By now, it is common knowledge in this country that one of our "revered" Founding Fathers, the author of the Declaration of Independence, original "state's rights" confederate, plantation slave-owner and third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, fathered children with Sally Hemings, one of his housekeeping slaves. To me, the controversy that continues to surround this matter, despite DNA testing indicating the veracity of the claim, is an indication of the deep-seated racism in this country. People are uncomfortable with the idea that their cherished Thomas Jefferson (about whom most of them know next to nothing) would participate in the taboo of interracial relations, even less with the revelation that Jefferson was a rapist. (What was Sally going to do? Tell him "no?") But, let's leave aside the issue of tax-evading power-grabbers deified as "patriots" and "lovers of liberty," shall we? Just for now.
 |
| Thomas Jefferson: Slave-owning "lover of liberty," or just a plain ol' schmuck? |
The reason I mention this historical item at all is because the descendants of the union between Jefferson and Hemings, are caught in a racial identity void. Are they black? Are they white?
When one starts to think about one's own racial identity, one tends to go back only three or four (or maybe five) generations to identify with the people from whom one is descended. I would venture that even avid genealogists can do little more than that. Why? Because the number of people involved, the number of people from whom one can claim direct ancestry, grows exponentially with each generation.
Consider: we all have two parents, each of whom had two parents, each of whom had two parents. So, going back 10 generations (approximately 200 years) we could have as many as 210, or 1024 direct ancestors. Suffice it to say that one does not have to go back very far in the human chronicle to become overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of people involved. Of course, this does not take into account duplicate ancestors who may appear more than once in the family tree. (Cousins marrying cousins and the like. You know how people are...)
Some of my cousins (on the English-German side) have made a real effort in studying my family's genealogy. When we had our family reunion a couple years ago, they had constructed a fabulously complex family tree which was a monument to dedication. The diagram featured hundreds of names, along with dates of birth and death. This tree dealt only with a single thread of my own ancestry: the thread from which the name "Metzger" is derived. The majority of the names on the diagram were, at this point in Time's March, just that: names. We know nothing of the people. One can easily imagine that among them were Irish immigrants, African slaves, Cherokees, Hurons, Frenchmen, British Tories, and God knows who else.
So, were I to say (as I often do) that I am English-German on Mom's side, and Filipino-Mexican on Dad's side, I would be basing that statement on the people in my ancestry of whom I am aware. But that extends back only to my great-grandparents. And, of those eight people, I know only a scarce minimum about seven of them, and nothing at all about the eighth.
Let us suppose then, that ten generations back, I have some 800 direct ancestors. It seems rather unlikely that they were all German or English or Filipino or Mexican. (And, what is a "Mexican," anyway, other than an amalgamation of Spanish conquistadors, American Mayans or Aztecs, imported African slaves, and German or French emigrants?)
When viewed in this light, racial identity becomes a very tricky topic, does it not? I don't believe that anyone can claim to be purely German or Senegalese or Chinese or Brazilian or anything else. And besides, whether you subscribe to the Adam and Eve fable, or to Darwinian rationality, we all come from the same people anyway.
If you are interested in learning more about racial identity, I refer you to my friend fatima and ahmed's son ridwan laher, where he examines racial identity in the contexts of politics and social justice. Also my friend Stewart King has written a book, Blue Coat or Powdered Wig, which is an examination of racial identity specific to people of color in the 18th century French Caribbean. Both of these men are highly-educated academicians.
 |
| Metzgers |
When I was young, one of my cousins told me that genealogically, I could make a claim for the throne of England. Indeed, that I was descended from the same people as the Royal Family! So, I suppose if some catastrophe were to befall the 50 or 100 million persons with more direct claims, I might one day be coronated in West Minster Abbey.
And, let me tell ya, when that day comes, there's gonna be some changes!
6 comments:
Thanks for the plug brother.
The Jefferson issue will never die for more reasons than ancestry.
Sally Hemings was just 14 when he started having sex with her.
That is rape. And since she was a slave even when he continued the issue of consent is voided.
The rape thus continued.
Rape and racism is about right.
See Winthrop Jordan's book "White Over Black" (1968) for an early discussion of the contested paternity issues.
Jefferson's own writing tells a more convoluted story about his thinking on the sexuality of women based on race.
He writes that white women are superior sexual beings but because black women and Indians have larger hips they are more suited to giving birth with ease.
Indians, however, lose many children to disease and are therefore less profitable as slaves.
Black women give birth easily and even in the fields where they can go right back to work.
So black women may not have the sexual superiority of the more frail white woman, but they are certainly profitable.
Yep that was Jefferson, patriarchal slave owner, 3rd president, rapist, and racist.
Onward!
Ridwan
I would suggest a reading of Edwin Blacks "War Against the Weak." It is a book about the eugenics movement in America and how the Nazi's attached themselves to it. In fact, the Nazi's received race research funding from the same groups funding it here: The Carnegie Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman Railroad wealth.
Race is also a tool for the master. To say the issue can be easily clouded kind of says that one doesn't really want to deal with the intimacies, intricacies, and real issues around race. See, it is a complex issue when one thinks of ones ancestry, and thus, Mexicans are really mixed and the issues they face with oppression, murder, and immigration, are far more complex. Not that easy. Nope.
People are going to have to deal with the uncomfortable realities of race and racism if they want to move beyond it to the comforts of ancestry back to the beginning blah, blah, blah.
I paraphrase:
Hold to the quarter blood quantum as a definition of Indian, encourage intermarriage, and soon we will have solved our persistent Indian problem.
Land grab! Crimes against humanity! Genocide! WE STILL WANT SOME JUSTICE!
And this mixed blood issue in the current form of racism is BY DESIGN! The above is from an actual U.S. document from the 1920's. It doesn't cloud the issue, it makes it MORE CONVENIENT for the oppressor and those who make excuses for the oppressor.
Since I'm only half Indian, if I had gone to boarding school, would the priest have only stuck it half way in?
To cloud the issue with blood quantum BS is BS. These are crimes that have to be dealt with: rape, murder, genocide, land theivery, violations of the U.S. constitution by the U.S. government, etc.
Jefferson also said of us Red Nig*** types that he wanted to annihilate, exterminate, and extirpate us. We'll just overlook that because he was a really great guy.
On Jefferson and Hemings: the relationship was long-lasting and Jefferson did the responsible thing, by the standards of his time, and saw to it that his children with Hemings were trained in trades and freed. Two of his children "passed" as white and disappeared from history while two others, his sons Madison and Eston, were trained as carpenters and moved to Ohio, where they fathered a very large number of descendants.
The Hemings family had a long-standing relationship with Jefferson and his wife's family. Jefferson's father-in-law was the father of Sally and at least five of her siblings. Hemings' brother James was Jefferson's cook, who also gained his freedom and had a restaurant in Richmond. Another Hemings brother was Jefferson's butler and also ultimately gained his freedom. Another brother (not the son of Jefferson's father-in-law) was Jefferson's chief carpenter and assistant architect of Monticello. The relationship between these mixed-race slave families and their masters was very complex and you can't simply say "oh he raped her" and leave it at that. For example, Sally and James Hemings were living in France when Sally first started sleeping with Jefferson. Slavery was not permitted in France. Any slaves who were brought to France by foreign diplomats, like Jefferson, had to be registered. Jefferson had not registered the Hemingses because having slaves would have been difficult to square with his public image in France as the friend of freedom. The punishment for failure to register was freedom for the slaves in question. James certainly knew of this, and he and Sally received wages while they were there. When Jefferson was ready to return to Virginia, Sally and James made a deal with him that James and Sally's children would be free. So yes, Jefferson was a slave owner. Yes, Jefferson had a sexual relationship with one of his slaves. Yes, there was certainly a power imbalance between him and her, as indeed there was between any man and any woman at that time and of course between any white and any black in Virginia. But no, he wasn't running around raping 14-year-old slave girls - that's a gross exaggeration of what was going on.
I recommend the book "The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family" by Annette Gordon-Reed. It is long but gives an excellent portrait of this very interesting family.
A slave cannot consent to a relationship.
Jefferson had a relationship with a 14 year old that makes him a pedophile too.
No consent is rape.
Some of the rationalization of the "times" and the context of slavery is offensive.
And that is no "exaggeration".
Ridwan
A slave cannot consent to a relationship.
Jefferson had a relationship with a 14 year old that makes him a pedophile too.
No consent is rape.
Some of the rationalization of the "times" and the context of slavery is offensive.
And that is no "exaggeration".
Ridwan
Thanks for the plug brother.
The Jefferson issue will never die for more reasons than ancestry.
Sally Hemings was just 14 when he started having sex with her.
That is rape. And since she was a slave even when he continued the issue of consent is voided.
The rape thus continued.
Rape and racism is about right.
See Winthrop Jordan's book "White Over Black" (1968) for an early discussion of the contested paternity issues.
Jefferson's own writing tells a more convoluted story about his thinking on the sexuality of women based on race.
He writes that white women are superior sexual beings but because black women and Indians have larger hips they are more suited to giving birth with ease.
Indians, however, lose many children to disease and are therefore less profitable as slaves.
Black women give birth easily and even in the fields where they can go right back to work.
So black women may not have the sexual superiority of the more frail white woman, but they are certainly profitable.
Yep that was Jefferson, patriarchal slave owner, 3rd president, rapist, and racist.
Onward!
Ridwan
Post a Comment