Holly Jackson, an enterprising Brandeis graduate student in English with a promising career before her, has a fascinating article — really a detective story — in the Boston Globe more or less proving that Emma Dunham Kelley-Hawkins, a prominent member of a group of recently rediscovered black women writers of the late 19th Century, was white. Read the article to follow the path to this conclusion.
Kelley-Hawkins’s work had always proved problematic for the critics working in and with black literature since her characters appeared to be white and her work “lacked the themes of racial uplift found in the work of contemporaries,” but they managed to cope with that unfortunate omission.
Scholars have explained this away by arguing that the abundance of white signifiers is actually politically radical, with some even going so far as to argue that this extremely white world depicts a kind of post-racial utopia. For example, in an essay on Kelley-Hawkins collected in the 2003 volume ”Women’s Experience of Modernity, 1875-1945” (Johns Hopkins), critic Carla L. Peterson argues that Kelley-Hawkins ”sought to offer her readers — particularly African Americans — a vision of what it would be like to live in a modern world in which racial difference no longer existed.”
Ms. Jackson herself is not immune to what sounds like a felt necessity to see everything through the lens of race (she is an English graduate student, after all). Although she says Kelley-Hawkins’s two best known novels
follow a group of adolescent female friends in eastern Massachusetts from carefree youth through Christian conversion to appropriate wifehood, with no mention of the difficulties facing black women,
she nevertheless concludes:
But a reconsideration of not only Kelley-Hawkins’s racial identity but also the historical context of her novels suggests that a far different reading [different from portraying a post-racial utopia] is in order. Suddenly, they look not at all like hopeful African-American novels but like reflections of white racial anxiety in one of the most violently racist decades in American history.
But this blemish, if that’s what it is, is not enough to detract from what is a truly fascinating detective story, and one that leaves as many questions as it answers. How did Kelley-Hawkins come to be regarded as black in the first place? In our day many liberal critics believe that Clarence Thomas is not “really” black and Miguel Estrada not “really” Hispanic because of their politics, and those critics cut the Thomases and Estradas (whom they regard as “race traitors,” although they usually refrain from using that term) no slack and grant them no credit for attempting to move to a “post-racial utopia” where race would not matter. Why should an ambiguously black writer (when Kelley-Hawkins was thought to be black) who wrote of “blue-eyed” girls with skin as “pure” as the “driven snow” and with no thought to “racial uplift” be accepted, at least as long as she is regarded as “really” black?
Now that Kelley-Hawkins can no longer be regarded as “really” black, however, she is being dropped from the next edition of William Louis Gates’s 40 volume anthology of 19th Century black women writers.
The article in question includes THIS paragraph:
>>>Of course, it is impossible to say definitively that Emma Dunham Kelley-Hawkins had absolutely no ancestors of African descent at some point farther back than the record shows. The ”one-drop” logic that has long dominated American understandings of race can cast doubt on the racial identity of any seemingly white person. If we understand race as a social construction, there is no biological truth to uncover, just a social tradition that considers parentage the deciding factor when skin color proves inconclusive. Kelley-Hawkins was as white as anyone whose parents and grandparents claim to be white, and clearly identified herself as such when given the opportunity throughout her adult life.”
Do you believe, John, as the author apparently does, that race is simply a “social construction” with no basis in biology? And what political ramifications would you draw from that?
Given the time of this woman’s lifespan, there were (and IMHO still are) OBVIOUS advantages to be designated as a “white person.” Passing as white was a reality in America, and gave the “passer” greater freedoms and access.
I’m sure there are many nostolgists of the movie “Flashdance” who still can’t believe Jennifer Beals is “black.”
What a feeling….
–Cobra
I think race is primarily social with little biological basis, and I don’t draw any particular political conclusions from that. It’s clear that over the years many blacks have “passed” as whites, for obvious reasons. What I find interesting here is not whether Ms. Dunham-Kelley was “really” black but that so many interpreters (guardians?) of the the black literary tradition were willing to explain how her writing was really black even though it didn’t seem to be, as long as she was thought to be black, but not now that she’s not. This contrasts with the treatment of those like Thomas and Estrada, who are allowed less deviation from the approved line.
Cobra,
Of course, skin color (race), like hair color or eye color, is a biological attribute, but the destructive “social construction” is of that attribute having some meaningfulness to the value of the underlying human being.
John,
If photographic reproduction technology did not exist, or particular evidence were destroyed or modified (digitally?), I think it is very likely that a potential future society of 150 years from now that is similar to ours in its elevation of “diversity” values (or more radically evolved to something worse) might question or even declare a Clarence Thomas or Ward Connerly as literally not being black because they didn’t behave in the “correct” way for their proper notion of (their future socially constructed) what race. I presume Kelley-Hawkins’ life pre-dates the time when a photographic record would have been likely? In future, digital technology will render our faith in the photo suspect, so this vision is plausible, even as I think it unlikely that historians or scientists will sink that far.
Such revisionism is not new – read Orwell – of course. But it is important to contemplate how historians will look back on us?
Cobra, John,
Of course, the “defintion” of what Jennifer Beals “is” a perfect example of such historical use of race. I really have no idea what identity Beals chooses or exchews or cares less about, but I’ve heard this example enough to be skeptical about it (I can’t see its relevance to the story, so the casting must have truly been colorblind). It seems to me that Cobra has two tests of racial membership — a “one drop” test for any “black” that has done something positive, but a “racial purity” test for those like Ward Connerly that he might disagree with, or who has done something wrong or evil.
Chet – Interesting point about photos etc. In Kelley-Hawkins’s case, according to the article, her black identity derives almost exclusively from one ambiguous photo included in the front of one of her novels.
Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>It seems to me that Cobra has two tests of racial membership — a “one drop” test for any “black” that has done something positive, but a “racial purity” test for those like Ward Connerly that he might disagree with, or who has done something wrong or evil.”
First of all, I’m not old enough to have actually authored the miscegenation laws or skin color stratifications in America. Simply stating what is a racial reality in America is not neccessarily indicative of my own personal opinions. Would a darker skinned Jennifer Beals have received the part in Flashdance in 1983? I doubt it, given the hesitance to display interracial relationships in major studio presentations, though many social scientists believe the white male-black female scenario isn’t as “threatening” as vice-versa. Of course the old addage of conference room, “Yeah..but how will it go over in Des Moines, or Southgate, MI?” comes into play. The old picture of Mrs. Dunham-Kelley on the article is a pretty good indication of what we’re discussing here.
Second, if anybody reads my posts here, they’ll observe that I’m an equal opportunity basher. Dark skin, broad noses or nappy hair doesn’t place a person above criticism in my book.
That being said, I don’t know if Mrs. Dunham-Kelley is worthy of criticism or not because, to be honest…I’ve never read anything by her.
Overall, I don’t think it’s a fair judgement of my position to say I would prefer a knife in the back from a dark skinned African American as opposed to a light skinned, or white person. Any stabbing hurts, IMHO.
–Cobra
No one was talking about back stabbing, or stabbing of any kind, Cobra. Always with the victimization.
And then there is the “zero-drop” test, used for Ward Churchill.
Dom
One drop test? Isn’t the current theory of human evolution that we all came out of Africa? And that skin color lightened only after migration to more northern climes? Then, under “one drop”, that would mean =everyybody= is black.
hmmmm
Meep writes:
>>>One drop test? Isn’t the current theory of human evolution that we all came out of Africa? And that skin color lightened only after migration to more northern climes? Then, under “one drop”, that would mean =everyybody= is black.
hmmmm”
The trick is trying to get certain factions of society to admit it.
Notherbob writes:
>>>No one was talking about back stabbing, or stabbing of any kind, Cobra. Always with the victimization.”
What is the great tumult over this? Chetly was referring to how I color the face of evil racially. I embellished my answer rhetorically. Rhetoric is certainly not an ALIEN concept on this blog. You should know better than most.
–Cobra
Sorry, I thought I saw a freudian slip. One that made a point that seemed important. Wouldn’t want to be any part of limiting the rhetoric!
Skin color and Africa.
There is also research contending that Africans darkened and Europeans lightened. So maybe we all were another basic hue. It doesn’t matter unless you want it to matter.
I have no opinion about the quality of that research. It would have been in a Science magazine after 2000.
The idea makes some sense. If mankind began with abundant body hair then darker skin in the tropics and a lighter elsewhere would give less advantage.
And if skin color changed for any group why be sure it didn’t for most. Or that it is not still doing so.
Perhaps culture was involved. Prehistoric peoples lived in small groups. And diversity was NOT celebrated. So people close to the norm (you follow the Darwinian drift).
Cobra,
By definition, you are an “equal opportunity basher”, because you’re an open supporter of preferences and discrimination and bash those of us supporting equal opportunity (OK, I’m being “rhetorical” here, but more directly, you’re not an “equal opportunity basher” because your bashing seems to be focused not on attacking the arguments based on a consistent set of principles, but rather on personal attacks (in many cases, unprovoked) with those you disagree with often for inconsistent or apparently random reasons). Part of the problem “partial” blackness of individuals you disagree with, and pointed out the partial blackness of individuals you proclaim as successful examples of your world view…
I’ve never heard Southgate, MI included in that old addage about Des Moines. I wonder why you chose that town, of all possible alternatives.
Chetly writes:
>>>By definition, you are an “equal opportunity basher”, because you’re an open supporter of preferences and discrimination and bash those of us supporting equal opportunity (OK, I’m being “rhetorical” here, but more directly, you’re not an “equal opportunity basher” because your bashing seems to be focused not on attacking the arguments based on a consistent set of principles, but rather on personal attacks (in many cases, unprovoked) with those you disagree with often for inconsistent or apparently random reasons).”
No, I’m an equal opportunity basher because I’ll take on those I disagree with regardless of their race, gender, nationality, religious affiliation or sexual preference.
As far as any “personal attacks”, I will freely admit that I find you to be far more DANGEROUS an individual to African America than say…Stephen, a frequent poster here. Instead of just whining and complaining about blacks as Stephen does in a (sometimes humorous) fashion akin to a closing time denizen at a Hoboken dive bar, you’re fully ENGAGED in a well-oiled, pro-white think tank funded machine out to destroy Affirmative Action in Michigan, which will work to the DETRIMENT of African Americans there. The MCRI is attempting to FURTHER deny opportunities to African Americans in a state that its own EEOC commission reports say it needs MORE of.
http://www.eeo1.com/1999_NR/MI1999.pdf.
Now, you defend all of this by “adhering to principle.” The serpent handlers of Jolo, WV also “adhere to principle” and will not seek professional medical attention if they’re injured while juggling live rattlesnakes, drinking strychnine or lighting themselves on fire during the religious services they claim the Bible instructs them to perform. Neither adherance to principle makes much sense to me.
As far as Southgate, MI is concerned, well…it seemed appropriate to put it in that context for one reason or another.
–Cobra