Ar’n’t I a Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South. By Deborah Gray White. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1985.
While historians of the late 1970s and early 19080s like Eugene Genovese, John Blassingame, and Herbert Gutman did much to uncover the experiences of slaves in the antebellum South, Deborah Gray White wrote Ar’n’t I a Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South because she felt the lives of the female slaves were underrepresented. Indeed, no one was answering questions about their status as women. White claims that many historians of slavery tried so stridently to disprove Stanley Elkins’ Sambo thesis that as a consequence, “The male slave’s ‘masculinity’ was restored by putting black women in their proper ‘feminine place.” (22) White argues, however, that slave gender roles were more complicated than previously acknowledged.
When White began researching, she wondered, “Did being a wife and mother anchor slave women to the position of inferiority in slave society as it did white women in American society at large?” (17) Drawing her title from Sojourner Truth’s famous address at the 1851 Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, when Truth declared, “I could work as much and eat as much as a man (when I could get it) and bear de lash as well—and ar’n’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen chilern and seen em mos’ all sold off into slavery, and when I cried out with a mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard—and ar’n’t I a woman?” (14), White tries to reconcile the female slaves sometimes conflicting statuses as women and blacks. Few sources chronicle the lives of female slaves, so White complied her study by examining slave narratives, travellers’ accounts, and W.P.A. former slave interviews. She then combined these accounts with anthropological studies on social conditions in places like West Africa where most of the women had their roots.
To get to the heart of the female slave experience, White had to examine and dispel the dual myths of Jezebel and Mammy. Jezebel was the antithesis of the “true woman” so lauded in American culture at the time. According to the myth, this sensual, fiery woman had primal sexual urges and invited white men to her bed. White suggests that part of this myth stems from the hot climate of Africa as well as the clothing and work conditions on the plantations. Women were often forced to work with their skirts hiked up in the fields. In addition, White explores the sexual context of the frequent whippings. Another root for this myth was, of course, the not infrequent birth of mulatto children. To justify their infidelity, the black woman had to become a harlot. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Mammy was seen as the aristocracy of plantation life. This well-loved woman served as “surrogate mistress and mother” (49) and, according to the myth, single-handedly kept the plantation running. The Mammy was less a real person than a “symbol of the patriarchal tradition.” (58) Her role as holy mother stressed the righteousness of the slave system.
Although not exhaustive, White’s book also chronicles the differences between the slave experiences of men and women. For example, women were kept on the upper decks during the middle passage, not in the holds. This gave them unique opportunities to offer resistance. Once on the plantations, slave women often found ways of subverting the authority of their owners. Although most women seemed to have genuinely cared for their husbands, White points out that the more important relationships were between a woman and her children and her female kin. Women banded together to provide a supportive community, even sharing the responsibilities of motherhood. While men and women had different roles, most women were equal partners, not subordinates to their mates. White makes the claim, “Most slave girls grew up believing that boys and girls were not equal. Had they been white and free, they would have learned the contemporary wisdom of nineteenth century America, that women were the maidservants of men. . . . As it was, because they were black and slave they learned that black women had to be the maidservants of whites, but not necessarily of men.” (118) Because they were seen as not subject to the Cult of True Womanhood, black women had more equality within their romantic relationships than their white peers.
Time has not erased the power of the conflicting myths surrounding black womanhood. White states that they have suffered doubly from sexism and racism. Black women remain, posits White, stuck in the roles of Jezebel and Mammy. White’s focus on the intertextuality of female slave lives, however, lets the reader finally answer Sojourner Truth’s question in the affirmative: yes, these were women, too.
Amanda Bresie Texas Christian University
Deborah Gray White. Ar’n’t I A Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1985.
In the context of North American slavery, no figure endured worse treatment or has received less historical attention than the enslaved African-American woman. While many notable historians have written excellent studies concerning the institution of slavery, the majority focus their analysis on males held in bondage. Deborah Gray White’s Ar’n’t I A Women? Female Slaves in the Plantation South provides a long overdue examination of female slavery, shattering long held myths and illustrating the unique struggles that slave women faced in their day to day survival. Poignantly, White observes in her conclusion that “Slave women were the only women in America who were sexually exploited with impunity, stripped and whipped with a lash, and worked like oxen” (162).
As White notes, the lack of written history relating to slave women is in part due to a lack of sources, especially material recorded firsthand by female slaves. White admits the difficulty of researching her subject, but asserts that valuable information can be learned from other primary source material documenting slavery, such as slave owners’ diaries and letters, census records, travel accounts, newspapers, abolitionist publications, and accounts written by Union military personnel during the Civil War. In addition to these, White “relied heavily on the Works Progress Administration’s interviews with female ex-slaves,” which despite being written some seven decades after the extermination of slavery, remain one of the few sources that present the unfiltered perspective and voice of slave women (24). Ar’n’t I A Women? contains detailed endnotes and includes a rich bibliography of both published and unpublished material.
“In the nineteenth century when the nation was preoccupied with keeping women in the home and protecting them,” White affirms, “only slave women were so totally unprotected by men or by law. Only black women had their womanhood so totally denied” (162). In her opening chapter, White introduces the two stereotyped characterizations of slave women, the sexually unrestrained “Jezebel” and loyal servant “Mammy.” Jezebel, by symbolizing the supposed promiscuous behavior of the black female, became a justification for the sexual abuse that female slaves suffered at the hands of both white and black males. Mammy, the idealized figure of submissive slavery, never appeared in reality as frequently or in such comfort as early twentieth century Hollywood movies and novels depicted, and although many domestic slaves formed close bonds with white children they nurtured, they still remained human property subject to their owner’s whims. White documents the varied work performed by female slaves, who at times performed the same physical labor as men in fields, but often performed spinning, sewing, cooking, and other duties considered to be traditional feminine tasks. Slave women also increased their master’s profits by providing children; a function owners could demand at young ages and force upon their property, to the point of selective breeding. Although pregnant women usually received a better diet and lighter workload, the poor nutrition that slaves generally received and the atrocious medical knowledge of the era ensured childbirth to be extremely dangerous to both mother and child. White also notes that a portion of slaves refused to bear children as an act of resistance and at times did practice forms of birth control and even abortion. While a small percentage of slaves resisted their owner’s mistreatment by participating in revolts or using their position as household servants to poison cruel masters, the constant threat of the lash or sale apart from their families usually coerced compliance. White ends the book by examining personal relationships among slaves, and notes that forced separation between husbands and wives created a strong female community among slaves in which family members and friends relied upon one another to survive, a trait which she contends continues to this day within the black community.
Although Ar’n’t I A Women? may appear to be undersized at only 167 pages, it is an enlightening and concise investigation of slavery that I would recommend for the use of both students and scholars of the Old South.
Steven Nathaniel Dossman
Ar’n’t I a Woman? By Deborah Gray White. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1985. 216 pp.
In her work, Ar’n’t I a Woman?, Deborah G. White describes the lives of black slave women in the American South. According to White, black slave women shared a double oppression of sex and color (23). Yet, black slave women defied the mid-nineteenth century Victorian ideals of inequality of the sexes based upon physical and mental weakness. To cope with cultural boundaries and criticisms, whites developed stereotypes and myths of black womanhood, particularly in the images of the Jezebel, Mammy, and later, Sapphire figures. Through her attempt to dispel these myths, White portrays the existence of a distinct female slave culture within the overall slave society.
In order to overcome the Victorian boundaries set for women, slaveholders developed the Jezebel image of black women to enable them to continue their breeding practices and sexual abuse. White describes the Jezebel figure as the, “counterimage of the Victorian lady” (29). Black women, or Jezebel, supposedly possessed an innate sexual hunger and sensuality. Whites’ misinterpretation of African cultural traditions, such as polygamy, tribal dances, and religious ceremonies, contributed to their belief in Jezebel’s consuming sexual power. The rate of pregnancy and increase amongst blacks provided evidence for the Jezebel image (31). Even if a black woman wanted to practice chastity, the overwhelming beliefs surrounding the Jezebel image hindered them. Without fear of punishment, slaveholders raped the, ‘lustful,’ female slaves (36). To further confuse the situation for black women, white slaveholders encouraged pregnancy with threats or rewards. As White explains, if the black women made themselves available, it only lent credence to the whites theory of Jezebel, but if black women remained chaste, they faced the fear of being sold or whipped (38). Ultimately, the dilemma presented a no-win situation for black women.
When Northern abolitionists began to criticize Southern morality, pro-slavery advocates reacted by generating the Mammy figure of black women. Mammy presented the opportunity to create a chaste image to offset the immodest, heathenish Jezebel (45). Slaveholders used the Mammy character to portray slavery as an institution benefiting both whites and blacks. Mammy took care of white children, and the white family took care of and protected Mammy. White characterizes Mammy as an asexual woman, maternal, and deeply religious (46). Mammy represented the ideal slave and woman, thereby portraying race and sex relations at their best (61). Yet, White explains the iconic Mammy figure often simply did not exist or function in the described capacity. White women took care of a great deal of the chores and domestic sphere. The development of the Mammy myth served to discredit the amount of work the white wife of the household put forth.
White briefly mentions the much later development of the image of Sapphire, who negatively mirrors qualities of a Jezebel and Mammy. Sapphire represents facets of Jezebel’s personality with her domineering and emasculating effect. But, instead of Jezebel’s sexual nature, Sapphire exhibits an, “aggressive usurpation of men’s role” (166). White further parallels Sapphire with Mammy’s tough and efficient virtues, but Sapphire remains devoid of maternal compassion. With the development of Sapphire, White believes black women must now prove their womanhood.
White argues that a distinct female system of slavery emerged from the overall slavery institution. Until White’s work, historians often ignored or underscored the lives of black women by placing a larger emphasis upon the role of black women in the lives of black men. In part, White believes the reason for this emphasis derives from the lack of source material on female slaves. As White states, “Slave women were everywhere, yet nowhere” (22). Still, White illustrates that childbearing and childcare responsibilities created a different system for female and male slaves (89). Because they functioned in groups, such as “trash gangs,” and spent a great deal of time outside of work together in their quarters, bonds formed between the slave women (119). A hierarchy developed amongst the women based upon talents and skills. Because husbands and fathers often lived abroad, relationships between mothers and their children superseded that between husband and wife or father and child. Women developed a society within a society through their close ties to their children and each other.
Although she makes inferences throughout the work, she bases her conclusions upon plausible evidence from interviews conducted by the Works Projects Administration. White used information from these interviews to shed light upon the previously overshadowed lives of black slave women. In a relatively short work, White manages to dispel the myths of Jezebel, Mammy, and Sapphire surrounding black women and establish a distinct place for them in the continued study of Southern slave society.
Joi-lee Beachler
Deborah Gray White’s book, Ar’n’t I a Woman?, places black
women in the context of the two ideologies they faced in the antebellum
South—the Southern feminine ideal of the dependent, physically inert female,
and the harsher imagery of hard labor and dehumanization that characterized
the lives of slaves. According to White, the slave woman’s identity
as defined by white society dangled precariously between these two images.
In this sense, slave women found themselves doubly victimized: “For
antebellum black women…sexism was but one of three constraints….They were
slaves because they were black, and even more than sex, color was the absolute
determinant of class in antebellum America” (15). The ultimate theme
of White’s work is to identify slave women by considering the imagery forced
upon them by white society, but also by studying the society the slaves
made for themselves, thus achieving a more accurate view of the lives of
antebellum slave women.
White begins her work by outlining the prevailing images by which white
Americans defined black women. On the one hand, plantation society
viewed the slave woman as a sexually insatiable female, a Jezebel,
whose licentious appetites differentiated her from the more ideally pious
and pure Southern white woman. On the other hand, the slave woman
functioned as the matronly, kind-hearted Mammy, intent on caring for her
master’s children and running the plantation household. As paradoxical
as these two images appear, White demonstrates how each view represented
a part of a slave woman’s reality as she related to the plantation household.
Indeed, slaves were expected to be mothers in the sense that they were
expected to birth children, thereby replenishing the slave population.
But the “Mammy” image equating slave women with motherhood did not prevent
Southern white society from dehumanizing women. Indeed, slave women
often incurred the sexual abuses of their masters, thereby forcing them
into a sexual role indicative of the “Jezebel” image. As White shows, the
slave woman suffered an identity crisis compounded by prevailing ideologies
that often prevented her from assuming a humanized role within plantation
society.
White’s outline of the female slave identity crisis functions as a
good overview of ideology surrounding slave women, but the author does
not neglect the realities slave women faced in spite of the plantation
society in which they lived. According to White, slave women functioned
within slave societies in much different roles than the women assumed in
plantation culture. For instance, slave women often formed tight
bonds with one another, and, within their own families, shared more “equitable”
relationships. Treated as property within plantation society, slaves
found ways to manipulate their situations, thus exerting influence over
their environments. Some slave women even feigned illness so that
they would not have to perform the backbreaking work typical of many slaves’
lives. Indeed, quite apart from larger ideologies, White effectively demonstrates
that slave women formed their own places within plantation society, thus
bringing into question the passivity associated with slave women when viewed
in terms of plantation imagery.
As a work involving paradoxes, White’s book shows the extent to which
ideology impacts realties. Certainly, slave women were affected by the
Jezebel/Mammy dichotomy even if their own lives did not reflect such existences
simply due to the ways in which white culture—the promulgator of such imagery—treated
the slave women by defining them in relation to these images. Nonetheless,
one of White’s themes holds black women as paradoxes within slave culture,
for while they functioned as slaves, the women also functioned as oppressed
individuals with cultural ties of their own. What results is a work that
questions previous literature holding slave women in relation to plantation
imagery.
White’s work reads like a narrative of slave experiences, for the author
evidences much of her theories by relying on slave narratives. The
author’s decision to utilize slave accounts lends credence to her ideas,
for by reviewing the source, White is more effectively broaching plantation
life from the perspective of the slave women. In all, White presents
a revisionist view of slave culture by examining the influences on how
slaves are viewed while challenging scholars to look beyond imagery and
consider slave women from their experiences rather than simply the ideologies
surrounding their lives.
Sarah Crowley
Ar’n’t I a Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South. By Deborah Gray White. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, c. 1999. Pp. xi, 244. $11.00, ISBN 0-393-31481-2).
African-American women have long been neglected in the annals of American history, but the past 25 years have produced a large body of scholarly works, which begin to fill the void. Deborah Gray White’s book Ar’n’t I a Woman, first published in 1985, was path breaking in addressing the lives of female slaves. White teaches African-American and Women's history at Rutgers University and serves as the chair of the history department. While the work of Eugene Genovese and Herbert Gutman laid the foundation for studying slaves and their families under the "peculiar institution," they have focused more keenly on black males. White seeks to dispel the prevailing images associated with black females in the plantation South and illuminate their lives under the oppression of slavery.
The first two themes that White discusses deal with the images of the black “Jezebel” and “Mammy.” She argues that white slave owners created an image of black women that portends a lack of moral constitution. The intersection of race and gender formed a uniquely American mythology surrounding black women. White traces the foundation of the negative stereotypes to the first interaction of Englishmen and African women. Englishmen mistook the African woman’s minimal clothing as a sign of promiscuity. This erroneous judgment coupled with the pervading Victorian ideals of womanhood served to further diminish the worth of black women. White convincingly argues that the atmosphere in which female slaves worked also fostered the idea that they were lascivious and lewd. For example, black women’s tasks involved exposing their body. While working in the rice fields often times female slaves needed to hike their skirts up in order to effectively work the crop. During auction, black women were fondled and examined with no regard to modesty; their breasts and genitalia were exposed. During punishment, the slave owner also exposed her body. These actions effectively voided the privacy of black women and the ability to control their bodies. Black women became the targets for the sexual depravity of many white men. By debasing black women white men afforded white women the opportunity to keep the purity of their roles that were steeped in Victorian mores. But as time passed it became obvious to white southern society that Jezebel conflicted with crucial entities within their culture. Whites comfortably reconciled the Jezebel image by creating the affable Mammy.
In order to deal with the fact that black women cared for white children an alternate image needed to be created. A promiscuous woman did not meet the standards for those in close proximity with white children, therefore the jovial and ambidextrous caretaker Mammy served the purpose of a necessary positive image. But White illustrates that steeped in the Mammy image lies misleading and erroneous ideals. While Mammy predominately served in wealthy white households, there were female servants that combined fieldwork with household duties, particularly in less wealthy families. In these instances a strong bond between the female slaves and the white children often developed. Also, the Mammy image negates the active role white women served in maintaining their households. Diaries indicate that white women worked extremely hard caring for their children and home; placing all these responsibilities upon the Mammy strips white mothers of their integral familial roles.
White also addresses the camaraderie of female slaves. She spends a great deal of time discussing the close relationships and support systems formed by quilting, sewing and laundering as a unit. These tasks served to create bonds that assisted black women in coping with the harshness of slave life. Black women’s lives on the plantations of the South illustrate the “double-duty” syndrome of working women. After their work in the fields, slave women tended to domestic affairs long after the men retired (122). Female slave networks also demonstrate the tenuous strands of female bonding. Women often fought each other for the scarce resources available on the plantations. The control that masters and mistresses maintained over their black servants often pitted the women against each other. Disruptions occurred while vying for the slave owners’ good graces or over one of the mistress's old calico dresses. Not only were relationships between black women affected by the "peculiar institution," but the interactions of black men and women also suffered by the intrusion of white racism and sexism.
Ar'n't I a Woman explores the development of egalitarian relationships between black men and women. White argues that these relationships were neither patriarchal nor matriarchal because many aspects of the work black men and women did was not distinguished by gender. Female slaves worked in the fields and did back breaking labor along side their male counterparts. Black men had no power to provide for or protect their women. Therefore, black women could not rely on them for income or safety. For similar reasons black men could not depend on black women. White asserts that this atmosphere fostered mutual relationships rather than ones based on subjugation.
The final stereotype White addresses focuses on the image of Sapphire. This image portrayed black women as domineering females who emasculated black men after emancipation. Sapphire combines the sexual manipulations of Jezebel and the “tough, efficient, and tireless” Mammy to create a “domineering female who consumes men and usurps their role”(176). The creation and continual fostering of this image, White argues, allowed free black women to continue being viewed outside the sphere of womanhood thereby condoning violation of her mind, body, and spirit.
Deborah Gray White’s work is seminal in the field of African-American
and Women's history. It laid the foundation for placing black female slaves
on the center stage of historical analysis. While the author has addressed
the obvious difficulty of available sources, White’s utilization of the
Works Progress Administration interviews with female former slaves effectively
supports her main themes. Due to the missing primary evidentiary material
White must unfortunately make many inferences, therefore her otherwise
succinct writing is cluttered with “must have,” “probably,” and “we can
assume.” Inarguably, the manifestation of such conjectures may invite the
scrutiny of historians, but this should not detract from her pioneering
research of female slaves in the plantation South.
| Texas Christian University |
Liz Nichols
|