Saturday, November 24, 2007
Pauline E. Hopkins -- Part I
In The Souls of Black Folks, W.E.B. Du Bois made the very important philosophical move of conceiving of race as a "veil" (social construction)as opposed to something that exists in one's blood (hereditary essence). Do you think that Hopkins views race as a veil that society forces a person to wear or an essence that people carry in their blood?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
So far in my reading, I think that Hopkins was following DuBois in portraying raceas a social construction and not something that was hereditary. Charles was more concerned with keeping up appearances and increasing his wealth. He seemed not to give much thought to his wife's race or his own until others brought the issue to him. Only then was he bothered by the possibility. When describing the culture of Bermuda, the narrator states that "In many cases African blood had become diluted from amalgamation with the higher race . . .This being the case there might even have been a strain of African blood polluting the fair stream of Montfort's vitality, or even his wife's, which fact would not have caused him one instant's uneasiness. Charles Montfort would not have cared less if he was of African descent, so apparently he seemed to think of race as more of an outside issue. In Grace's case, Bill and Hank based their assumptions about her race, purely on her physical appearance. They had no proof of her ancestry when they killed Charles, and regradless, Anson Pollock still wanted her for himself. So I think Hopkins was making a case for race being social and not so much hereditary.
Hopkins is showing throughout her work that blacks are capable of the same type of intellectual pursuits, talents and sentiments as whites. As the story progresses into the tale of Ma Smith, her children and Sappho I feel Hopkins is portraying the "talented tenth" by way of the society that the family and the borders keep. However, it seems to me that Hopkins is holding up this group of people to show that all blacks can aspire to their level of high morality and education, she does not seem to be saying this will be only enjoyed by a few. While the hardships are evident and the prejudices they endure voiced, so far the novel seems optimistic without being as overly sentimental as the past novels. Although some of the characters do seem to fall into stereotypes, I think Hopkins hints at complexness of even the most seemingly simplest people. Dr. Peters does not seem a joke though at first he appears to be, neither does Mrs. Davis and Ms. White because of their hard work in starting a business for themselves. I think Hopkins is working to deconstruct society's views and judgments of her race by creating characters with depth.
I believe that Hopkins was using race as a veil, but this opinion is only based on the first few chapters of the book, maybe further in my opinion will change. Even for the beginning, when Charles Montfort is being harrassed about moving to North Carolina, all of his friends are telling him that he is not going to be liked or appreciated the same way he is there by the men of his status in NC (which was proven when Pollock entered the story). White slave owners not liking other white slave owners.Then when they arrive, everyone is so in awe at the site of Mrs. Mortfort, coming right after Hank tells the story of the man's son who ran to Canada with a slave to Bill. When Bill suggests that Mrs. Mortfort could have African heritage, he does mention it as" black running thorugh her vens". Hank quickly disagress, kind of like it was almost offensive to him that he'd want to be the foreman on a plantation ran by "an african". Maybe she had a tan, she did just get off of a boat from Bermunda, but in the stories we've read so far, the Mulatto woman is the most desired...
I think that Hopkins feels and displays the idea that race is a socially labeled idea, not just something you are born knowing their "inferior" race. Henry Smith is my favorite example in this piece. He as a character does not seem aware that he is black and is described as achieving a lot of great feats and travels to multiple countries by sea as free and unconcerned about his personal race and appearance as any free man. he is initially presented as a happy, strong, free man that can take on anything but is soon broken down to merely the description and lable of his race after settling down with a wife and house. He appears as almost ignorant of his racial heritage until forced by those that will not give him a job because he is a Negro: "The foreign element who come to the shores of America soon learn that there is a class which is called it's inferior [...] Henry Smith had his ambitions; but like all of his meek race, he would not or at least had no desire to contend with the force of prejudice (83)."
I found this question difficult to answer because Hopkins seems to go back and forth on this issue. She speaks a great deal about racial “blood” which makes me think that she might see race as something in ones blood or nature. There are many mulatto characters in the novel and she seems to give them certain contending qualities mentioning the cause of these contending forces to be the mixture of black and white blood. She describes John Langley on page 221, “Natural instinct for good had been perverted by a mixture of cracker blood of the lowest type on his father’s side with whatever God-saving quality that might have been loaned the Negro by pitying nature. This blood, while it gave him the pleasant features of the Caucasian race, vitiated his moral nature and left it stranded high and dry on the shore of blind ignorance[…]” Her use of the word “blood” leads one to believe that she feels that race is something that defines one naturally, and is not a social construct, but almost every other statement made in this novel would show otherwise. For example, on the very next page Hopkins makes a statement about the institution of slavery influencing the nature of people. She says, “If taken in his first state, fresh from the woods and streams of his nativity, the Negro be subjected to the saving influences of the Christian home where freedom and happiness, education and morality abound, the Anglo-Saxon would lose the main arguments which he uses against the black brother; rather would he bow humbly in recognition of the ebony hued miniature of God.” Here she seems to be saying that it is the situation of slavery which has defined the races. She goes on to make the point that if Anglo-Saxons had been forced to undergo the same treatment of slaves they would have different qualities as well. I would say that Hopkins’s novel, as a whole, sides more with DuBois and his argument that race is a social construct, but Hopkins makes certain statements and uses certain words which confuse this idea and seem to take the other side. I suppose that is why the novel is called Contending Forces.
I think that hopkins uses race as a "veil" as well. Hopkins portrays race as a social construction instead of a hereditary condition. All through my readings I've seen examples of how being a certain race define who the person is from a status standpoint. For example, in the beginning is says that "all slaves were entitled to be known as apprenticed laborers, and to acquire thereby all the rights and privileges of freemen". Then it goes on to state the conditions, nonetheless, I see this as saying people see blacks as "bad" people because of what they are doing therefore lets emancipate the slaves "gradually" w/o really doing it, then we'll look better status wise. This then went into the rest of the book with all of the other situations. Even on p. 28 it states that "social laws" are different, emphasizing the social construction of things. Another horrible occurrence that supports my claim is when Hank & Bill were discussing Montfort's arrival. Hank speaks of how anyone can set an example, even if it is a white man. He cared about keeping a certain status quo rather than what race a person is. Bill also states that Grace Montfort has "too much cream color in the face and too little blud seen under the skin for a genooine white 'ooman,but dosen't account it on a hereditary thing, rather a social construction base b/c they thought you could never tell about the "British". Everything I've read so far seems to be class driven rather than race driven. Well, maybe I should rephrase my opinion. I think Hopkins sees race through a hereditary thing but what is portrayed in the book is that the status is more important than the race.
I believe that Hopkins portrays race both ways in the novel. Race is both a veil and part of the blood in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Montfort. Hopkins states that there may have been some knowledge to Mr. Montfort that some black blood ran in his and his wife’s veins but he paid no attention. Even if this were true, the “laws” of Bermuda were different than the “laws” of N.C. ( I have a hard time believing that Mr. Montfort would move his family to the heart of slavery in America without first studying the culture and customs associated with slave holding. ) Hopkins then uses the race runs in the blood theory so that Pollack and the southern boys can justify the ill treatment of the Montfort family.
In the case of Ma Smith, Dora, Will, Sappho, and John, it appears that Hopkins is again using color as a veil and the differences between light black and dark black to do this. But, here is the blood theme again too.. John “Pollack” and Dora and Will “Montfort”. Definitely something to keep in mind.
This was a tough question to answer. I know I rambled a bit.
Alison!
Great post.
As far as I could tell, Hopkins looked at race by the blood. So many times, when speaking about heredity or familial alliances, she uses the word blood. On page 87, Hopkins notes that the infusion if black and white blood, that the white blood was 'the best blood in the country'. I also believe that Hopkins is against Du Bois' theory of the veil. In Souls of Black Folk Du Bois says, "the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world," In Contending Forces, Hopkins says, "be these things true or false, the Negro no longer holds the distinction of being the only race that believes in the pretensions of those who claim to be able to look into the future with mesmerizing sight favored bu hidden powers, that have knowledge of the coming events. When the whole veil theory was explained in class, in sounded alot like Hopkins desribes it here. Back to how race is determinate by blood, on page 221, when Hopkins is decribing John Pollock Langley, she says, "Lagley's nature was the natural product of such an institution as slavery. Natural instinct for good had been perverted by a mixture of "cracker" blood of the lowest type on his father's side with whatever God-saving quality that might have been loaded the Negro by pitying nature. This blood, while it gave him the pleasant features of the Caucasian race, vitiated his moral nature and left it stranded high and dry on the shore of blind ignorance, and there he seemed content to dwell, supinely self-satisfied with the narrow boundary of tge horizon of his mental vision." From all that I gathered, Hopkins implied that race was in the blood, the race rules (one drop) still survived, it determined race. I do however, think that she understood that it could be used as a social construct. Clearly Blacks were made to feel inferior to whites solely on the basis of race.
Hopkins uses this novel to criticize the social construction of “ the negro”. She focuses on the irrelevance of biology in regards to legal justice and social status, because in an instant a person’s “white rights” can be taken away from them just as the Montforts lost their rights because of a rumor.
She also examines the heredity of character traits. She is in a world where she sees one race as “evil”, and this is why she goes back and forth with her ideas. Hopkins believes that race is carried deep within a person’s blood (their soul), and that it is not just a veil that encompasses“twoness”. She suggests that certain traits are passed down through the bloodline. This is the very reason that she presents a story that tells of more than one generation. Anson Pollock is a pure devil and it is John Langley who she says has “cracker blood that makes him conniving, and his natural instinct for good has been perverted by a mixture of cracker blood of the lowest type on his father's side. This blood, while it gave him the pleasant features of the Caucasian race, vitiated his moral nature and left it stranded high and dry on the shore of blind ignorance" (221).
I feel that she wanted to prove top her readers that the whole notion of "whiteness" was ignorant and that a mixed person could easily fool society.
Post a Comment