dry?
Posted 18 Mar 2006 at 5:54 pm ¶
anon wrote:
has it ever occured to you that perhaps there were no “love unions” between free blacks and whites during the pre-Civil War period? You can’t change historical truth you know.
Posted 18 Mar 2006 at 6:01 pm ¶
Annoyed wrote:
Dave, please stop using MMW to try and boost your forum membership.
Posted 18 Mar 2006 at 9:40 pm ¶
Merq wrote:
I’d like to see more depictions of love unions between free blacks and free whites in U.S. before 1865, including between free black women and free white men.
Weird, but why do I read that simply as:
“I’d like to see more depictions of love unions between free black women and free white men in U.S. before 1865.”
Posted 19 Mar 2006 at 1:36 am ¶
mtevc wrote:
dave…if this offends you so much, why then use the term “mulatto” for your site????? get a new name, plezzzz
Posted 19 Mar 2006 at 3:45 pm ¶
Anonymous wrote:
Has it ever occured to you that there was a substantial number of mulattoes especially in the New England States who had white mothers and black fathers? Were they the result of rape too or are black men naturally incapable of rape?
Why this need on the part of some to bash white men at every opportunity? Why these racist generalizations about white men at the time? What about the many white plantation owners who cared for their mulatto children and who provided them with an education, especially in Louisiana, more than everywhere else in North America? What about the black slave women who were raped by black men during this time which was at least just as likely?
Saying historic mulattoes were mainly the result of rape is like saying that Eurasians are mainly the result of relationships between Asian mail order brides or Thai prostitues and white men, or that they are war babies. Ask yourself would you as Eursians appreciate this?
I’m sick and tired of MMW espousing black propaganda and ideologies who already dominate the media enough. Fact is most of this was created to make it appear somehow “immoral” for mulattoes to claim their own identity. Obviously it seems that many Eurasians think about self-interest first and it appears they don’t want to loose the favor of American Blacks. Fine. But then please don’t claim to represent all mixed people. MAVIN’s Matt Kelley who is siding with the NAACP is another fine example. What if Eurasians would be brutally one-dropped? But this of course is impossible because unlike some others Asians are usually to proud to impose their identity on others.
Posted 19 Mar 2006 at 8:57 pm ¶
Dave wrote:
Anon wrote: .
“has it ever occured to you that perhaps there were no “love unions” between free blacks and whites during the pre-Civil War period? You can’t change historical truth you know. ”
It seems improbable to me that there were no “love unions” between free blacks and whites during the pre-Civil War period. I think it would be good for “historical truth” as well as for empowerment for first generation and multigenerational white/black biracials to show more positive representation of love unions between free whites and blacks in America prior to 1865, including both white women and black men, as well as black women and white men. I don’t think that the historical truth of rape and sexual exploitation of many women of color (Chinese, Mulatto, Black, Amerindian, etc.) should be erased. But I don’t think the hundreds of years of history of interracial love unions in America should be underrepresented either. And as pertains to this specific article, that includes black women and white men, in my opinion.
Posted 20 Mar 2006 at 6:03 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
Dave. HOW could there really be a “love” union in the antebellum era. Considering the utter dehumanisation (legally and physically) of a group of people, I don’t see how that would happen. A person of privilege would have had to practically give up their existence for a “love” union to occur.
I know the American reality is hard to accept. I mean, who really wants to admit that their ancestry consists of rapists? I’m an Afam & as such am a mixture of West African, English, Irish, Cherokee, Choctaw. & Yes one of my great great grandmas was 1/2 white (her father) a great grandma was 1/2 Cherokee (mother). I don’t have to tell you which once was consensual.
The American past is sordid and vile. Deal with it.
BTW are we still using the word mulatto?
Posted 20 Mar 2006 at 1:55 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
ANONYMOUS
“Why this need on the part of some to bash white men at every opportunity? Why these racist generalizations about white men at the time? What about the many white plantation owners who cared for their mulatto children and who provided them with an education, especially in Louisiana, more than everywhere else in North America? What about the black slave women who were raped by black men during this time which was at least just as likely”
De Nile is not just a river in Egypt!!!
“cared for their ‘mulatto’ children” Care is not a word that can be used in this situation.
That mail order bride analogy is false at best. You need to do some research and come to grips with American history and the basis for its wealth.
Posted 20 Mar 2006 at 2:02 pm ¶
Merq wrote:
What I can’t stand about white males like Anonymous is the annoying defensiveness that gets them into trouble all the time. There’s a certain kind of individual who erroneously feels he’s being blamed for slavery and the historical oppression of blacks in this country. Defensively, he kicks back as hard as possible, creating resentment, distrust, and anger where there was none to begin with.
“Song of the South” was a bullshit fantasy. Get over it.
Posted 20 Mar 2006 at 11:12 pm ¶
Merq wrote:
Dave,
I did take a look at your site in order to form an opinion of my own. I must say that while I have a better impression of you from reading your posts on that site, I don’t think I (or many “monoracial” blacks) would feel the least bit comfortable on that site.
While I did see you and a few of your mods making an effort to rein in the anti-black sentiment on that site, I must say I still found it incredibly disturbing.
Good luck
Posted 20 Mar 2006 at 11:57 pm ¶
mtevc wrote:
geez…i hate to enter this battleground…but…first off, not here to offend white men, but the history shows that most of the unions between black women and white men (while not all rape) were still based on unions where one had the upper hand economically…so the numbers of unions that were recognized and reciprocal became limited in nature due to the laws and codes on the books preventing marriage (in some states) and property ownership/changing of hands of that property…
as far as white women and black men, these sorts of unions were difficult at best, because of these same laws (in some areas) and even more stringent social norms (even more stringent on white women)…that is reality and fact…check out the research from respected historians (white and black)….this is not to say they didn’t happen at all…but much rarer…
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 9:15 am ¶
Mulattoboy wrote:
Of course there were plenty of romantic unions especially in antebellum Louisianna but also elsewhere between people of different color and/or status. Also not unlike today women often looked for a man above their own ecocnomic or social status to be the father of their children. On the other hand women usually were considered of lower status than men anyway. Wives were considered their husbands property.
Rape is a very unsatisfying way to have sex. Also a white man who would ‘mess with’ a slave women was usualy frouned upon in his own house and by the entire white community. Planters were rich men and a man who wanted to exploit women had other, socially more accepted ways to do so. In addition many slave women had an interest in bearing mulatto children thus obtaining a better status for their children.
This is not to say that rape didn’t exist at all (inlcuding black women being raped by black men and indian women being raped by fugitive black slaves btw.) However propaganda narratives like the one of mulattoes being mainly the result of rape were simply created in order to bind mulattoes loyalities mainy to blacks and to make white men look evil since the existence of racism (real and imagined) is essential to the survival of African-Americans as a group in their existing form.
It’s only natural for a father to care for his child. A lot of white fathers cared for their mulatto children despite the odds. Wilberforce University for example was largely financed by white planters in order to provide their mulatto children with an education and to allow them to get away from the South.
Posted 27 Mar 2006 at 2:06 am ¶
John wrote:
Merq,
As a mulatto I find your anti-mulatto sentiment very disturbing and racist to say the least. Sadly a lot of black people still take advantage of the
(im)moral power some white peoples historic wrongdoings confer upon them. Fortunately not all black people are that insecure.
True, a substantial number of mulattoes in the New England states had indeed black fathers and white mothers. There is genetic research to prove this. Not that it matters though…
BTW if the mother was white the mulatto child was usually free since slave status was inherited through the mother.
Posted 27 Mar 2006 at 2:45 am ¶
Ugh...okay wrote:
mulattoboy said
“Its only natural for a father to care for his child.”
I guess you never heard of the term deadbeat dad?
Your historical take on the intimate relations between white
slave masters and black females slaves is faulty at best. You are horribly nieve if you think that community/family “disapproval” prevented some white slave masters from exploiting their status over black female slaves and taking advantage of these women sexually. Let’s stick with the truth, shall we. What low self-esteem you must have if you feel the need to re-write history to fit your scheme of things. And so what if indentured white women had children by indentured black men. The “mulatto” (how much i hate that term) conceived and born out of such unions still had to cope with the fact that their ethnic background was an automatic strike against them in a racialized society where ‘race matters.’
There were too many mulattos bought and sold as slaves for me to believe that their white fathers “loved them.” Ther might have been exceptions, there are always exceptions, but lets not try to sugar coat things. “Mulattos” has just as difficult a time during slavery as “monoracial” slaves. Many of the women were forced to become the concumbines of their white masters or forced into prostitution. Don’t kid yourself in thinking that a house slave had it any better than a field slave. The lack of humanity some of you “mulattos” display when discussin American history is simply astounding. Don’t any of you care that these were human begins? Regardless of their ethnic backgroung, these were people who were horribly wronged. If you are too myopic and insensitive to appreciate that then perhaps someone should put you in chains…
I think some of you “mulattos” take “mulatto pride” (whihc bascially amounts to white pride) too far. Its one thing to have affinity for your white mother or father who rasied and loved you and treated you as a human being (hopefully.) It is another thing completely to have affinity for and sympathize with people who lived hundreds of years ago and
who would no doubt snub their nose at you and tell you to step back.
Grow up please! Is your self-esteem that low?
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 6:09 pm ¶
anon wrote:
oh did you hear…Dave and his crew from that website i dare not name, are thinking of buying an Island to be inhabited by “mulattos” only. Although Dave did suggets that the population of this island consist of 5% black and 5% white folks. I wonder if there are any takers out there. What a joke! Here people are trying to break down racial barriers and Dave and his crew are trying to segregate. I hope they do all move to an island so thet they can take their racist rhetoric elsewere.
I know this is off topic, but I had to get it off my chest. Dave should stop posting a link to his site. He and his crew’s philosophy is contraty to the philosophy of MMW in my opinion.
Posted 30 Mar 2006 at 2:06 pm ¶
black woman wrote:
I believe this is an interesting topic. I think America needs to know and wants to know interacial couples before civil war era. This topic should not be to bash white men or begrade Black women in America. It should be discussed to educate people about a peice of America’s history. With some reach we might be able to find that there were some white men and black women pre civil war that were in love. I believe that it would make an interesting book and a great movie if it was done with taste and class.
Posted 09 Apr 2006 at 10:53 pm ¶
Snich wrote:
very interesting topics, I do not belive in bashing anyone, we all are grownups here ( well i hope) Now for the truth
Fact: Black women were raped repeadly by white men. they were consider property and inferior beings. Whitemen had everything they want and blacks were the ones who were taken advantage of. white men throughout histroy invaded the coutries around the world and raped and kill and did they things that are in the books, ” it was a part of their culture” not to rape but to explore ( read your history not your thoughts) it okay it happen we know it did. i sure there were black women who (rarely got involved with whitemen)” went with them for love. knowing black women they really go for a brother “blk” later in time white women wanted the blk men and blk being sexually free gave it willingly, look at the number of blk men white women relationship now
let speak the truth and from that and only that will we heal from our past
on a funny note you white love some chocolate lol come on
Posted 23 May 2006 at 1:21 am ¶