Monthly Archives: February 2009

BLACK HISTORY MONTH: CRIME, IN BLACK AND WHITE

Crime.
  
When raving, foaming-at-the-mouth diehard White supremacist racists speak of crime, they often attempt to invoke the fear factor of Black Americans running wild in the streets committing all manner of crimes, especially against White people. The meme of Black Americans committing more crimes than White Americans is not only a lie, but an irrational fallacy. Add to the fact that many WS consider any crime committed by a Black against a White, as a hate crime, one would see how ignorant WS are when it comes to Basic Crime 101: the majority of crimes are intra-racial as opposed to the minority of crimes committed that are inter-racial.
  
When it comes to racially motivated crimes, anti-black crimes/hate crimes (bias) is very much more common than anti-white/hate crimes.
  
As for the scare-tactic of millions upon millions of Blacks committing crimes that constitutes believing the lie that crime is random.
  
In order to understand Basic Crime 101, where random crimes are concerned, the following would stand as logical fact:
 
“If crime was randomly distributed, about 70% of the victims of crimes perpetrated by blacks would have white victims.”
 
But, crime is anything but random.
  
IF crime victimization was random, that would mean that the victims would match each group’s proportion of the population. Non-Hispanic whites are about 70% of the US population, so if crime was random, this is what you would see.
 
In contrast if crime was random, about 30% of the crimes committed by whites would be against people of color.
 
There would also be more black-on-white crimes, but, crime remains moreso intra-racial, as opposed to inter-racial, concerning non-hate crimes.
 
Racially motivated white-on-black crime is more prevalant than racially motivated black-on-white crime, concerning hate crimes.

 

Also, keep in mind,  if crime victimization was random, the victims would match their groups proportion of the population; but, due to residential segregation, crime patterns lend themselves to the sense that most criminals perpetrate crimes against those people with whom they are in close proximity:  blacks on blacks, whites on whites, Asians on Asians, etc.  That is one of the major reasons that crime in not random. Also to be factored into the equation: Blacks have more contact with whites than whites have with blacks, whether it is on the job; at a museum; at the movies; on public transportation; at universities; at the grocery store, or even in neighborhoods. Therefore, logically this shoots down the rabid white supremacy notion of excess black-on-white crime. Therefore blacks would have to leave their bantustans/segregated neighborhoods,  to enter predominantly white neighborhoods. Therefore, logic dictates that crime is not random, and that blacks are not committing major acts of crime against whites.
 
Black citizens are approximately 13% of the U.S population. Whites (and you must include those who would be classified as “white” as well: Latinos, Arabs, etc.) are approximately 70% of the U.S. population.
Since there are ethnicities that self-identify as “white” the numbers of “whites” involved would soar, and work in whites favor (numberswise), not blacks, where crime is concerned.
 
IF each person in the population had an equal chance of being selected to commit a random crime, that would mean that more white/non-black people would be in a position to attack and harm black people more since there are more non-blacks in America.
 
IF each person had a chance to be selected for random violence, the scenario would be similar to the race-riots of the early part of the last century, where whites went into black neighborhoods, going from home to home, entering homes, pulling black citizens out of their homes and brutalizing and killing them. Just the same during the time of the Nadir of brutal lynchings against Black citizens. Now, those are examples of random crime. Terrorist crimes against Black women, men and children. But, the terrorist crimes against Black citizens, of lynchings and racial pogroms, are not the issue of this essay; it is what people think of when they hear the word “crime’ that is the essence of this essay:  burglary, rape, arson, kidnapping, embezzlement, etc.
 
Understand also that if a person lives in their segregated neighborhood, the chances of them committing a crime in a neighborhood they know nothing about, goes down tremendously.
 
 
Scenario:
 
Person A lives in XYZ neighborhood. Person A decides to buy a gun to commit burglary with habitation. Person A does not have a car. A catches the bus to ABC neighborhood. A gets on the wrong bus; A has to change buses. A gets to the intended neighborhood at midnight. A is exhausted from riding the bus, for two hours, to get to the area he desires.
 
A knows nothing about the lay-of-the -land. A sticks out like a sore thumb. A is probably too tired to break and enter from catching all those buses. A is spotted by the cops cruising by because A definately does not live there because he is not of the same racial group that lives in that neighborhood, therefore, there is no way (as far as the cops are concerned) that A could live there because he is considered as not rich enough to afford the housing, not to mention not a member of the dominant group of those residing in that particular neighborhood.
 
A gets arrested and charged with:
 
-Tresspassing
_Loitering
_Vagrancy
_Carrying a Concealed Weapon (forgot to mention A had a snub-nose .38 in his pocket)
 
Since A does not live in that neighborhood, he would not know of the escape routes, the alleyways, the dead-end, cul-de-sac, one-way entry streets of that neighborhood. Since A had no way to “case the joint” out, he would be at a loss as to commit any crime since he would be out of his segregated territory/ homeland/bantustan.
 
Therefore, he would settle for committing crime against those who live nearest him.
 
That type of crime would be more than “random”. Crimes committed close to home/neighborhood; thought out; planned.
 
Random crime is more opportunistic, than premeditated.
 
If A lives in a poor neighborhood, and is of an ethnic/racial group that is considered “criminal” to begin with, if he commits crime in his neighborhood, against a fellow neighbor, in the eyes of the dominant group, his crime is looked upon as not just  “random” at all.
 
His crime is looked upon as doing the dominant group a favor.
 
Translation:
 
“Why should the dominant group try to kill off A’s racial group with extra-legal means, when A does it for them”?
 
The idea of going into an unknown terra firma to commit a crime would be more than daunting.
 
The A’s (and B’s [those of various racial/ethnic groups])of the world prefer to stick close to home and commit crime against those who live in the same neighborhood.
 
Going to a neighborhood they know nothing of is not only suicidal, it would be downright stupid.
 
Since most crimes are committed by those who live in the same neighborhood, the chances of whites suffering crimes from blacks, would be low, because residential segregation is still the law of the land, whether many Americans want to face that fact or not.
 
 
Therefore, most serious, or petty, crimes would be committed by someone who knows someone else; or else, lives within close proximity to that person:
 
 
-Neighbors
-Relatives
-Acquaintances
-Friends of those acquaintances
 
 
Not many people go to far away neighborhoods to commit crimes unless there is an “inside” person who knows the area, building, times when people go out, times when they return, etc.
 
When it comes to crime, criminals mainly stick with what they know.
 
And being lazy, they will prey on the weakest of their group (be that group White, Black, Latino, etc.), instead of going where they will face bigger guns, bigger police forces, bigger neighborhood watch protection.
 
 
Crime is not random.
 
It is not done without a definate aim, without a fixed goal or purpose. If it were so, criminals would be willy-nilly picking just any target, not knowing what they would be going up against. (bigger guns, bigger police forces, bigger neighborhood watch protection; bigger odds.)
 
Crime is methodical, thought out, planned:
 
-the rapist who watches a single woman living alone, noting her coming and going;
-the burglar/robber who may be the live-in help, or the caterer who comes once a month to catered affairs;
-the murderer who plans to kill a business partner whose interest he cannot buy out for whatever reasons.
 
The huge bulk of crimes are not on-the-spur. They have method and intent behind them.
 
With the exception of “crimes of passion” (boyfriend who kills girlfriend because he thinks she is cheating on him), crimes are definately not random.
 
RANDOM CRIME:
“If crime was random, most black criminals would perpetrate their crimes against white victims, not including victimless crimes.
 
Because (pardon the expression) there are more white people to pick off, after the blacks went through the blacks.
If crime was random most white criminals would perpetrate most of their crimes against whites (again ignoring victimless crime).
 
Because (pardon the expression) there are more white people to pick off, before the whites got to the blacks; because of population density means whites would wade through few blacks, (more whites per capita population) and blacks would wade through more whites (less blacks per capita population).
 
But, crime is anything but random.
 
IF crime victimization was random, that would mean that the victims would match each group’s proportion of the population. Non-Hispanic whites are about 70% of the US population, so if crime was random, this is what you would see.
 
In contrast if crime was random, about 30% of the crimes committed by whites would be people of color.
 
There would be more black-on-white crimes, but, crime remains moreso intra-racial, as opposed to inter-racial.
 
Racially motivated white-on-black crime is more prevalant than racially motivated black-on-white crime.
 
Also, keep in mind,  if crime victimization was random, the victims would match their groups proportion of the population; but, due to residential segregation, crime patterns lend themselves to the sense that most criminals perpetrate crimes against those people with whom they are in close proximity:  blacks on blacks, whites on whites.  That is one of the major reasons that crime in not random.
 
Black citizens are approximately 13% of the U.S population. Whites (and you must include those who would be classified as “white” as well: Latinos, Arabs, etc.) are approximately 69-70% of the U.S. population.
Since there are ethnicities that self-identify as “white” the numbers of “whites” involved would soar, and work in whites favor (numberswise), not blacks.
 
IF each person in the population had an equal chance of being selected to commit a random crime, that would that mean that more white people would be in a position to attack and harm black people more since there are more non-blacks in America.
 
IF each person had a chance to be selected for random violence, the scenario be similar to the race-riots of the early part of the last century, where whites went into black neighborhoods, going from home to home, entering homes, pulling black citizens out of their homes and brutalzing and killing them? Now, that is an example of random crime.
 
Understand also that if a person lives in their segregated neighborhood, the chances of them committing a crime in a neighborhood they know nothing about, goes down tremendously.
 
If crime was random.
 
But, most blacks and whites live in segregated homelands/bantustans.
 
Because of segregated lives, blacks would still commit black-on-black crime, and whites would still commit white-on-white crimes.
 
That the media plays up people’s fears does not help either, along with white supremacists, that blacks are “running amok”, because there are less blacks than whites in America to commit crimes against whites.
 
Blacks would have to go through a lot of Blacks in their bantustans, before they (Blacks) could even make a dent in black-on-white crimes.
 
 
So…..Black Americans are not out committing all the crimes in America, no matter how WS try to spin it into some frightening, spiralling, out-of-control crime epidemic. Blacks would have to go through blacks in their neighborhood, then leave their segregated bantustans, then advance across to predominantly white neighborhoods to even begin to commit the rates of crimes that WS scream about. If anything, white-run America has committed the most horrific crimes against blacks:
 
-substandard education;
-disparity in the criminal (in)justice system;
-economic crime (Black women paid less than White men for the same type of job/same commensurate skills);
-environmental waste hazards dumped into Black neighborhoods, but, not dumped/located into white neighborhoods (think River Oaks, Rodeo Drive, Marin County, etc.)
 
Because of segregated lives, blacks would still commit black-on-black crime, and whites would still commit white-on-white crimes. Keep in mind that Blacks have more interaction with Whites, than Whites have with Blacks.
 
So, WS racist memes of black crime in America falls flat on its collective rectum.
 
Illogical, and irrational fallacy.
 
The figures would lend themselves to more Whites committing crimes against Blacks since there are more Whites in America than Blacks.
 
Numbers would put the crimes of white/black more in the area of Whites, than Blacks, since Whites outnumber Blacks in America.
 
Many of the so-called studies that indicate that interracial rapes involving a Black American male attacking a White female constitute a significant percentage of total rapes reported, while rapes involving a white assailant and black victim are comparatively rare—-should be looked at with a logical evaluation of said rapes.
Statistics such as these perpetuate the kinds of myths and stereotypes about black aggression and white victimization recurring throughout American history (and into the present):
 
Big-bad Black man attacking White woman, when reality has shown that Big-bad White males have overwhelmingly raped and attacked Black women, and contribute to the persistent belief that the paradigm rape involves a black perpetrator and a white victim.
 
However, studies have shown that rape is far more intraracial, and less interracial, than has commonly been believed. By looking at population distributions rather than simply at number of reported rapes, Robert O’Brien demonstrated that even though the number of black assailant-white victim rapes is higher than the number of white offender black victim rapes, (and we must also factor in the many Black women who do not report rape when the rapist is a White man) its relative frequency is not.
 
When one group in a population is smaller than another, members of the smaller group will experience a higher rate of interaction with members of the larger group than vice versa. After taking into account the distributions of whites and blacks in the general population and in the offender population, one can conclude that not only are rapes less interracial than would be expected; by looking at population distributions, they are actually more intraracial than many want to acknowledge.
 
Thus, the common myth/lie that Black Americans are more likely to rape White people than the reverse is unfounded, thus a fallacy. (1)
 
Therefore, White men are more likely to commit crimes (embezzlement, arson, murder, kidnapping, and yes!—rape) NUMBERS WISE/POPULATION WISE against whites and blacks, than say, moreso, than a Black woman would commit a crime against a White person (man or woman) NUMBERS WISE/POPULATION WISE.
 
At any given moment, there are more White men committing crimes in comparison to Black women. White men outnumber Black women 7-to-1, therefore, it is illogical to state that more Blacks commit crime than Whites.
Because Blacks are smaller in numbers to Whites, the figures on crime statistics can be misleading. A smaller population group will always have crime numbers skewed that mislead people to think that there are large numbers of that small group committing ALL the crimes in America.
 
Such misinformation would be lies and disinformation.
 
(1). See Robert M. O’Brien, The Interracial Nature of Violent Crimes: A Reexamination,
92 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY 817–35 (1987).
 
His theory is founded on the insight that because there are fewer Black Americans in the population than there are Whites, the relative frequency of blacks’ interacting with Whites will be higher than Whites’ interacting with Blacks in “asymmetrical” situations like rape. That is, “[a]ll minority groups, singly or in combination, are more involved in intergroup relations with a group
constituting a majority than the majority group is with them.” Id. at 820 (quoting PETER M. BLAU, INEQUALITY AND HETEROGENEITY: A PRIMITIVE THEORY OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE 22- 23 (1977)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
 
30 “To illustrate, assume that there are 10% blacks and 90% whites in a population of 1,000; then, if there are 10 black-white marriages, 10% . . . of the blacks would beintermarried, while only 1.1%. . . . of the whites would be intermarried.” Id. at 819. Id at 822.
 
 
Robert O’Brien, “The Interracial Nature of Violent Crimes”.
 
White supremacist. . .screaming about the ferocious black-on-white crime. Yeah right.
 
But, you’ll never hear them caterwauling about the hate crimes of white-on-black crimes, nor the continued crimes of structural racism that still have a continuous assault against the humanity of Black citizens.
 
WS care nothing about the white-on-black crimes. To WS, white-on-black crime is normal and okay. Just peachy.
 
And not just the past—-the present crimes as well.
 
Unless it is a possible white victim, WS have not the balls nor the humanity to accept the fact that much crime continues to remain within each racial group.
Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

ON THIS DAY IN BLACK MUSIC HISTORY: FEBRUARY 28

#1 R&B Song 1953:   “Baby, Don’t Do It,” the “5” Royales

 

Born:   Barbara Acklin, 1942; Cindy Wilson, 1957

 

*************************************************************************************

1954   Spark Records of Los Angeles was formed and became home to the  R&B group the Robins.

 

1968   Frankie Lymon, the voice that helped launch rock ‘n’ roll as well as thousands of look-a-likes, died in his grandmoter’s apartment in New York Ciyt’s Harlem of a drug overdose. Though his youthful voice had lost its register, he was still recording and still hopeful. In fact,Frankie had a recording session scheduled at Roulette Records the next day. Frankie was only twenty-five.

 

1975   Bobby “Blue” Bland and B.B. King’s album, Together for the First Time—Live, was certified gold today by the RIAA. It was the forst joint album for the artists, whose friendship went back to 1949 when Bland worked for King as a valet.

 

1976   Muddy Waters won the Best Ethnic or Traditional Recording award at the eighteenth annual Grammys. It was his third win in that category in five years.

 

1977   In an accident reminiscent of a despicable attack on Nat King Cole decades earlier, Ray Charles was assaulted onstage at a concert for disadvantaged youth by a lunatic who charged the stage carryig a rope and trying to strangle the  blind vocalist.

 

1984   Michael Jackson won an amazing eight awards at the twenty-sixth annual Grammy celebration, including Producer of the Year (Non-Classical), shared with Qincy Jones; Record of the Year; Album of the Year; Best Rock Vocal Performance Male for “Beat It”‘; Best Pop Vocal Performance, Male for Thriller; Best New Song for “Bille Jean”; Best R&B Vocal Performance, Male; and Best Recording for Children for E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.

1996   Stevie Wonder was honored at the thirty-eighth annual Grammy Awards with a Lifetime Achievement Award. He also won Best R&B Song and Best R&B Vocal Performance, Male trophies for “For Your Love.”

 

1998   The album Blues Brothers 2000, from the film of the same name, reached #12 pop. An all-star performance by the so-called Louisana gator Boys (actually B.B. King, Bo Diddley, Lou Rawls, Clarence Clemons, Eric Clapton, Grover Washington, Billy preston, and others) was a feature of the less-than-successful follow-up to the classic film, The Blues Brothers.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

BLACK HISTORY MONTH: BLACK HISTORY IS MORE THAN JUST A MONTH: DRUSILLA DUNJEE HOUSTON

 

Drusilla Dunjee Houston (1876-1941), a woman historian who wrote on the ancient Kushite and Ethiopian civilizations. Her brother was a longtime editor of the African-American newspaper, the Oklahoma Black Dispatch. by Pan-African News Wire File Photos.

 

File:Africamap1812.jpg
An 1812 map of Africa by Arrowsmith and Lewis, printed in Boston by Thomas & Andrews. Source: [1]

DRUSILLA DUNJEE HOUSTON (1876-1941)
by Runoko Rashidi

It is rare in the field of African historical research and writing, that
African women are prominently mentioned.  The work of Drusilla Dunjee Houston
is not only worth mentioning, but should be highlighted as an early, pioneering
historical narrative displaying scholarly depth and superb documentation.

Wonderful Ethiopians of the Ancient Cushite Empire Book 1: Nations of the
Cushite Empire, Marvelous Facts from Authentic Records was first published in
1926 in Oklahoma City.  Houston intended this to be the first volume of a three
volume set that explored Nile civilizations and surveyed the strong influence of
Africa on Asian civilizations.  She also examined the African background to
European civilization. African historians J.A. Rogers and Arthur Alfonso
Schomburg highly praised Mrs. Houston’s outstanding scholarship.

Drusilla Dunjee Houston was born in Winchester, Virginia in 1876.  Her outlook
on race was instilled in her by her father, John William Dunjee, a “race man”
who counted among his colleagues, Frederick Douglas and Blanche K. Bruce.

At the age of twenty-two, Drusilla wed Price Houston, a store merchant.  She
founded the McAlester Seminary in McAlester, Oklahoma.  This was an educational
institution which she ran for twelve years.  After settling in Oklahoma City,
Drusilla went to work as a journalist for her brother’s newspaper, the Black
Dispatch. She “aggressively” reported on cases of white atrocities committed
against Blacks in Oklahoma.

Her interest in ancient Africa and historical research was triggered by the
1915 publication of The Negro authored by W.E.B. DuBois.  Her life-long pursuit
of Africa’s past and her devotion to her race places Drusilla Dunjee Houston in
the foremost ranks of Pan-Africanist historians.

On February 2, 1941, in Phoenix, Arizona, Drusilla Dunjee Houston died from
tuberculosis.  “At the time of her death, she was working on another book on
African history.”

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/dunjee2.html

Download: http://rapidshare.com/files/158859563/Wonderful_Ethiopians.pdf

REFERENCES:
 
 
 
1.
Wonderful Ethiopians of the Ancient Cushite Empire (Forgotten Books) by Drusilla Dunjee Houston (Paperback – Nov 7, 2007)
5.0 out of 5 stars (4)
 
 

Pan-African News Wire: Drusilla Dunjee Houston (1876-1941): …

Some Geneological Background on Drusilla Dunjee Houston From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. John William Dunjee (also John Dungy or John Dungee) (1833 panafricannews.blogspot.com/2007/02/drusilla-dun…

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

ON THIS DAY IN BLACK MUSIC HISTORY: FEBRUARY 27

#1 Song 1961:   “Pony Time,” Chubby Checker & the Dreamlovers

 

Born:   Carl Anderson, 1945

 

*********************************************************************************

1954   The Moonglows’ magical “Secret Love” ($1,500) and the Royals classic “Work With Me, Annie,” (#1 R&B) were issued. The Royals went on to become Hank Ballard & the Midnighters.

 

1961   Aretha Franklin made her pop chart debut with “Won’t Be Long” on Columbia Records. It reached #76 and became the first of seventy-four hits for the “Queen of Soul” over the next thirty-three years.

 

1980   Michael Jackson was awarded the Best R&B Vocal Performance, Male Grammy at their twenty-second annual event for the song “Don’t Stop Till You Get Enough.”

 

1982   More than twenty-one years after their last chart single, Fred Parris & the Five Satins reached the pop charts, rising to #71 with “Memories of Days Gone By.”

 

1993   After fourteen weeks at #1, Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You” became the longest-running chart topper, eclipsing Boyz II Men’s 1992 smash, “End of the Road.” Additionally, the 4 million selling single was #1 in more than a dozen countries. It became the second-largest-selling single in U.S. history, behind only “We Are The World” by USA for Africa.

 

1997   The Four Tops received the Pioneer Lifetime Achievement Award at the eighth annual Rhythm & Blues Foundation’s ceremony at New York’s Hilton Hotel. Also, Smokey Robinson & the Miracles reunited to accept a Pioneer Award.

 

1998   Janet Jackson was a guest on The Rosie O’Donnell Show and discussed the question on the world’s collective mind—-the position on her body of of her tattoos.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

BLACK HISTORY MONTH: WHITE WOMEN CHALLENGING RACISM: PART 2

Post under construction.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

BLACK HISTORY MONTH: WHITE WOMEN CHALLENGING RACISM: PART 1

Post under construction.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

BLACK HISTORY MONTH: BLACK HEROINES: EPILOGUE

 

Then said the mournful mother,
If Ohio cannot save,
I will do a deed for freedom
Shalt find each child a grave.
 
—-Frances E.W. Harper, “The Slave Mother, A Tale of Ohio”
 
 
Aqualtune. Nanny. Dandarah. Zabeth. Carlotta. Margaret Garner.
 
Theirs are just a few of the known enslaved Black women who struck a blow for freedom against the savage monstrosity known as slavery.
 
Everywhere in this hemisphere, many, many Black women resisted chattel slavery; resisted the sexual abuse and exploitation that was their lot in life; resisted the life of perpetual bondage that sought to crush and annihilate the humanity of themselves, the men in their lives—-their children.
 
Many Black women fighters for freedom knew that they took a chance in prevailing against their enslavers, but, they knew that if they did not work to break the chains of bondage forged by the greed of slavers, not only would they remain enslaved—so, too, would their children, and their children’s children, and those children’s children.
 
When people think of resistance against enslavement, so many people picture a Black man, but, not a Black woman.
 
But, as the many Black women I wrote of, Black women did not stand by as if they had no agency, no resolve, no fortitude to bring down the institution of slavery.
 
All across this hemisphere, Black fought in whatever way they could to free themselves, and for many Black women, no tactic used in resistance to enslavement was trivial or insignificant, no matter what the costs it brought. Running away, fighting, breaking tools, poisoning owners, malingering—whatever it took, these were the many paths Black women would go down to free themselves from a lifetime of servitude to parasitical, leeching slaveholders.
 
 
“Mothers who departed with their children confronted special difficulties. It was not easy to feed, clothe, care for, and protect young children while on the run. The physical burden of carrying babies or youngsters four or five years of age was extreme, while the seven- or eight-year-olds had trouble keeping up and often tired quickly. One runaway mother took her child despite his being “sick with a sore mouth and cannot speak.” Mothers themselves often suffered from maladies. Thirty-year-old Matilda, a New Orleans black who absconded in 1832 with her seven-year-old son, had a tumor on the side of her neck. A number of the women who ran away with their children were city slaves or had recently arrived in the city. They planned to hide out, get to a suburb, or sneak aboard a sailing craft or steamboat. The owner of jenny, a mulatto servant who departed from his house in the French Quarter carrying her two-and-a-half-month-old baby, would, the owner believed, attempt to embark on a steamboat.
 
“Pregnant women also ran away. Twenty-one-year-old Lucille, a Louisiana woman who set out in 1833, was “in an advanced stage of pregnancy.” “The captains of vessels are requested not to give her shelter,” the New Orleans widow who owned her threatened, “under the pain provided by the law” to punish the captains. Nancy was seven or eight months pregnant and was limping because of a sore toe when she ran away in 1834, shortly before Christmas. Twenty-eight-year-old Jane, or Jinny, a mulatto slave, was “with child” when she absconded in 1835. The runaway Martha Ann, Virginia slave owner John J.Minter said in 1850, “expects to be confined in six or eight weeks.” He had purchased Martha Ann—-an eighteen-year-old mulatto—-only two months before.” (1)
 
 
Many people do not envision a child resisting enslavement. But, many did—-more than we will ever know. As Zabeth desired freedom, so too, did many little Black children thirst and hunger for it as well:
 
 
“Perhaps even more heartrending were children running away to find their mothers and fathers. Their chances of success were very remote, as eight-,nine-, ten-, and eleven-year-olds usually wandered in vain seeking their parents. Invariably they were caught and returned to their owners. By the time they reached their early to mid-teens, however, their chances improved but only slightly. The runaway notices did nit mention the motives of slaves who absconded, but for youngsters, the owners surmised that they were attempting to follow a mother or father or uncle or aunt or grandparent who had been sold. How Peter, age fourteen or fifteen, made if from the farm in northern Virginia to the mountains of Alabama without being detected seems a remarkable feat in itself. He was jailed in Tallapoosa County, however, and the jailer sent a letter to a Richmond newspaper asking his owner “to come forward, prove his property, pay expenses and take him away.” Nothing was said about why the youngster was running toward the heart of the Deep South, but it surely had to do with a search for his family.  (1)
 
 
Black women used many devices to escape or to keep themselves or their family members being sold into slavery. One way to fight against slavery had to have exacted a heavy toll, physically, and psychologically on Black women who were mothers who refused to allow one more enslaved child to enrich the blood-smeared coffers of the slave master and his family. Therefore, infanticide happened, and we will never know the toll it had to have taken on many a  Black mother who chose to take her child’s life rather than to allow her or him to live a life of enslavement:
 
 
“Reports of black women’s resistance posed a particularly threatening psychological challenge to white men, whose patriarchy rested not only on the subjugation of all nonwhites, but also on the social, economic, and political subordination of all women. Of the psychological challenge that enslaved women’s resistance presented, Darlene Clark Hine observes:
 
 
A woman who elected not  to have children—or, to put it another way,
engaged in sexual abstinence, abortion, or infanticide—negated
through individual or group action her role in the
maintenance of the slave pool. To the extent that in doing so
she redefined her role in the system she introduced
a unit of psychological heterogeneity into a
worldview, which depended, for its survival, on homogeneity,
at least with respect to the assumption of its ideology.   (2)
 
 
Black women endured unimaginable hardships and cruelties during slavery in their struggle for daily survival. At times, however, the desire to live gave way to the recognition that survival demanded a price that they were no longer willing to pay. Such recognition served as a catalyst to armed resistance, murder, or suicide. In this state of mind, Black women acted not as the allegedly grateful and compliant wards and seducers of slaveholders, but as warriors in the fight to end slavery.
 
The violation of enslaved women often was very public. Consider for example the following description of enslaved women’s work environment:
 
 
“Ma mama said that nigger ‘oman couldn’t help herself, ‘fo she had
to do what the marster say. ‘Ef he come to de field whar
de women workin’ and he tell gal to come on, she had to go. He would take one
down in de woods an’ use her all de time he wanted to,
den send her back to work. Times nigger ‘oman had children
for marster an’ his sons and some times it was
fo’ de ovah seer. (2) (3)
 
 
During the course of the day, week, month, throughout the year, enslaved Black women on plantations were chosen randomly to perform sexual acts with slave owners, their sons, and overseers. Such conditions rendered their terror of rape to the realm of the ostensibly mundane.
 
Many Black women rebelled against their sexual abuse and their being faced with the possibility of a master selling them. Because Black women were routinely publicly violated, it is understandable that in their efforts to resist, they were willing to reclaim, at all costs, their always already publicly exposed, publicly abused bodies.
 
In one heartbreaking example, an ex;enslave recalled, “I knew a woman who could not be conquered by her mistress, so her master threatened to sell her to New Orleans Negro traders. She took her right hand, laid it down on a meat block and cut off three fingers, and thus made the sale impossible.” While the woman in this account was made bereft of the full use of her right hand for the rest of her life, she did seize ownership of her own body, which rightfully belonged to her. The horrific and perverted circumstances provided a context in which self-mutilation could become an act of resistance. However, it is important to note that continual resistance to the mistress’s attempts to conquer her most definitely preceded this rash act. (2)
 
Slavery apologists were hard-pressed to defend a system that so traumatized Africana people, that in desperation, rage, and defiance some enslaved Africans would run away, mutilate themselves, murder, and, at times, such as in the case of Margaret Garner, actively decide to take not only take their own lives but also the lives of their own children. The Garner case provides a particularly useful example of the influence Black female resistance had on the development of ethnological, proslavery arguments. In fact, Margaret Garner’s contemporary importance as a symbol of the antislavery cause rivaled that of Dred Scott and Anthony Burns—men whose stories are very well-known, while Margaret’s had fallen into oblivion. Yet Margaret’s story disappeared until resolutely, beautifully, and lovingly resurrected over a century later by Toni Morrison.
 
Slavery sought to dehumanize every aspect of enslaved Black women’s lives. A country that at every turn, at every minute, at every conceivable way created and maintained a system that denounced, diminished, degraded, defiled the grisly torture and sufferings that millions of Black women endured.
 
But, enslaved Black women refused to let the slave holder, the racist pseudo-scientist of that day, the apologists for slavery to have the last word.
 
Black women may have been enslaved in body, but, they were never enslaved in mind.
 
In their acts of insurgency, Black women fought back against assaults upon their humanity that was a constant barrage of lies that they were inferior, lies that they were not human, lies that they were not women.
 
Black women were determined to fight against the disrespect of their humanity.
 
Even unto this day, Black women still have to fight against the legacy of centuries of the hatred of not only of Black people, but, most of all, the hatred of Black womanhood.
 
For in their resistance to racist, sexist, exploitative and enslaved tyranny, Black women showed their “obedience to God”.
 
A legacy they passed on to future Black women.
 
 
 
REFERENCES:
 
 
1.   “Runaway Slaves: Rebels On the Plantation,” by John Hope Franklin and Loren Schweninger, Oxford University Press, 1999: Chapter 3:  “Whither Thou Goest” -Mothers and Children,”, pgs. 64-65.
 
 
2.   “Shout Out: Women of Color Respond to Violence,” edited by Maria Ochoa and Barbara K. Ige, Seal Press, 2007. “Chapter 4: Messages of Pain: I Will Do A Deed For Freedom”: Enslaved Women, Proslavery Theorists, and the Contested Discourse of Black Womanhood,”, pgs. 281-297.
 
 
3.   We Are Your Sisters, 25; Aunt Jane: Rawick, vol. 8 Perdue L. Charles, E. Barden Thomas, and Rovert K. Phillips, eds. Weevils In The Wheat (Charlottesville, 1976).

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized