The blacker the berry, the more sour the juice

Quick Note: My last few posts haven't been very art related, but have focused more on culture. I strongly believe that in order to have a grasp of art, people must have a understanding of society and culture, all of which is reflected in art. My last few posts, and probably my next few to come, will deal with race on some context. Race is such a huge deal around the world, and I hope that what I post will shed some light on the representation of black people in all forms of art (including literature, film and music).

Image: 1800's Gollywog. A gollywog was a doll representation of black people.
Now on with the post!

In my Obama connection post, I wrote about the frustration of many people of black heritage not being considered black, based on the way they act. I was doing research on master-slave relationships when I read some very interesting material which shed some light on the classification of blacks.

In the 1800's when DNA testing was not sophisticated at all, scientists stated that 37 percent of all black people were part white. The bulk of that 37 part white percentage were slaves that were free and living in the north. This number is very surprising, especially when faced with theses facts: Masters definitely had sex with their females slaves and had children...regardless of how prominent this was, and indentured white servants mated with black slaves. In the north, although black people were free, race mixing was still taboo. Wouldn't it then seem that black people with white heritage would be evenly dispersed in the north and the south?
Although the obvious answer is yes, society at the time would not want to own up to that...leading to the root of the black classification issue present in the United States now.

Free black people had more access to education than enslaved black people. White people, and especially those making up statistics for the percentage of blacks with white lineage, were well aware of this. By stating that blacks in the north were more white than blacks in the south meant that the less black you were, the more educated and refined you were. The blacker you were, meaning that you were less refined, less education, and rebellious. This is shown clearly in an ad looking for a runaway slave which loosely stated that a slave was light skinned, but was not partially white. Lets think about this...a light skinned slave that's not partially white? Africans are generally darker skinned, a lighter color at this time would mean that the slave was partially white. Of course, a white person would not want to connect themselves as sharing the same lineage as a rebellious slave, but would have no problem saying that an educated black person in the north was part white. The blacker the berry, the more sour the juice.

Same story now, a person is considered to not be black enough if they act a certain way, but are more black if they are seen as within the stereotype.

This thought process has spread, not only among white people, but within the black community as well. Current studies shows that all black people in American are on the average 25 percent white. Black people pretty much share the same genetic make-up, so the way we act doesn't make us more or less black. This really proves the point that society constructs being black as how you act than a racial identity.