AA women do you think that your looks strike fear into white women? - Page 5

BlackBrainChild · (#101 (**permalink**))

And for the record, slave masters didn't desire their black slave woman. They used her as a working tool and a sex toy when they got bored or just in the mood. That's not desire. Slave masters did it because they made black women feel like they were nothing but sexual jungle creatures that you can take advantage of.

Gmahogany · (#102 (**permalink**))

Alright, I'm going to settle this matter for once and for all, and after that, I don't want to hear anything else about it....j/k.

Nobody's wrong here. There is truth in both views. Slavery was a brutal system of domination, but within that system there were instances of individual choice. It does not serve the memory of our ancestors to paint slavery like it was a walk in the park, but it also doesn't serve them to play it like they all just bent over and took whatever white folks were doing to them-big bad all powerful white people vs poor, abused, mistreated, downtrodden, passive Black folks,whoALL just accepted uncontested beatings, rape, abuse,and waited around for "good" white folks from the North,to save them.

I mentioned doing research on Slave Resistance, and contrary to popular belief, slaves resisted in many ways, and not just by running away,comparitively few, did that, especially in the Deep South; odds of succeeding were slim. Most resisted in smaller, more individual everyday ways:resisting sexual advances, maintaing cultural/religous practices, maintaining linguistic patterns, poisoning their master's food, grinding up glass in their master's food, some went straight up toe to toe with their master. I talked about how even in oppresive situations, the human spirit varies from individual to individual. There were Black male slaves who because of their temperament and known "bad-assness", propensity for violence, were given wide swath by slaveowner and overseer alike, even in the midst of slavery, who inspired FEAR in the owner, in spite of the power inequity. There were Black women, who REFUSED the sexual advances of their owners. There were Black women whocut the throats of their own children, rather than have them be slaves,(like in Toni Morrison's Beloved which is based on a real story). In other words, individual responses varied, greatly.

A perfect example of the domination vs choice, dichotomy that I mentioned was the story of Harriet Jacobs, who provided the most well read/known slave narrative, 'Incident in the Life of Slave Girl', is the title I think. Anyway, she talks about how her master who was a doctor, and many years older than she, made constant sexual advances towards her from the time she was a teen. He tried to intimdate her with threatsat times, other times tried to sway her with promises, gifts, preferred treatment. She kept turning him down, eventually getting involved with a Black male slave. Her master refused to let her get married, and kept pursuing her. At one point, he asks her is she in love with the young Black slave. She says yes. He says he thought she was beyond the "puppy love" stage. She says, she thinks she and the male slave should be together because they are both of the Negro race. Her master slaps her, and responds like a jealous boyfriend. She talks in the narrative about how she knew that to make her life easier she could have given in, but it was against her personal beliefs/code, etc. She continues to reject his advances, and eventually runs away with her boyfriend to the North.

Her owner's pursuit of her went on for years. Now it is possible, maybe even probable that he would have enventually forced her into sex, or eventually sold her, had she not run away, but the fact that he spent so much time trying to get her tacit "consent", when as her "owner", he didn't need it, to have sex with her, is part and parcel of the very contradictory/complex dynamic,(you're not human you're my property, I'll threaten and intimidate u into sex, but at the same time, you are human and a woman and I think I can woo you into consenual sexwith gifts, promises of preferential treatment),that existed in some master/slave interactions.

Gmahogany · (#103 (**permalink**))

I meant to say that Jacobs provided the most well known and read FEMALE slave narrative. Frederick Douglas' , or Booker T. Washington's accounts were the most well known and read slave narratives of any of the former slaves, male or female.

liberiangirl · (#104 (**permalink**))

Gmahogany wrote:

Quote:

I mentioned doing research on Slave Resistance, and contrary to popular belief, slaves resisted in many ways, and not just by running away,comparitively few, did that, especially in the Deep South; odds of succeeding were slim. Most resisted in smaller, more individual everyday ways:resisting sexual advances, maintaing cultural/religous practices, maintaining linguistic patterns, poisoning their master's food, grinding up glass in their master's food, some went straight up toe to toe with their master. I talked about how even in oppresive situations, the human spirit varies from individual to individual. There were Black male slaves who because of their temperament and known "bad-assness", propensity for violence, were given wide swath by slaveowner and overseer alike, even in the midst of slavery, who inspired FEAR in the owner, in spite of the power inequity. There were Black women, who REFUSED the sexual advances of their owners. There were Black women whocut the throats of their own children, rather than have them be slaves,(like in Toni Morrison's Beloved which is based on a real story). In other words, individual responses varied, greatly.

A perfect example of the domination vs choice, dichotomy that I mentioned was the story of Harriet Jacobs, who provided the most well read/known slave narrative, 'Incident in the Life of Slave Girl', is the title I think. Anyway, she talks about how her master who was a doctor, and many years older than she, made constant sexual advances towards her from the time she was a teen. He tried to intimdate her with threatsat times, other times tried to sway her with promises, gifts, preferred treatment. She kept turning him down, eventually getting involved with a Black male slave. Her master refused to let her get married, and kept pursuing her. At one point, he asks her is she in love with the young Black slave. She says yes. He says he thought she was beyond the "puppy love" stage. She says, she thinks she and the male slave should be together because they are both of the Negro race. Her master slaps her, and responds like a jealous boyfriend. She talks in the narrative about how she knew that to make her life easier she could have given in, but it was against her personal beliefs/code, etc. She continues to reject his advances, and eventually runs away with her boyfriend to the North.

Quote:

I have read the Harriet Jacobs story about twice and i wanted to correct a few things here because not all of the information you gave was true. Yes, she did fall in love with a black male but he was a free man, not a slave. Her master threatened to beat her if she ever saw him again and since it was impossible for them to marry and for her to be free of the sexual advances of her master she decided to let him go. He moved up north somewhere. She met another white male, began having relations with himand this is the man who she had two children by. She did this in order to escape the constant sexual advances of her master. One of the reasons asto why she did not give in wasnt necessarily becasue it was against her personal beliefs (even thoughthis was part of it )but because she saw what happened to all the other women who had sexual relations with her master: once they became pregnant they were all sold along with their babies. So she knew that even if she did give into having sex with her master, that it wouldnt last because he would soon tire of her. Another reason was because her mistress was already jealous with rage and she feared for her life.

Her owner's pursuit of her went on for years. Now it is possible, maybe even probable that he would have enventually forced her into sex, or eventually sold her, had she not run away, but the fact that he spent so much time trying to get her tacit "consent", when as her "owner", he didn't need it, to have sex with her, is part and parcel of the very contradictory/complex dynamic,(you're not human you're my property, I'll threaten and intimidate u into sex, but at the same time, you are human and a woman and I think I can woo you into consenual sexwith gifts, promises of preferential treatment),that existed in some master/slave interactions.

Well i wouldnt say that that was exactly the reason as to why he didnt just rape her. Harriet Jacobs talks about this in the book and she says that her master was a man who had to constantly "keep up appearances" and this was especially true since they lived in a small town where everyone knew what everyone else was doing. From what i got, it was all about power play. The doctor knew he could have easily raped her, but he wanted to bring her to the point where she would submit, he didnt just want sex from her, he wanted to humilate her, bring her to the point where she would discard all pride and dignity that she had.

safetyblitz · (#105 (**permalink**))

liberiangirl wrote:

Quote:

Gmahogany wrote:

Quote:

I mentioned doing research on Slave Resistance, and contrary to popular belief, slaves resisted in many ways, and not just by running away,comparitively few, did that, especially in the Deep South; odds of succeeding were slim. Most resisted in smaller, more individual everyday ways:resisting sexual advances, maintaing cultural/religous practices, maintaining linguistic patterns, poisoning their master's food, grinding up glass in their master's food, some went straight up toe to toe with their master. I talked about how even in oppresive situations, the human spirit varies from individual to individual. There were Black male slaves who because of their temperament and known "bad-assness", propensity for violence, were given wide swath by slaveowner and overseer alike, even in the midst of slavery, who inspired FEAR in the owner, in spite of the power inequity. There were Black women, who REFUSED the sexual advances of their owners. There were Black women whocut the throats of their own children, rather than have them be slaves,(like in Toni Morrison's Beloved which is based on a real story). In other words, individual responses varied, greatly.

A perfect example of the domination vs choice, dichotomy that I mentioned was the story of Harriet Jacobs, who provided the most well read/known slave narrative, 'Incident in the Life of Slave Girl', is the title I think. Anyway, she talks about how her master who was a doctor, and many years older than she, made constant sexual advances towards her from the time she was a teen. He tried to intimdate her with threatsat times, other times tried to sway her with promises, gifts, preferred treatment. She kept turning him down, eventually getting involved with a Black male slave. Her master refused to let her get married, and kept pursuing her. At one point, he asks her is she in love with the young Black slave. She says yes. He says he thought she was beyond the "puppy love" stage. She says, she thinks she and the male slave should be together because they are both of the Negro race. Her master slaps her, and responds like a jealous boyfriend. She talks in the narrative about how she knew that to make her life easier she could have given in, but it was against her personal beliefs/code, etc. She continues to reject his advances, and eventually runs away with her boyfriend to the North.

Quote:

I have read the Harriet Jacobs story about twice and i wanted to correct a few things here because not all of the information you gave was true. Yes, she did fall in love with a black male but he was a free man, not a slave. Her master threatened to beat her if she ever saw him again and since it was impossible for them to marry and for her to be free of the sexual advances of her master she decided to let him go. He moved up north somewhere. She met another white male, began having relations with himand this is the man who she had two children by. She did this in order to escape the constant sexual advances of her master. One of the reasons asto why she did not give in wasnt necessarily becasue it was against her personal beliefs (even thoughthis was part of it )but because she saw what happened to all the other women who had sexual relations with her master: once they became pregnant they were all sold along with their babies. So she knew that even if she did give into having sex with her master, that it wouldnt last because he would soon tire of her. Another reason was because her mistress was already jealous with rage and she feared for her life.

Her owner's pursuit of her went on for years. Now it is possible, maybe even probable that he would have enventually forced her into sex, or eventually sold her, had she not run away, but the fact that he spent so much time trying to get her tacit "consent", when as her "owner", he didn't need it, to have sex with her, is part and parcel of the very contradictory/complex dynamic,(you're not human you're my property, I'll threaten and intimidate u into sex, but at the same time, you are human and a woman and I think I can woo you into consenual sexwith gifts, promises of preferential treatment),that existed in some master/slave interactions.

Well i wouldnt say that that was exactly the reason as to why he didnt just rape her. Harriet Jacobs talks about this in the book and she says that her master was a man who had to constantly "keep up appearances" and this was especially true since they lived in a small town where everyone knew what everyone else was doing. From what i got, it was all about power play. The doctor knew he could have easily raped her, but he wanted to bring her to the point where she would submit, he didnt just want sex from her, he wanted to humilate her, bring her to the point where she would discard all pride and dignity that she had.

I have to agree in this is what I got out of her story as well, but what you said above that Jacobs penned is what I see that carries over into today covertly instead of overtly as it was then.

Gmahogany · (#106 (**permalink**))

liberiangirl wrote:

Quote:

Gmahogany wrote:

Quote:

I mentioned doing research on Slave Resistance, and contrary to popular belief, slaves resisted in many ways, and not just by running away,comparitively few, did that, especially in the Deep South; odds of succeeding were slim. Most resisted in smaller, more individual everyday ways:resisting sexual advances, maintaing cultural/religous practices, maintaining linguistic patterns, poisoning their master's food, grinding up glass in their master's food, some went straight up toe to toe with their master. I talked about how even in oppresive situations, the human spirit varies from individual to individual. There were Black male slaves who because of their temperament and known "bad-assness", propensity for violence, were given wide swath by slaveowner and overseer alike, even in the midst of slavery, who inspired FEAR in the owner, in spite of the power inequity. There were Black women, who REFUSED the sexual advances of their owners. There were Black women whocut the throats of their own children, rather than have them be slaves,(like in Toni Morrison's Beloved which is based on a real story). In other words, individual responses varied, greatly.

A perfect example of the domination vs choice, dichotomy that I mentioned was the story of Harriet Jacobs, who provided the most well read/known slave narrative, 'Incident in the Life of Slave Girl', is the title I think. Anyway, she talks about how her master who was a doctor, and many years older than she, made constant sexual advances towards her from the time she was a teen. He tried to intimdate her with threatsat times, other times tried to sway her with promises, gifts, preferred treatment. She kept turning him down, eventually getting involved with a Black male slave. Her master refused to let her get married, and kept pursuing her. At one point, he asks her is she in love with the young Black slave. She says yes. He says he thought she was beyond the "puppy love" stage. She says, she thinks she and the male slave should be together because they are both of the Negro race. Her master slaps her, and responds like a jealous boyfriend. She talks in the narrative about how she knew that to make her life easier she could have given in, but it was against her personal beliefs/code, etc. She continues to reject his advances, and eventually runs away with her boyfriend to the North.

Quote:

I have read the Harriet Jacobs story about twice and i wanted to correct a few things here because not all of the information you gave was true. Yes, she did fall in love with a black male but he was a free man, not a slave. Her master threatened to beat her if she ever saw him again and since it was impossible for them to marry and for her to be free of the sexual advances of her master she decided to let him go. He moved up north somewhere. She met another white male, began having relations with himand this is the man who she had two children by. She did this in order to escape the constant sexual advances of her master. One of the reasons asto why she did not give in wasnt necessarily becasue it was against her personal beliefs (even thoughthis was part of it )but because she saw what happened to all the other women who had sexual relations with her master: once they became pregnant they were all sold along with their babies. So she knew that even if she did give into having sex with her master, that it wouldnt last because he would soon tire of her. Another reason was because her mistress was already jealous with rage and she feared for her life.

Quote:

I stand corrected on the points u mentioned. I was relying on memory and probably got details of other narratives I've read, confused with Harriet's story. I'm glad you mentioned the Doctor's wife, and her jealousy and rage towards Harriet, I neglected to.

Her owner's pursuit of her went on for years. Now it is possible, maybe even probable that he would have enventually forced her into sex, or eventually sold her, had she not run away, but the fact that he spent so much time trying to get her tacit "consent", when as her "owner", he didn't need it, to have sex with her, is part and parcel of the very contradictory/complex dynamic,(you're not human you're my property, I'll threaten and intimidate u into sex, but at the same time, you are human and a woman and I think I can woo you into consenual sexwith gifts, promises of preferential treatment),that existed in some master/slave interactions.

Well i wouldnt say that that was exactly the reason as to why he didnt just rape her. Harriet Jacobs talks about this in the book and she says that her master was a man who had to constantly "keep up appearances" and this was especially true since they lived in a small town where everyone knew what everyone else was doing. From what i got, it was all about power play. The doctor knew he could have easily raped her, but he wanted to bring her to the point where she would submit, he didnt just want sex from her, he wanted to humilate her, bring her to the point where she would discard all pride and dignity that she had.

Quote:

I'm sure there was a combination of reasons that he didin't just force her, including the ones you mentioned, but his response to her having feelings for the Black man, or even asking about her feelings for the Black man, indicate on some level,that he was enraged that she didn't "want/desire" him.

Gmahogany · (#107 (**permalink**))

It's also interesting that as Liberian girl mentioned in the Jacobs situation, having the masters's children would get you sold. In other narratives, Black women said that having the master's children was insurance against getting sold, because it proved you were fertile and therefore a good "breeder", which of course meant more slaves and more money forhim.Women who didn't have children by either the master or in their own relationships with Black men, in a fairly timely manner, were deemed less valuable.

liberiangirl · (#108 (**permalink**))

Gmahogany wrote:

Quote:

I'm sure there was a combination of reasons that he didin't just force her, including the ones you mentioned, but his response to her having feelings for the Black man, or even asking about her feelings for the Black man, indicate on some level,that he was enraged that she didn't "want/desire" him.

Quote:

That is true, Harriet mentioned in the books something along those lines. Im am not sure if he which made him more angry, that she chose to love a colored man or that she or that she had kids by a white man. Reading the book and how the master was so obsessed with her, stalking her was one of the most disturbing parts of the narrative. As crazed as he was it isnt a wonder that he didnt rape her and even some historians arguethat he may indeed have done so, but Harriet chose not to mention it in the book. I am sure that if she was that would be a painful memory that she would notwant to revisit. He tried for 8 to 10 years to track her down long after she had escaped. Now even though she was a mulatto(mulatto slaves were worth more) most slave masters would have given up after a few years or so.

Quote:

And as for the reference to the Toni Morrison Beloved, in real if i remeber correctly theMargaret Garnerdidnt cut their thoats, i believed she poisoned her child.

liberiangirl · (#109 (**permalink**))

Gmahogany wrote:

Quote:

It's also interesting that as Liberian girl mentioned in the Jacobs situation, having the masters's children would get you sold. In other narratives, Black women said that having the master's children was insurance against getting sold, because it proved you were fertile and therefore a good "breeder", which of course meant more slaves and more money forhim.Women who didn't have children by either the master or in their own relationships with Black men, in a fairly timely manner, were deemed less valuable.

Quote:

Well in many situations the mistress could not abide looking at children who resembled her husband, so there were some slaves owners whowould sell the children and/or the slave womanin order to appease the mistress,to cover up their own wrong doing, or to just make money because mixed slaves fetched a higher price anyway.Also like i said before, once the master was tired or you orstarted up relations with another female slave all bets were off. Once you served your purpose, he might send you to the fields or sell you or do whatever he likes.. Alot of people seem to have the belief that mulattos or "massas kids" or house slaves were treated much better than they rest of the slaves, but this is not really accurate. Mixed female slaves were more likely to be sexually exploited than others.They generally fetched higher prices, thus if they ran away, slave owners would spend more time looking for them because they were highly valued. While there were many who freed their mixed childrenit was just acommon for the master to sell his own kids.Harriet Jacobs talks about howhersocietyfrowned down upoun white males who freed the mulatto children or gave them special priviledges. Even though her own white lover boughttheir children, he did not free them, instead he gave them as servants to relatives.

Gmahogany · (#110 (**permalink**))

liberiangirl wrote:

Quote:

Gmahogany wrote:

Quote:

I'm sure there was a combination of reasons that he didin't just force her, including the ones you mentioned, but his response to her having feelings for the Black man, or even asking about her feelings for the Black man, indicate on some level,that he was enraged that she didn't "want/desire" him.

Quote: