It’s time for black Americans to put the “We are all Immigrants” belief in proper perspective. African Americans are an ethnic group to which the cliché does not factually apply. Politely nodding in agreement to their own marginalization has become fully acceptable in black leadership circles. And since they don’t oppose the idea, rank and file blacks accept the idea as gospel truth too. But everyone capable of historical reasoning, clearly understands that ancestral blacks did not migrate to the U.S. Facts will reveal the truth. Now, there is some truth in the belief that America is a nation of immigrants. The problem is that this often repeated idea is only partially true! There is no question that various immigrant groups are the foundational populations to which most Americans can trace their ancestry. A slightly different scenario emerges however, when the myth is examined through the lens of the African American experience in the American “melting pot.” Very quickly an ominous sense of foreboding descends on the entire matter. The situation is succinctly described by a highly respected source who was familiar with the complexities of black’s presence and position in the human collage that is America.
On Saturday March 4, 1865, the 16th President of the United States delivered his Second Inaugural Address to an adoring crowd. Thousands were present in front of the East Portico of the White House to witness the momentous speech containing only 701 words. Mr. Abraham Lincoln devoted a portion of those words to a topic familiar to most Americans. In the third paragraph of the Address he writes that…”One eight of the whole population (at the time of the Civil War) were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by War; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it…Each (northerners and southerners) looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding.”
Data from the eighth U.S. Census in 1860 determined the total population to be 31,443,321 Americans. Within that population was 3,953,761 slaves or 12.6% of the general population. Freed blacks were apparently not included in the count. Allowing for the natural increase in human populations, the generally accepted number of blacks in America at the time of Mr. Lincoln’s second presidential address, some five years after the 1860 general census, is 4 million. These are blacks who arrived in America in bondage and at gunpoint between 1619 and 1810 and their American-born children. After 1810 the importation of African slaves was banned in the United States thereby making all increases in the slave population to that point, the result of live births. It’s a relatively safe assumption then that none of the +4 million blacks in antebellum America considered himself or herself an immigrant…and President Lincoln did not consider them as such either. These Africans and their progeny were by law and custom, considered imported property.
There is no attempt here to deliberately revise a time honored and universally cherished national slogan just to be hateful or malicious. It should be pointed out that no nation-loving American sets out to deliberately dismantle a time-honored and cherished national belief without sufficient cause. There has to exist compelling rational grounds to rebuke an iconic ideal’s core message. And in this case there are such justifications. Its seems that there are major historio-cultural weaknesses in the idea that merit a critique ; 1) the presence of factual ambiguity; 2) absence of historical correctness; and 3) the desire to project unfettered generosity as a national characteristic. In the effort to manufacture this charitable principle and to then tout it for national consumption, the proponents overshot their mark and instead imprinted a credo onto the psyche of the American public that is essentially a stylized overstatement of factual evidence bordering on deception by omission.
Even more baffling than the campaign to popularize the “We are all immigrants” maxim, is that the notion as presented seems inviolable, and is therefore elevated above contestation, challenge or opposition. Undisputed. Unchallenged. Unopposed. That the lofty status of this belief has made it impervious to criticism or re-examination says a great deal about the power of the media and perhaps even more about the state of mind of the American public. As a result of its rise to dominance, this cliché makes progress in the deadlocked national discussion on immigration virtually impossible. It’s very easy to label anyone who does not go along with the myth a bigot or worse. Consequently, African American political pundits cautiously, if ever engage in the immigration argument with any conviction unless they willfully and callously are willing to reject the dreadful start their ancestors got off to in America. Leading blacks simply genuflect symbolically in the direction of the Statue of Liberty by concurring with the myth and then moving on to less contentious discussions. Several imbedded assumptions however are consistently implied as a result of the predictable impasse that these quarrelsome debates reach. At the conclusion of these discussions it can be reliably predicted that ; 1) no decisive action is going to be taken by either the Democrats or the Republicans to stem the massive influx of foreigner nationals from South America, 2) to oppose unrestricted illegal immigration is somehow antithetical to American ideals, 3) the rule of law must be suspended in the case of illegal immigrants because their presence in America is now irreversible, 4) immigrants are arbitrarily assumed to be a revitalizing force for the nation, 5) borders are artificial constructs that impede the natural movement of humans and suppresses their predilection to seek and follow road signs that lead to greater material and social opportunity, and 6) America is a nation of immigrants.
The first five of these assumptions are arguable on the grounds of their being vague and unsubstantiated. They lack evidence of theoretical integrity and sociological validity making them easily refuted by careful, objective analysis. It’s the sixth assumption however, that is most resistant to criticism and least subject to change; that is because it is partially true, highly regarded and inherently desirable… and hence, the perfect rhetorical bomb to drop in a serious, televised immigration debate. Nonetheless, no one dare challenge this assumption due to the reverence with which it is held and because of the almost magical power that it acquires when spoken. That “America is a nation of immigrants” is a mantra that’s used to bludgeon immigration control advocates into, at a minimum, neutrality. Today, proponents on both sides of the debate consider the notion that “America = immigrant” to practically be axiomatic. The notion plays well with the public, creates great sound bites for politicians, resonates with all demographics… but is in stark contrast to the authentic history of a people who never migrated to the United States; black Americans.
As any clear thinking, informed, black American will admit, their ancestors were never considered “immigrants.” Yet, they withhold their misgivings out of a peculiar reluctance to not be perceived as someone outside of the mainstream ideology. Nonetheless, the definition of an immigrant is “a person who voluntarily comes to a country where they were not born in order to settle there.” Would the operative word, voluntarily, in the description of an immigrant be suitable for a Kunta Kinte, the character in the epic 1977 TV miniseries “ROOTS” who easily personified the 4 million black slaves in America in 1860?? Of course not; and the label “immigrant” if it were applied to Kunta Kinte, would be a fraudulent, grotesque exaggeration. Mr. Kinte did not immigrate…he came to America in chains. He was forced at gunpoint into the hold of a ship anchored off the coast of his native land and then forcibly and involuntarily relocated to America to work/labor under horrific conditions without compensation, until he died.
Obviously the cliché that “America is a nation of immigrants” has little if any viable application to the real world existence of 21st century black Americans who are aware of the full arc of their history on this continent. Yet the idea remains one of America’s most venerated and frequently repeated platitudes. The reason for the stubborn insistence that this myth is a national truism is in part due to the desire of liberal ideologues and the irrational “open-borders” crowd, to mythologize the peopling of America to their advantage. The intent is to assuage the sensibilities of Americans who would prefer not to delve into the harsh reality of chattel slavery in our nation’s founding.
The fact of the matter is that black people arrived in America early and in great numbers. No reception center welcomed the arrival of these dazed, frightened men, women and children. Immediately upon arrival they were subjected to the dehumanizing “seasoning” process. From that point forward, their general conditions deteriorated rapidly. Only deliberate historical amnesia can account for any other description of the introduction of blacks to their new lives in America. And the historical record is filled with accounts of the lives of black slaves in America going back for hundreds of years describing the horrific conditions under which they worked and lived. It is nonsense to believe that 4 million immigrants would trade their native land, family, culture and freedom …to be a slave in a foreign land in perpetuity. But the myth survives, facts notwithstanding. How can this be?
Well, in a delusional, secular America, truth is irrelevant…right and wrong are passé. So if, America is NOT a nation of immigrants exclusively and in the truest sense, never was…who cares?? The situation is way beyond seeking the truth at this point. It is being used as some sort of psychological salve that allows the user to find comfort in what can only be described as a kind of historical magnanimity. In an America that is allegedly beyond “race” everyone is anxious to bask in the glow of espoused cultural and racial progress while its anathema to revisit the calamitous racial situation at the dawn of the nation. As a result, repetition over time has made the myth an apparent highly self-evident fact. The only way to reverse the myth is for Black Americans to politely, but insistently denounce it as it applies to them at every opportunity. If not, the myth will continue to be injurious to the black American historical presence in the U.S., to the extent that our children may one day think that the American slaves were grateful for being transported to these shores.
Ironically, as the great expanses of land in our nation beckoned for waves of Oriental, European and Latin American immigrants to join the grand experiment in democracy, a roiling mass of blacks were already here, under extreme hardships and trying desperately to escape. Today in America, the “welcome wagon” greets immigrants at our borders whether they are legals or illegals. These transnationals are granted and fully expect to receive subsidies, medical care, job opportunities and in many cases, the unofficial extension of the right to U.S. citizenship. For African Americans though, those same privileges of citizenship took a Civil War to acquire and later a constitutional amendment to guarantee, though they had already been in America for generations. Obviously, the contrast between the arrival circumstances of blacks and other ethnic groups is then, palpable to the extreme. One thing is however, for sure…early American blacks were never, never, ever immigrants.
Fresh from Ellis Island, Stavros gets a job shining shoes at Grand Central Terminal. It is the last scene of Elia Kazan’s film America, America, the story of a young Greek’s fierce determination to immigrate to America. Quickly, but as casually as an afterthought, a young black man, also a shoe shiner, enters and tries to solicit a customer. He is run off the screen — “Get out of here! We’re doing business here!” — and silently disappears.
This interloper into Stavros’ workplace is crucial in the mix of signs that make up the movie’s
happy-ending immigrant story: a job, a straw hat, an infectious smile — and a scorned black. It
is the act of racial contempt that transforms this charming Greek into an entitled white. Without it, Stavros’ future as an American is not at all assured.
This is race talk, the explicit insertion into everyday life of racial signs and symbols that have no meaning other than pressing African Americans to the lowest level of the racial hierarchy. Popular culture, shaped by film, theater, advertising, the press, television and literature, is heavily engaged in race talk. It participates freely in this most enduring and efficient rite of passage into American culture: negative appraisals of the native-born black population. Only when the lesson of racial estrangement is learned is assimilation complete. Whatever the lived experience of immigrants with African Americans — pleasant, beneficial or bruising — the rhetorical experience renders blacks as noncitizens, already discredited outlaws.
All immigrants fight for jobs and space, and who is there to fight but those who have both? As in the fishing ground struggle between Texas and Vietnamese shrimpers, they displace what and whom they can. Although U.S. history is awash in labor battles, political fights and property
wars among all religious and ethnic groups, their struggles are persistently framed as struggles
between recent arrivals and blacks. In race talk the move into mainstream America always
means buying into the notion of American blacks as the real aliens. Whatever the ethnicity or
nationality of the immigrant, his nemesis is understood to be African American.
Current attention to immigration has reached levels of panic not seen since the turn of the
century. To whip up this panic, modern race talk must be revised downward into obscurity and
nonsense if antiblack hostility is to remain the drug of choice, giving headlines their kick.
PATTERNS OF IMMIGRATION FOLLOWED BY WHITE FLIGHT, screams the Star-Ledger in Newark. The message we are meant to get is that disorderly newcomers are dangerous to stable (white) residents. Stability is white. Disorder is black. Nowhere do we learn what stable middle-class blacks think or do to cope with the “breaking waves of immigration.” The overwhelming majority of African Americans, hardworking and stable, are out of the loop, disappeared except in their less than covert function of defining whites as the “true” Americans.
So addictive is this ploy that the fact of blackness has been abandoned for the theory of
blackness. It doesn’t matter anymore what shade the newcomer’s skin is. A hostile posture
toward resident blacks must be struck at the Americanizing door before it will open. The public
is asked to accept American blacks as the common denominator in each conflict between an
immigrant and a job or between a wannabe and status. It hardly matters what complexities,
contexts and misinformation accompany these conflicts. They can all be subsumed as the
equation of brand X vs. blacks.
But more than a job is at stake in this surrender to whiteness, more even than what the black
intellectual W.E.B. Du Bois called the “psychological wage” — the bonus of whiteness. Racist
strategies unify. Savvy politicians always include in the opening salvos of their campaigns a
quick clarification of their position on race. It is a mistake to think that Bush’s Willie Horton or Clinton’s Sister Souljah was anything but a candidate’s obligatory response to the demands of a contentious electorate unable to understand itself in any terms other than race. Warring
interests, nationalities and classes can be merged with the greatest economy under that racial
Race talk as bonding mechanism is powerfully on display in American literature. When Nick in
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby leaves West Egg to dine in fashionable East Egg, his host
conducts a kind of class audition into WASP-dom by soliciting Nick’s support for the “science”
of racism. “If we don’t look out the white race will be . . . utterly submerged,” he says. “It’s all scientific stuff; it’s been proved.” It makes Nick uneasy, but he does not question or refute his host’s convictions.
The best clue to what the country might be like without race as the nail upon which American
identity is hung comes from Pap, in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, who upon learning a
Negro could vote in Ohio, “drawed out. I says I’ll never vote ag’in.” Without his glowing white
mask he is not American; he is Faulkner’s character Wash, in Absalom, Absalom!, who, stripped
of the mask and treated like a “nigger,” drives a scythe into the heart of the rich white man he
has loved and served so completely.
For Pap, for Wash, the possibility that race talk might signify nothing was frightening. Which
may be why the harder it is to speak race talk convincingly, the more people seem to need it. As
American blacks occupy more and more groups no longer formed along racial lines, the
pressure accelerates to figure out what white interests really are. The enlisted military is almost one-quarter black; police forces are blackening in large urban areas. But welfare is nearly two-thirds white; affirmative-action beneficiaries are overwhelmingly white women;
dysfunctional white families jam the talk shows and court TV.
The old stereotypes fail to connote, and race talk is forced to invent new, increasingly mindless
ones. There is virtually no movement up — for blacks or whites, established classes or arrivistes — that is not accompanied by race talk. Refusing, negotiating or fulfilling this demand is the real stuff, the organizing principle of becoming an American. Star spangled. Race strangled.
Our communities are heavily stained with anti-Blackness. It’s probably best to start off with that difficult and often denied truth. Many non-Black Americans of Color, who are largely immigrants, become quickly acquainted with the American brand of anti-Blackness upon their arrival to a country brimming with economic opportunities unheard of in the lands they left behind. The goal of achieving success in a new country is what arranges the first meeting between these new Americans and the face of anti-Blackness. To begin, the concept of success and achievement in America is a racialized one — regardless of whether we would like to admit that. Success refers to not just the pursuit of financial stability, but the protection of their bodies.
In the quest for this success, new Americans look toward the ones who enjoy the most economic and social privileges that they hope to one day attain. This inquiry results in the quick realization that an emulation of the most privileged, or, a special brand of Imperialist Whiteness, is what will facilitate the materialization of success. This implicitly involves the co-opting of the widely purported national narrative, which both vilifies African-Americans and then dismisses their discontent with such vilification as a display of oversensitivity.
Non-Black People of Color (NBPOC) demonstrate anti-Blackness in a number of ways — much of them tragically overt. One of the most problematic manifestations of this is through inequitable comparison — that is, the undermining of key struggles within the Black community via the improper equating of their own experiences as minorities with those of African-Americans. This means that many NBPOCs fail to understand or sympathize with the fact that Black communities continue to battle disenfranchisement, simply because they have been able to achieve success as new Americans.
What’s stopping them? I came here with just twenty bucks in my pocket. Look at how I was able to work hard and achieve. It means that they fail to account for the fact that while they came here willingly, Black men, women and children came here in chains. It means that they dismiss discourse challenging the institutionally unfair treatment of African-Americans as “oversensitive” and “contentious” simply because they fail to see that the extremity of anti-Blackness is greater than the racism to which they are accustomed and, thus, erroneously equate as the same. Why are they so upset? People are prejudiced against us, but you don’t see us acting that way. Centuries of historical context so clearly lacking in their quick dismissal.
To be abundantly clear: there is no comparison between the experiences of NBPOCs and the experiences of African-Americans. The former, while certainly abhorrent in its own right, is simply not as vicious as the latter. NBPOCs were not victims of the murderous institutions of slavery and Jim Crow. They never had to meet an America in which the best jobs a Black person could get — even in the “enlightened” North — were positions as janitors or shoe-shiners. They never had to meet an America in which Black people had curfews by which they had to be back in their homes. They never had to struggle to pick up the pieces of their humanity after a seemingly unending history of dehumanization. They never had to meet this America because of all of the physical, emotional and intellectual labor, of African-Americans that took place before their optimistic arrival to an America sporting a brand new face.
This inability to understand that their own experiences can never equate to this breadth of inherited trauma — rooted in the understanding that this country has explicitly combatted Black existence — results in their consequent inability to understand that the many privileges that they enjoy, including their willful blindness of the struggles of Black communities, are privileges that have been built on African-American backs. That is, it is African-Americans who carry NBPOCs on their shoulders. NBPOCs benefit, socially and otherwise, in insurmountable ways from Black movements. And for this, African-Americans are certainly owed immeasurable debts of gratitude.
To depart from the great debts owed by immigrant NBPOCs for a moment, it is also pivotal to highlight the great debt that first-generation American NBPOCs owe to their African-American counterparts. First-generation Americans, as children of immigrants being the first to be born in the United States, face distinct and complex social issues because of their unique disposition of having one foot firmly planted in the country in which they were born, and the other firmly planted in the country(ies) of their parents’. As a result, much like their parents, who were faced with their own choices regarding emulation upon their immigration, first-generation NBPOCs often struggle with finding their social footing in the larger American landscape as they struggle to both integrate into that terrain and maintain connectedness with their individual cultural identities.
With respect to the larger American landscape, Black culture (music, dance and social semblances) has always served as a saving grace for first-generation American NBPOCs facing a choice between two Americas — the America that their parents believed they must emulate for success and the America that was born from unfathomable struggle, thus much more welcoming to a generation of children who just always felt different. It is the face of America with which many minorities have always heavily identified, have felt most accepted, and, thus, some sense of belonging. In fact, Black representation in American media is often the first instance of minority representation in which NBPOCs see themselves represented as minorities in larger American culture. This representation also paves the way and opens the door for other minorities to be included in these sectors. Now, surely, Black culture is not simply something that is up for grabs by those who desire it. What is being referred to herein, however, is not unjust appropriation but, rather, the ability that Black culture has had as a dynamic social construct to communicate and uplift other marginalized communities. For this, first-generation NBPOCs owe great respect to the labors of generations of African-Americans as, without it, their complex disposition as children of immigrants would be exponentially more difficult.
As the date of this publication coalesces with the celebration of the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it would be remiss not to highlight that the renowned Civil Rights leader’s work was not solely comprised of the deliverance of his “I Have a Dream” speech, in which racial harmony is theorized. By the standards of today’s standing narratives that devalue national discourse on hot-button social issues, and to which many NBPOCs subscribe, Dr. King was a radical. He consistently called for the disruption of the status quo and for the rejection of anything less than full enfranchisement and institutional respect. The revisionist profile of Dr. King that is espoused today is not the full picture. That incomplete picture suggests that the leaps of social progress that African-Americans have achieved are entirely due to complacency and flowery words.
The truth, however, is that the Civil Rights Movement was successful because of the very means of protest and vocal displeasure that are so often looked down upon today. It is essential for NBPOCs to understand this — that freedom has never been won by way of structured diplomacy. The achievement of their humanity was not a negotiation but a bloody war. The blood of African-Americans is what has cultivated America to be of a nature that allows it to welcome immigrating minorities.
Of further note, Dr. King also understood and spoke about the importance of working with allies in other disenfranchised communities, for both their collective and individual advancement. Here are just a few ways NBPOCs can be better allies to their African-American countrymen.
1. Reject the improper comparison of non-Black experiences with Black experiences.
Understand the dynamics of relative privilege and that African-Americans continue to suffer from the long-lasting impacts of state-espoused institutions that aimed to keep them disenfranchised. Understand the gravity of a long history of inaccessible education, financial opportunity and participation in government.
2. Show up for Black interests.
African-Americans undoubtedly show up in great numbers for the interests of others. It is crucial that this is reciprocated. Now, this does not mean being overly vocal. It is important to remember that there are certain things that NBPOCs cannot speak on and should be left for Black voices. However, showing up can mean joining them in protest, donating to movements like Black Lives Matter, and, at the absolute very least, refraining from the devaluation of existing movements as “unnecessary” just because one does not fully understand them. This is not passive involvement. This is valuable.
3. Educate one another.
With respect to the majority of non-Black immigrant communities, one central underpinning for their inability to empathize with the struggles of African-Americans is the basic fact that they never learned about American history in their home countries. As a result, they faultily believe that movements which aim to uplift and advance Black communities emerge out of a vacuum. Explain slavery. Explain Jim Crow. Explain segregation. Explain public hangings and the disproportionate imprisonment of Black men after abolition. Provide them with that education. The result? Maybe they will finally be able to understand how this robust and historical disenfranchisement has resulted in current disenfranchisement.
By taking the aforementioned initiatives, NBPOCs can begin to emulate the gratitude that they owe to generations of African-Americans, who have worked to make the United States the kind of country in which minority immigrants may see as an opportunity for asylum and/or opportunity. They can begin to emulate the gratitude that is owed for their ability to view America as a perfect and unblemished union, all because they have arrived at a time when some of the greatest battles have already been fought by their Black countrymen. Today — as much as any other day — is a great time to commence that reflective inquiry and to introspect upon how to be a better ally in the battles that still remain to be fought.
Believe it or not, there are several Bible verses that seem to prophesy the last 400 years black slavery in America. In fact, these verses contain so many subtle details, that they have opened the eyes of many to the possibility that black people in America might be the true descendants of the Israelites. Let’s look at and dissect each of these verses. As always, I encourage you to read each chapter in it’s entirety for context.
When I was first approached with the idea that black people in America might be descendants of the true Hebrews, I wasn’t very receptive to it because of who was telling me and how they were telling me. The hatred displayed by many of the people that have come to this knowledge, is a complete turn off intellectually, so I ignored it. Because of that, I decided to write this introduction to the subject, without all of the hateful extras. If you find it helpful, please share it. I credit my interest and research into the subject to Xavier Jackson and TEOTW.
Exhibit A – The Eagle Reference
“The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;” – Deuteronomy 28:39
No matter which direction you go, America is the end of the earth, so that’s not what we’re going to look at first. In my opinion, the very specific reference to an eagle is the more interesting fact, especially in a chapter that warns Israel about future enslavement if they disobey the Lord.
Many people have interpreted this invading nation as Rome, but notice that the prophesied nation comes from the far end of the earth, and as we’ll learn later, they do it in ships. The following maps will give you an idea of the proximity of Rome (now Italy) to Israel:
While Rome could’ve come via ship, they certainly did not come from the ends of the earth, and as we will see below, the Romans did not take millions of Hebrews away from Israel as slaves via ships. The above prophecy does not fit Rome, even though they did use the eagle to represent their empire.
Rome Didn’t Remove The Hebrews
In the New Testament, we see that there are Roman soldiers stationed in Israel, alongside the Hebrews that were living there. In fact, it is one of the main points in the story of the crucifixion. The Hebrews were celebrating Passover, which made it necessary for the Romans to crucify Christ, because the Hebrews could not stone him to death during Passover. This is important because the invading country had to take the Hebrews to a place where they would never see home again for many generations.
“And the LORD shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you.” – Deuteronomy 28:68
Rome did not remove the Israelites from their land by ships or otherwise. It’s important to understand that not all Hebrews lived in Israel, but many would journey to and from other countries, and back to Israel freely. We see this in the New Testament, when Joseph and Mary flee with Christ to Egypt (Matthew 2:13), and return years later, after the death of Herod (Matthew 2:21). Now that we can see that Rome does not fit the prophecy, let’s look at America and why I believe that it is a better fit to this verse.
If we look at the map carefully and honestly, the United States is the “the ends of the earth”. Europeans and Asians do not need ships to reach Israel. They can do it by land. The only countries that fits the description are the United States, Canada, and South American countries.
- To the west of Africa are North and South America.
- To the east of Asia are North and South America.
- Africa, Europe, and Asia are all physically connected.
The Americas are literally as far as you can go east or west before you start heading back toward Israel, so it is based on that evidence that I conclude that America is the country from the ends of the earth that is being referenced. The Americas are also where the slave ships came from to remove millions of people from Africa, across the ocean, rendering them unable to ever return to Israel again.
Another piece that fits this puzzle, is the fact that America also uses an eagle with outstretched wings to represent the country. This detail of outstretched wings will be touched on in Exhibit C.
The chapter goes on to make another very specific reference:
Exhibit B – Slave Ships
“And the LORD shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you.” – Deuteronomy 28:68
Many people point to this as some of the strongest evidence that the slave trade was predicted in the Bible, and I agree. It is pretty strong. Many black slaves were kidnapped, which fits the part that says “and no man shall buy you”, and they were sold back and forth between slave owners, which fulfills the rest of the verse.
If we look at the following maps, we’ll see that there was no need for Egypt to use ships to get to Israel, because it was within walking distance. This fact leads many to believe that the referenced “Egypt” refers to a similar country in the future, and not literal Egypt.
The Israelites walked to Israel from Egypt in scripture, which lets us know that literal Egypt is not being reference. What we also know from history is that America did use slave ships to kidnap black people from various parts of Africa. In order to understand how Africa is tied into this prophecy, you have to understand that many Hebrews fled into Africa to escape the Babylonian, Greek, and Roman invasion. Many fled to West and North West Africa to start over. From there, they migrated south and west, spreading Hebrew culture as they went.
Here are the maps of Zimbabwe and South Africa, to give you an idea of where the Lemba are located. If you’d like to look more into the history of Jews in Africa, this link is a good place to get started.
Before we move on, let’s look at Hebrew culture found in Ethiopia. Some Ethiopians claim to be descendants of Solomon, through his son Menelik, whom he had with The Queen of Sheba.
Why The Egypt Reference?
I’ll be honest… This is of special interest to me because of the choice to reference Egypt. This choice of wording has led to speculation from many teachers, including myself, as to why this was done. Some of the similarities may relate to:
- Slavery in America may have been similar to slavery in Egypt.
- The time frame of slavery in America has been roughly 400 years, and may be over 400 years (we’ll come back to this), which was also the amount of time that the Hebrews spent as slaves in Egypt.
- Something in America may be similar to Egypt, which would make it extremely specific.
- It may be a combination of all of the above.
These are interesting comparisons, but I’d like to offer a third and very unique comparison: We have a miniature, but very impressive replica of Egypt, right here in my home town of Las Vegas, NV.
This has been in Las Vegas, NV since I was a kid… and in case you’re wondering, that light on the top is 100% real, but has been toned down because pilots said it was too bright. It shines all the way into space. You can see this light from anywhere in Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Summerlin.
In my opinion, if the original pyramids looked anything like this, the only word to describe them would be breathtaking. The Luxor Hotel even had a replica of the Nile River, that ran through the entire hotel, but it was later removed. Years ago, they actually bought King Tut’s sarcophagus and placed it on display. I’m not sure if it’s still there, but the rumor is they removed it after some strange deaths occurred, but that could just be marketing hype.
While this is in no way proof that this replica of Egypt was what scripture was referring to, it does offer an interesting “coincidence”. There is also another large piece of Egyptian architecture in our nation’s capital. The Washington Monument.
When we look at the larger picture, we can start connecting the dots. What are the odds that a country across the ocean would make a replica of Egypt in the Las Vegas desert, place an Egyptian structure in the nation’s capital, and both of those structures be standing around the time that black people are coming upon 400 years of slavery in America? If the Bible isn’t pointing to this, it is one of the biggest coincidences I’ve ever seen. To summarize what we’ve looked at so far, take a look at the following:
- The nation is associated with an eagle.
- The nation will come from the far ends of the earth.
- The nation would take slaves in ships.
- The nation is compared to Egypt.
Moving on to the next point in this study, we’ll see that those who would enslave Israel would come by sea in ships. This is a very unique identifier because we know that without slave ships, black slavery in America would’ve been impossible.
Exhibit C – Land of Shadowing Wings
“Woe to the land shadowing with wings, which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia: That sendeth ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels of bulrushes upon the waters, saying, Go, ye swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled, to a people terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden down, whose land the rivers have spoiled!” – Isaiah 18:1-2
The reference to a “land shadowing with wings” wouldn’t be so interesting without the previous reference to the eagle in Deuteronomy 28:39. The choice to use the word “shadowing” seems to indicate that this land being referenced is large, and casts it’s shadow over other nations.
While the Roman Empire had a presence in Europe, Asia, and Africa, the United States’ military reach is vastly larger than anything the Roman Empire ever accomplished. Look carefully at the picture below. It shows the full military reach of the United States, confirming that it is indeed a land shadowing with wings (click the map to enlarge).
Beyond The Rivers of Ethiopia
Geographically, it wouldn’t make sense to refer to Rome as the land beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, when Rome was located across the Mediterranean Sea. Let’s look at a map to see exactly where the rivers of Ethiopia are. If we look at the map to the right, we can see that The Nile and a few other smaller rivers run out of Ethiopia and into North Africa. The
In order to figure out what this reference is pointing to, let’s focus on the geographic location of Ethiopia. East of the rivers of Ethiopia is the Arabian sea and then India, but if we head directly west of Ethiopia, we run into the Atlantic Ocean, and then the Caribbean Islands, located between North and South America. This is something we’re going to dig into deeper in Exhibit D.
Since Israel is located on the east of the Nile, heading west from there would point us toward Florida. But by using Ethiopia as the point of focus, and heading west, we land right in the center of the Atlantic Slave Trade routes to North America, South America, and the Caribbean Islands.
The reason that I’m confident in presenting this theory is because of the part of the verse that reads, “that sendeth ambassadors by sea”. This reference almost definitively points to America being the focus of the prophecy, because of how slaves were taken from Africa to America.
Exhibit D – Scattered In The Islands
“And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.” – Isiah 11:11
One of the most interesting and often overlooked verses concerns the regathering of Israel from the nations where they have been scattered and put into bondage. In these clues we find several references that fit the North Atlantic Slave Trade like a glove… but before we get to that, I want to point out something else very interesting about where God’s people are regathered from:
- Assyria (Arabia) – Founded by Asshur
- Egypt (Africa) – The Land of Ham
- Pathros (Africa) – Founded by Mizraim
- Cush (Africa) – Founded by Cush
- Elam (Arabia) – Founded by Elam
- Shinar (Arabia) – Founded by Nimrod
- Hamath (Arabia) – Possibly Asshur
This brings us to the islands. As part of the North Atlantic Slave Trade, some of the slaves ships passed through the Caribbean islands (West Indies), which are made up of the following islands:
As you can see, the people from these islands come in all different shades, but they are all ethnic. This isn’t proof that all of the Hebrews were people of color, but it is pretty strong evidence that they were. It is only through the above verses that we are continually pointed toward people of color in the west.
Exhibit E – Life Constantly In Danger
“And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind: And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life:” – Deuteronomy 28:65-66
This constant uncertainty of life has been a reality for black people in America for a very long time. First it was the slave owners murdering rebellious slaves, then it was the Klan killing black men for simply looking at a white woman, and now it’s the police killing black people that so much as breathe too hard.
Exhibit F – 400 Years As Slaves
The timing of black slavery in America is perhaps the most often used rebuttal to Deuteronomy 28:68 and to the idea that many blacks in America are descended from Israel. According to the Bible, Hebrew slavery in Egypt lasted about 400 years. The counter argument to the prophecy applying to blacks in America, is that slavery in America only lasted about 200 years, and was abolished by the 13th Amendment, but that is not true. Slavery in America never ended, and the 13th Amendment is concrete proof of that:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” – 13th Amendment
If we read carefully, we see that slavery was never abolished… it was made CONDITIONAL upon being convicted of a crime. We can look at the current American criminal justice system and see that locking black people in chains is still big business.
As we can see, black people are more likely to be imprisoned because we are 8x more likely to be convicted of the same crime committed by a white person. If you don’t understand how that works, let me say it another way. If 10 black people and 10 white people are arrested for the same crime, statistics show that 2 out of 10 of those white people will go to prison, but 8 out of 10 black people will go to prison. If we do the math on how long black people have been enslaved in America, including the current prison system, we get the following numbers:
Disclaimer: The first calculation uses a commonly accepted date of 1650 as the start of slavery, but the second set of numbers represents 1619 from other sources. These are not predictions of anything, but are meant to show the interesting timing in relation to current events in America.
1650 – 2016
- 366 Years (modern 365 day calendar)
- 371 Years (Hebrew 360 day calendar)
1619 – 2016
- 397 Years (modern 365 day calendar)
- 402 Years (Hebrew 360 day calendar)
Is the timing a coincidence or is there something bigger going on? Only time and more research will reveal what I believe was lost during slavery times.
The 10 Lost Tribes
I do not believe that the 10 “Lost Tribes” are lost at all. I believe that many of the Hebrews were shipped here to America, and were made “lost”. This was done gradually, by enforcing the following:
- Forcing slaves to learn English and punishing them for using their native language.
- Stripping slaves of their birth names, and giving them European names.
- Forbidding them from learning to read or write.
- Re-teaching the Bible as Eurocentric, instead of the Afrocentric text it is.
- Erasing all links to their Hebrew heritage in Africa.
Because of this culture stripping, black Hebrews in America were “blinded” to who they truly were, over time. Now that we are in the age of technology, many people are beginning to wake up to the truth about what really happened with slavery in America.
“For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.” – Romans 11:25
In my opinion, the slave trade purposely targeted Hebrews in Africa. The version of history that we know does not add up because natives could have been taken as slaves, but they weren’t. They were slaughtered, and millions of dollars were spent building ships, traveling to Africa, rounding people up, and bringing them to the United States.
The Future Deliverance of Israel
While the Hebrews were punished for their disobedience, God did indeed promise to deliver their descendants from the Gentiles, and it is my personal belief that we may witness this within our lifetime.
“Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.” – Ezekiel 36:22-24
Martin Luther King Jr., is a celebrated American icon. His wife, Coretta, was a beloved American public figure. President Lyndon Johnson was a colorful Texan, and Governor George Wallace was a good ol’ boy son of the South from Alabama.
In director Ava DuVernay’s Best Picture nominee about the 1965 Selma civil-rights march, however, they’re portrayed by David Oyelowo, Carmen Ejogo, Tom Wilkinson, and Tim Roth, respectively, who share at least one thing in common: They’re British.
Selma isn’t an exception—rather, the Brits seem to be everywhere lately. Last year’s Best Picture winner, 12 Years a Slave, about a 19th-century free black man tricked and trafficked into Southern bondage, starred multiple British actors, including Chiwetel Ejiofor, Benedict Cumberbatch, and German-born, Irish-raised Michael Fassbender. (The biggest American star in the film, Brad Pitt, played a Canadian.)
12 Years was directed by a Brit—Steve McQueen—which could be one possible explanation for his film’s British-heavy cast. But the same can’t be said for several other high-profile recent and upcoming films. The American hero in Angelina Jolie’s Unbroken, for example, is played by Jack O’Connell, an Englishman. David Fincher selected English actress Rosamund Pike as his Amazing Amy in Gone Girl. Fifty Shades’ Christian Grey was initially going to be played by Charlie Hunnam, an Englishman; when he dropped out, he was quickly replaced by Jamie Dornan, an Irishman. “I went to see a movie,” says Richard Hicks, president of the Casting Society of America, “and four casting directors were sitting around talking about, ‘What’s up with all the Brits and Australian actors snagging all the leads?’”
Of course, no one’s entitled to a role because of their accent or where they’re born. That’s always been true, even before Vivien Leigh won the role of Scarlett O’Hara. But recently, there’s been a visible surge in the number of British—and the occasional Aussie—actors and actresses winning plum roles in many of Hollywood’s most prestigious films (as well as many of the biggest franchise blockbusters). In 2011, British director Stephen Frears (The Queen) told an interviewer, “There is some sort of crisis in American acting“—and suggested this could be due to a lack of proper training, specifically theater training. Calling it a ”crisis” might be a bit drastic, but with an English Superman, a British-bred Spider-Man, an English Daisy Buchanan, a British Mad Max, a German-Irish Steve Jobs—to say nothing of the current British invasion that’s raised the quality of American television—it seems like a good time to at least contemplate whether the roots of this recent trend can be found in how both sides of the Atlantic are prepping its talent for Hollywood casting calls.
For decades, there were two major schools of thought when it came to acting: the Classical, which was best epitomized by Laurence Olivier, and the Method, which revolutionized the art form in America once James Dean and Marlon Brando brought it to the big screen. Classical was more of an outside-in approach, which emphasized a more presentational style associated with the stage. Method, rooted in Constantin Stanislavski’s theories, was more naturalistic, more inside-out. “For many years, there was a schism,” says James Lipton, a pupil of Stella Adler’s teachings and the longtime host of Inside the Actors Studio. “The British stressed training in voice and posture and the physical attributes, whereas the American training is deep rooted in the actor’s emotions.”
But in 2015, what was once a contentious rivalry is no longer an either/or proposition, as both schools implement elements of the other’s philosophies into their own training. Why then, do the Brits seem to have an edge? ”There is a lot of stage work in a lot of British drama school training, but I think it’s more to do with how we ask them to think about characters, how we ask them to be imaginative, and to change themselves,” says Joanna Read, describing the dramatic skills that current students are taught at the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art, which counts Cumberbatch, Ejiofor, and Oyelowo among its scores of famous alums and where she has been principal since 2010. “Our training will ask an actor to really play against type at times, to play a role that they wouldn’t necessarily be cast in in the profession, in order to work out and transform how they move towards that character. It’s almost like putting on a second skin.”
That academic challenge of portraying characters that aren’t obviously suited to an actor might be an essential building block that pays off down the road. “If you look at these English actors—David Oyelowo, Tom Wilkinson, Tim Roth—they’re accustomed to playing character-actor roles,” says Lipton. “Which is to say, they are very good at playing roles that are quite distant from themselves, physically, even emotionally. They are able to find, in those strangers, a core that resonated with themselves, so they are just as truthful playing that as they would be playing someone just like themselves on screen.”
Avy Kaufman, the casting director who discovered Andrew Garfield for Robert Redford’s Lions for Lambs and recruited Oyelowo to play the eloquent Union soldier who recites the Gettysburg Address to Daniel Day-Lewis in Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln, thinks a shrinking world has opened the doors for all sorts of international talent. “It’s not that all these actors are better than the American actors, but I think we’re just opening up to more—and we’re all excited to find something new and different,” she says. “Lincoln was a very American story, but I just felt like I should say, ‘This guy’s the best for this.’ It doesn’t matter that he’s not American. He’s got the accent down. May the best man win.”
Nowadays, the best man doesn’t even have to be in Los Angeles to audition. “Instead of meeting an actor or having to see the actor audition in the room, I can audition them via Skype and have nearly the same experience,” says Hicks. “Quality acting is quality acting, and you can recognize that even when you’re thousands of miles away.”
Lipton believes, however, that the Brits do enjoy at least one built-in advantage—one that’s also a product of geography. While American actors generally have to chose between going to New York to work in the theater or settling in Los Angeles to find fame on television and the movies, the British dramatic community—film/TV/theater—is mostly centrally located around London. “The English have the advantage of being able to go back and forth, from Downton Abbey to a stage production,” he says.
But perhaps the biggest factor leading to the perception that American actors are falling behind is that the path to Hollywood fame in this country doesn’t necessarily go through the Actors Studio or Juilliard or the Yale School of Drama. Though Hollywood has its share of Jessica Chastains and Mark Ruffalos, well-trained professionals who studied at revered dramatic institutions, the difference might lie in the other cases, in which actors get a break in Hollywood with limited training or acting background. “I think our culture, in which we take reality-show fame as a measure of success, means that we feel like, ‘Oh, it just happens to you and then you’re famous,” says Hicks.
It might be even more subtle and widespread than the reality-show mentality Hicks mentions. In a Hollywood that feeds on young stars—many of which are groomed as kids on television—early success can stunt artistic growth. “The kids that start out as stars when they’re 19 or 20, they never had a chance to learn their craft, and because they become stars, there’s never a chance to catch up,” says Lipton. “They’re not going to knock off for a year and study. They’re going to keep on making movies, as many as they can, as fast as they can. Some learn on the job. Some are geniuses, so they figure it out.”
But for every Jennifer Lawrence or Leonardo DiCaprio—instinctual wunderkinds whose talent and work ethic keep them at the top—there is a huge middle class of popular American actors who reach the age of 30 and suddenly find themselves overmatched by more disciplined foreign-educated artists. Actors who spent three years in their early twenties, for example, just learning how to properly speak and move while their American counterparts were auditioning for a Coke commercial and the new fall pilot. Cumberbatch was 30 before anyone in America knew who he was. Tom Hiddleston, a 2005 graduate of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, was about the same age when he landed the role of Loki. “The demand for what we’re offering is something that is universally wanted,” says Read. “Their skills are very good technically, so that whether they’re on set, on location, or stage, they’re ready and able to hit the ground running.”
In other words, the British are coming… because Hollywood needs them.
In 1838, the Jesuit priests who ran the country’s top Catholic university needed money to keep it alive. Now comes the task of making amends.
But on this day, in the fall of 1838, no one was spared: not the 2-month-old baby and her mother, not the field hands, not the shoemaker and not Cornelius Hawkins, who was about 13 years old when he was forced onboard.
Their panic and desperation would be mostly forgotten for more than a century. But this was no ordinary slave sale. The enslaved African-Americans had belonged to the nation’s most prominent Jesuit priests. And they were sold, along with scores of others, to help secure the future of the premier Catholic institution of higher learning at the time, known today as Georgetown University.
Now, with racial protests roiling college campuses, an unusual collection of Georgetown professors, students, alumni and genealogists is trying to find out what happened to those 272 men, women and children. And they are confronting a particularly wrenching question: What, if anything, is owed to the descendants of slaves who were sold to help ensure the college’s survival?
More than a dozen universities — including Brown, Columbia, Harvard and the University of Virginia — have publicly recognized their ties to slavery and the slave trade. But the 1838 slave sale organized by the Jesuits, who founded and ran Georgetown, stands out for its sheer size, historians say.
At Georgetown, slavery and scholarship were inextricably linked. The college relied on Jesuit plantations in Maryland to help finance its operations, university officials say. (Slaves were often donated by prosperous parishioners.) And the 1838 sale — worth about $3.3 million in today’s dollars — was organized by two of Georgetown’s early presidents, both Jesuit priests.
Some of that money helped to pay off the debts of the struggling college.
“The university itself owes its existence to this history,” said Adam Rothman, a historian at Georgetown and a member of a university working group that is studying ways for the institution to acknowledge and try to make amends for its tangled roots in slavery.
Although the working group was established in August, it was student demonstrations at Georgetown in the fall that helped to galvanize alumni and gave new urgency to the administration’s efforts.
The students organized a protest and a sit-in, using the hashtag #GU272 for the slaves who were sold. In November, the university agreed to remove the names of the Rev. Thomas F. Mulledy and the Rev. William McSherry, the college presidents involved in the sale, from two campus buildings.
An alumnus, following the protest from afar, wondered if more needed to be done.
That alumnus, Richard J. Cellini, the chief executive of a technology company and a practicing Catholic, was troubled that neither the Jesuits nor university officials had tried to trace the lives of the enslaved African-Americans or compensate their progeny.
Mr. Cellini is an unlikely racial crusader. A white man, he admitted that he had never spent much time thinking about slavery or African-American history.
But he said he could not stop thinking about the slaves, whose names had been in Georgetown’s archives for decades.
“This is not a disembodied group of people, who are nameless and faceless,” said Mr. Cellini, 52, whose company, Briefcase Analytics, is based in Cambridge, Mass. “These are real people with real names and real descendants.”
Within two weeks, Mr. Cellini had set up a nonprofit, the Georgetown Memory Project, hired eight genealogists and raised more than $10,000 from fellow alumni to finance their research.
Dr. Rothman, the Georgetown historian, heard about Mr. Cellini’s efforts and let him know that he and several of his students were also tracing the slaves. Soon, the two men and their teams were working on parallel tracks.
What has emerged from their research, and that of other scholars, is a glimpse of an insular world dominated by priests who required their slaves to attend Mass for the sake of their salvation, but also whipped and sold some of them. The records describe runaways, harsh plantation conditions and the anguish voiced by some Jesuits over their participation in a system of forced servitude.
“A microcosm of the whole history of American slavery,” Dr. Rothman said.
The enslaved were grandmothers and grandfathers, carpenters and blacksmiths, pregnant women and anxious fathers, children and infants, who were fearful, bewildered and despairing as they saw their families and communities ripped apart by the sale of 1838.
The hope was to eventually identify the slaves’ descendants. By the end of December, one of Mr. Cellini’s genealogists felt confident that she had found a strong test case: the family of the boy, Cornelius Hawkins.
There are no surviving images of Cornelius, no letters or journals that offer a look into his last hours on a Jesuit plantation in Maryland.
He was not yet five feet tall when he sailed onboard the Katharine Jackson, one of several vessels that carried the slaves to the port of New Orleans.
An inspector scrutinized the cargo on Dec. 6, 1838. “Examined and found correct,” he wrote of Cornelius and the 129 other people he found on the ship.
The notation betrayed no hint of the turmoil on board. But priests at the Jesuit plantations recounted the panic and fear they witnessed when the slaves departed.
Some children were sold without their parents, records show, and slaves were “dragged off by force to the ship,” the Rev. Thomas Lilly reported. Others, including two of Cornelius’s uncles, ran away before they could be captured.
But few were lucky enough to escape. The Rev. Peter Havermans wrote of an elderly woman who fell to her knees, begging to know what she had done to deserve such a fate, according to Robert Emmett Curran, a retired Georgetown historian who described eyewitness accounts of the sale in his research. Cornelius’s extended family was split, with his aunt Nelly and her daughters shipped to one plantation, and his uncle James and his wife and children sent to another, records show.
At the time, the Catholic Church did not view slaveholding as immoral, said the Rev. Thomas R. Murphy, a historian at Seattle University who has written a book about the Jesuits and slavery.
The Jesuits had sold off individual slaves before. As early as the 1780s, Dr. Rothman found, they openly discussed the need to cull their stock of human beings.
But the decision to sell virtually all of their enslaved African-Americans in the 1830s left some priests deeply troubled.
They worried that new owners might not allow the slaves to practice their Catholic faith. They also knew that life on plantations in the Deep South was notoriously brutal, and feared that families might end up being separated and resold.
“It would be better to suffer financial disaster than suffer the loss of our souls with the sale of the slaves,” wrote the Rev. Jan Roothaan, who headed the Jesuits’ international organization from Rome and was initially reluctant to authorize the sale.
But he was persuaded to reconsider by several prominent Jesuits, including Father Mulledy, then the influential president of Georgetown who had overseen its expansion, and Father McSherry, who was in charge of the Jesuits’ Maryland mission. (The two men would swap positions by 1838.)
Mismanaged and inefficient, the Maryland plantations no longer offered a reliable source of income for Georgetown College, which had been founded in 1789. It would not survive, Father Mulledy feared, without an influx of cash.
So in June 1838, he negotiated a deal with Henry Johnson, a member of the House of Representatives, and Jesse Batey, a landowner in Louisiana, to sell Cornelius and the others.
Father Mulledy promised his superiors that the slaves would continue to practice their religion. Families would not be separated. And the money raised by the sale would not be used to pay off debt or for operating expenses.
None of those conditions were met, university officials said.
Father Mulledy took most of the down payment he received from the sale — about $500,000 in today’s dollars — and used it to help pay off the debts that Georgetown had incurred under his leadership.
In the uproar that followed, he was called to Rome and reassigned.
The next year, Pope Gregory XVI explicitly barred Catholics from engaging in “this traffic in Blacks … no matter what pretext or excuse.”
But the pope’s order, which did not explicitly address slave ownership or private sales like the one organized by the Jesuits, offered scant comfort to Cornelius and the other slaves.
By the 1840s, word was trickling back to Washington that the slaves’ new owners had broken their promises. Some slaves suffered at the hands of a cruel overseer.
Roughly two-thirds of the Jesuits’ former slaves — including Cornelius and his family — had been shipped to two plantations so distant from churches that “they never see a Catholic priest,” the Rev. James Van de Velde, a Jesuit who visited Louisiana, wrote in a letter in 1848.
Father Van de Velde begged Jesuit leaders to send money for the construction of a church that would “provide for the salvation of those poor people, who are now utterly neglected.”
He addressed his concerns to Father Mulledy, who three years earlier had returned to his post as president of Georgetown.
There is no indication that he received any response.
A Familiar Name
African-Americans are often a fleeting presence in the documents of the 1800s. Enslaved, marginalized and forced into illiteracy by laws that prohibited them from learning to read and write, many seem like ghosts who pass through this world without leaving a trace.
After the sale, Cornelius vanishes from the public record until 1851 when his trail finally picks back up on a cotton plantation near Maringouin, La.
His owner, Mr. Batey, had died, and Cornelius appeared on the plantation’s inventory, which included 27 mules and horses, 32 hogs, two ox carts and scores of other slaves. He was valued at $900. (“Valuable Plantation and Negroes for Sale,” read one newspaper advertisement in 1852.)
The plantation would be sold again and again and again, records show, but Cornelius’s family remained intact. In 1870, he appeared in the census for the first time. He was about 48 then, a father, a husband, a farm laborer and, finally, a free man.
He might have disappeared from view again for a time, save for something few could have counted on: his deep, abiding faith. It was his Catholicism, born on the Jesuit plantations of his childhood, that would provide researchers with a road map to his descendants.
Cornelius had originally been shipped to a plantation so far from a church that he had married in a civil ceremony. But six years after he appeared in the census, and about three decades after the birth of his first child, he renewed his wedding vows with the blessing of a priest.
His children and grandchildren also embraced the Catholic church. So Judy Riffel, one of the genealogists hired by Mr. Cellini, began following a chain of weddings and births, baptisms and burials. The church records helped lead to a 69-year-old woman in Baton Rouge named Maxine Crump.
Ms. Crump, a retired television news anchor, was driving to Maringouin, her hometown, in early February when her cellphone rang. Mr. Cellini was on the line.
She listened, stunned, as he told her about her great-great-grandfather, Cornelius Hawkins, who had labored on a plantation just a few miles from where she grew up.
She found out about the Jesuits and Georgetown and the sea voyage to Louisiana. And she learned that Cornelius had worked the soil of a 2,800-acre estate that straddled the Bayou Maringouin.
All of this was new to Ms. Crump, except for the name Cornelius — or Neely, as Cornelius was known.
The name had been passed down from generation to generation in her family. Her great-uncle had the name, as did one of her cousins. Now, for the first time, Ms. Crump understood its origins.
“Oh my God,” she said. “Oh my God.”
Ms. Crump is a familiar figure in Baton Rouge. She was the city’s first black woman television anchor. She runs a nonprofit, Dialogue on Race Louisiana, that offers educational programs on institutional racism and ways to combat it.
She prides herself on being unflappable. But the revelations about her lineage — and the church she grew up in — have unleashed a swirl of emotions.
She is outraged that the church’s leaders sanctioned the buying and selling of slaves, and that Georgetown profited from the sale of her ancestors. She feels great sadness as she envisions Cornelius as a young boy, torn from everything he knew.
‘Now They Are Real to Me’
Mr. Cellini, whose genealogists have already traced more than 200 of the slaves from Maryland to Louisiana, believes there may be thousands of living descendants. He has contacted a few, including Patricia Bayonne-Johnson, president of the Eastern Washington Genealogical Society in Spokane, who is helping to track the Jesuit slaves with her group. (Ms. Bayonne-Johnson discovered her connection through an earlier effort by the university to publish records online about the Jesuit plantations.)
Meanwhile, Georgetown’s working group has been weighing whether the university should apologize for profiting from slave labor, create a memorial to those enslaved and provide scholarships for their descendants, among other possibilities, said Dr. Rothman, the historian.
“It’s hard to know what could possibly reconcile a history like this,” he said. “What can you do to make amends?”
Ms. Crump, 69, has been asking herself that question, too. She does not put much stock in what she describes as “casual institutional apologies.” But she would like to see a scholarship program that would bring the slaves’ descendants to Georgetown as students.
And she would like to see Cornelius’s name, and those of his parents and children, inscribed on a memorial on campus.
Her ancestors, once amorphous and invisible, are finally taking shape in her mind. There is joy in that, she said, exhilaration even.
“Now they are real to me,” she said, “more real every day.”
She still wants to know more about Cornelius’s beginnings, and about his life as a free man. But when Ms. Riffel, the genealogist, told her where she thought he was buried, Ms. Crump knew exactly where to go.
The two women drove on the narrow roads that line the green, rippling sugar cane fields in Iberville Parish. There was no need for a map. They were heading to the only Catholic cemetery in Maringouin.
They found the last physical marker of Cornelius’s journey at the Immaculate Heart of Mary cemetery, where Ms. Crump’s father, grandmother and great-grandfather are also buried.
The worn gravestone had toppled, but the wording was plain: “Neely Hawkins Died April 16, 1902.”
Pop singer Michael Jackson’s features changed and the color of his skin lightened dramatically during the final decades of his life. Jackson denied changing his skin color to improve his appearance and claimed that he suffered from vitiligo, a condition in which the immune system attacks cells that produce melanin, which determines an individual’s skin color. Jackson said he was not trying to look “White,” but observers wondered, if that were so, what was the motivation for his straightened hair and the many operations to change the shape of his nose, chin and cheekbones?
In 2010, former Chicago Cubs baseball player Sammy Sosa was photographed at the Latin Grammy Awards in Las Vegas with noticeably whiter skin. Sosa originally had a very brown complexion but appeared to be nearly White in photographs. He told reporters that a cosmetic cream *76 he used to soften his skin caused the lighter tone. He said he had been using the cream for some time and it made his face look whiter than it actually was, but claimed he was not trying to look like Michael Jackson, nor was he suffering from any skin illness.
“Color Struck” is an old saying among African-Americans that refers to individuals who believe that a lighter complexion and European features represent the epitome of beauty and desirability. Color discrimination is often masked by a combination of subjective notions of attractiveness and unconscious stereotypes. Michael Jackson and Sammy Sosa were probably not consciously attempting to look White; it is more likely they were simply color struck.
Racism involves discrimination against individuals based on their racial category. Colorism, in contrast, involves discrimination against dark-complexioned African-Americans on the basis of their color. The hierarchy employed in colorism is the same as the one that governs racism; a light complexion and European features are considered to be more valuable and attractive than dark skin and African features. Color distinctions among African-Americans have never been recognized in the formal ways they were in the Caribbean and South America. However, among African-Americans, the distinctions are usually unstated but well understood. Lighter complexions and European features are more desirable than darker complexions and African features. A person is considered light-skinned by an application of the “paper bag test,” which looks to whether the person’s complexion is the color of a grocery bag or lighter.
*77 Although formal racial classifications were developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the preference for white skin, blonde hair and European features is rooted in antiquity. Beginning with Greek sculptures of Aphrodite and Roman depictions of Venus, and into the European Renaissance, pale complexions, blue eyes, and flowing blonde hair have been the gold standard for feminine beauty. When Europeans colonized Asia, Africa, and the Americas, they imposed their standards of beauty on the indigenous groups and on the Africans they imported and enslaved. Today, the European norm for beauty and attractiveness is ubiquitous and constantly reinforced in movies, magazines, television programs, online and elsewhere. Young children assimilate these conceptions at an early age, and they remain embedded in their psyches as they mature into adults.
African-Americans, South Asians, Latin Americans, and other people of color have, for many generations, internalized this Eurocentric standard of attractiveness. Using hair straighteners and skin-lightening creams, they attempt to look white without consciously realizing they are doing so. The evidence indicates that in America, socioeconomic disparities resulting from colorism can be as severe as those traditionally attributed to racism. As America becomes a more multi-racial society, old fashioned “Jim Crow” racism has slowly diminished, while color bias persists.
Leland Ware, Louis L. Redding Professor of Law & Public Policy, University of Delaware.
II. Color Discrimination
Discrimination on the basis of color, rather than race, has long been documented by researchers. In The Philadelphia Negro, W.E.B. Du Bois *78 described intra-racial colorism when he commented on that city’s “Aristocracy of the Negro population” in the late 1890s. Du Bois observed, “[t]hey are largely Philadelphia born, and being descended from the house servant class, contain many mulattoes.” Du Bois noted that Philadelphia’s Black elites did not interact with their less affluent counterparts in ordinary assemblages or promenading places. The insular and elitist nature of the group was reflected in Du Bois’ observation that “[s]trangers secure entrance to this circle with difficulty and only by introduction.” Decades later in the landmark study, An American Dilemma, Gunnar Myrdal wrote: “without a doubt a Negro with light skin and other European features has in the North an advantage with white people.”
In 1957, Sociologist E. Franklin Frazier made a similar observation in Black Bourgeoisie. He wrote: “a light complexion resulting from racial mixture raised a mulatto above the level of an unmixed Negro.” Frazier explained that “[p]artly because of the differential treatment accorded to the mulattoes, but more especially because of the general degradation of the Negro as a human being, the Negro of mixed ancestry thought of himself as superior to the unmixed Negro. His light complexion became his most precious possession.”
Over the last two decades, a large body of scholarship examining the detrimental effects of color discrimination has been produced by scholars representing a range of academic disciplines. In general, the research shows that dark-skinned Blacks are treated differently and less favorably than their lighter-complexioned counterparts. Legal scholars have complained about the courts’ reluctance to acknowledge color discrimination. In Colorism: A Darker Shade of Pale, Taunya Banks explored the history of color discrimination in America and analyzed the *79 problems it has posed in employment discrimination cases. Skin tone discrimination, she wrote, is an aspect of employment discrimination that courts have been hesitant to recognize. She found that judges are more willing to acknowledge color discrimination in cases involving ethnic Whites and Latinos, but are hesitant to do so when Black claimants are involved. Courts are skeptical of claims involving intra-racial discrimination as it does not fit the traditional paradigm of Whites discriminating against Blacks. Banks concluded that courts possess the legal authority to redress claims under existing antidiscrimination laws and should be more willing to recognize claims of color discrimination when African-Americans assert them.
Other scholars have made similar observations. In Shades of Brown: the Law of Skin Color, Trina Jones examines the history of colorism in America and the discrimination against individuals based on skin color. She distinguishes intra-group colorism from cross-racial colorism and traditional discrimination: the first involves lighter-skinned African-Americans and Whites disfavoring darker-skinned Blacks; the second involves Whites discriminating against all Blacks. In both cases, darker-complexioned Blacks are the victims. Jones complains that courts tend to minimize the significance of this distinction using a flawed interpretation of antidiscrimination laws. Jones argues that a more nuanced understanding of discrimination is needed to recognize color discrimination. In Title VII: What’s Hair (and Other Race Based Characteristics) Got to Do With It, D. Wendy Greene conducted a similar analysis and reached the same conclusion: color-based discrimination claims made by Black complainants are misunderstood and should be recognized, given that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and color.
*80 Leonard Baynes examined the “Dark-Light Paradigm” of African-American and Latino colorism. He determined that an entrenched color hierarchy among non-White ethnic groups operates to the detriment of dark- complexioned Blacks and Latinos. Baynes bolstered his analysis with data that showed darker-skinned Blacks and Latinos tend to have smaller incomes, lower levels of educational attainment, and less prestigious employment positions than lighter-skinned Blacks and Latinos.
Colorism has even infected the criminal justice system. Research has shown that dark-skinned Blacks receive longer prison sentences than their lighter-complexioned counterparts. An article examining racial disparities in the criminal justice system cited a study of 67,000 male felons incarcerated in Georgia for a first offense from 1995 through 2002. The data showed that dark-skinned Black defendants received longer sentences than light-skinned Blacks.
In another article, the authors examined discrimination on the basis of what they called “Afrocentric” features, which they defined as darker skin color, fuller lips and broader noses. The authors collected and analyzed data that showed that Black defendants in Florida who had prominent African features tended to receive longer sentences than other Blacks whose racial physiognomy was less distinctive. Using photographs and other information about inmates, including the offenses for which they were convicted and their criminal records, the authors found that among African-American inmates, those with prominent African features tended *81 to receive longer sentences than others whose African features were not as prominent. The researchers concluded that Afrocentric features activated an unconscious stereotype of Blacks as dangerous criminals, which influenced the decisionmaking process and caused the imposition of longer sentences when dark-skinned defendants were convicted.
The disparities are not limited to male defendants. A recent study found that Black female offenders who are light-skinned received shorter prison sentences than darker-complexioned offenders. The authors collected data on 12,158 imprisoned Black women in North Carolina between 1995 and 2009. The study showed that women with light skin were sentenced to approximately 12% less prison time than their darker-skinned counterparts. The study examined factors such as prior records, conviction dates, misconduct while incarcerated, and having low body weight, as well as whether the women were convicted of homicide or robbery since these crimes carry heavier prison terms. The authors concluded that colorism demonstrates the complexity of racism in our society and added that “it is no longer sufficient to understand racial discrimination solely in terms of the relative advantages of Whites compared to non-Whites. Among Blacks, characteristics associated with Whiteness appear to have a significant impact on important life outcomes.”
Color discrimination affects a wide range of activities. Using a longitudinal design method that linked a sample of African-American men raised in the South to their census records, Mark Hill examined the influence of skin color on the socioeconomic attainment of African-American men. His findings showed the importance of skin color in directing the socioeconomic progress of African-American men. Individuals who identified as mulatto in the study had a higher adult socioeconomic status than Blacks with dark complexions. Hill’s analysis indicated that differences in social origins were responsible for only 10 to 20% of the color gap in adult attainment levels. Hill’s findings indicated *82 that color bias, rather than family background, was responsible for most of the color differences in the socioeconomic status of African-American men.
In The Skin Color Paradox and the American Racial Order, the authors used surveys to develop an empirical analysis that found:
[D]ark-skinned blacks have lower levels of education, income and job status. They are less likely to own homes or to marry; and dark-skinned blacks’ prison sentences are longer. Dark-skin discrimination occurs within as well as across races. Some evidence suggests, in fact, that intra-racial disparities are as detrimental to a person’s life chances as are disparities traditionally associated with racial divisions. . . . With some exceptions, most Americans prefer lighter to darker skin aesthetically, normatively and culturally. Film-makers, novelists, advertisers, modeling agencies, matchmaking websites-all demonstrate how much the power of a fair complexion, along with straight hair and Eurocentric facial features, appeals to Americans.
The discussion in this section shows that a large body of theoretical and empirical research demonstrates conclusively that color bias is real and has an adverse effect on the lives of dark-complexioned African-Americans.
III. The Geography of Colorism
Colorism operates on a global scale. There is a worldwide market for chemicals that lighten skin tones. Asia has the largest market for skin-whitening creams. In India and Pakistan, women are socialized to believe that a fair complexion equates to beauty and is the key to success in life, marriage, and work. During the colonial era, the idea that Indians *83 with fair skin were superior was usually unstated but well understood. The belief that a light complexion is superior to a darker one is embedded deeply within the Indian psyche, since skin color is an important consideration in marriage. Research conducted by a matrimonial website in three northern Indian states confirmed that skin tone is the most important criteria when selecting a partner.
A journalist wrote: “it is being called ‘Snow White syndrome’ in India, a market where sales of whitening creams are far outstripping those of Coca-Cola and tea.” According to Imani Perry, this practice exemplifies the perverse objectification of the female body in sexual partnering.
Colorism is also evident in advertisements. For instance, a television ad for the cream Fair & Lovely reinforces the idea that girls seeking a prospective groom should utilize skin-lightening creams in order to become more marketable for marriage. Beyond the simple advertisement for a flawless skin, it is implied that using this cream is also necessary to advance in all relevant aspects of life. But the use of lightening creams is not restricted to women. The popularity of these products is increasing among men and the availability of products for male consumers is highly advertised. A commercial shown on Indian satellite channels featured Bollywood star Shahrukh Khan promoting a skin cream called Fair and Handsome. In it, a glum, dark-skinned Indian man used the skin-lightening cream to become many shades lighter. At the end of the commercial he is shown smiling and walking confidently with a lovely woman at his side. L’Oreal hired Bollywood actor John Abraham to pitch its Garnier for Men skin-whitening lotion in an effort to challenge the *84 market leader, Fair and Handsome. Another skin-lightening cream, Unilever’s Vaseline Healthy White Body, is currently the most advertised cosmetic brand on Indian television. Unilever’s cream created great controversy with its Internet marketing strategy, which appeared to be racist, because it showed a distinct preference for lighter skin. Recently, further concerns have been raised regarding the dissemination of other desirable physical characteristics for young Indians. The homogeneity of color is becoming a new social expectation in order to overcome self-consciousness. Therefore, young Indians are being encouraged to start using deodorants and intimate wash products containing skin-lightening ingredients.
Skin-lightening creams increased $432 million in sales in South Asia during the first nine months of 2008, and the industry expects to continue growing as the levels of urbanization and affordability augment their target populations by expanding the market for men in the following decade. However, this phenomenon is not limited to South Asia. An increasing number of East Asians are using their rising incomes to purchase skin-lightening products. In Hong Kong, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan, four of every ten women use a whitening cream. And, as is the case elsewhere, the cosmetics industry is reaping enormous profits. In Hong Kong, pale Asian models dominate the flat-screens and multimedia billboards of public transit. They appear on the pages of glossy magazines and cinema advertisements promoting such products as Blanc Expert, White-Plus, White Light, Future White Day, Active White, and Snow UV. Skin lightening has a long history in Asia. In ancient *85 China and Japan, a saying, “one white covers up three ugliness,” has been passed down through the generations. These attitudes are largely the same among many Asian Americans.
Colorism is also pervasive in Latin America. Unlike America’s “one-drop rule” in which any amount of African ancestry classifies an individual as Black, Latin America exhibits a more fluid classification system based on color gradations and appearance. Racial distinctions are based on phenotypes that focus more on physiognomy than ancestry. The flexibility in Latin America’s racial designation system is limited to those whose lighter complexions and European phenotypes allow them to distinguish themselves from darker-complexioned Blacks, since Blackness is subjectively perceived as an offensive racial category in the social hierarchy. In Latin America, individuals are valued by how closely their appearances, status, and progeny approach whiteness.
Mexico’s colonization illustrates how discrimination on the basis of color influenced the creation of a racialized hierarchy, which continues to affect the socioeconomic and political systems at present. Spanish colonizers imposed a stratified status system in Mexico where Whites were the elites and Native Mexicans the slaves. These groups intermingled creating a large population of mixed-race mestizos that resulted in the creation of a color hierarchy. Light-complexioned persons occupied the upper rungs of the social strata. The darkest persons were relegated to the lowest levels.
Colorism has concerned the Mexican-American columnist Ruben Navarrette since his childhood, when he realized his skin tone was different compared with the rest of the children in a United States kindergarten. Now, as an adult, Navarrette stresses that, a century after the Mexican Revolution, the division between urban and rural Mexico continues, along with the silent wars between the wealthy and poor, and *86 the light and dark-skinned individuals. He remarked that it is very common to find light-colored people in television, politics and academia, but it is unlikely to find persons from this racial category working at construction sites or kitchens, where darker-colored people prevail.
There is a conspicuous absence of dark-skinned Mexicans in telenovelas, commercials, and other forms of advertising, which are an inadequate representation of the country’s inhabitants. A study that examined the content of six Spanish-language telelenovelas and a drama on three Spanish-language television networks in the United States (Telemundo, Univision, and Azteca America) found that “lighter skin characters were more likely to play major roles, were more fit and younger, and more likely to be upper class than their darker skin counterparts.” A promotion for Televisa’s popular program, “Destilando Amor” (Distilling Love), presents an example of how color status is portrayed. In one scene, an upscale woman with blonde hair sits at a dinner table expressing her displeasure with a family member for falling in love with a working-class woman. As the fair-skinned woman speaks, a servant with dark, indigenous features stands silently in the background.
Colorism can be found elsewhere in Latin America. In Brazil, individuals are assigned to racial groups based on physical appearance rather than ancestry. This criterion of racial self-identification has resulted in ambiguous and numerous color categories. Many of the terms Brazilians use to describe racial mixtures are vague, and there is no consistent agreement on their meaning or to whom they should be applied. For instance, a 1976 census collected 135 popular terms, including “purple, dark chocolate, or Pele colored.”
Given the focus on phenotypical characteristics, some individuals may be identified in varying racial terms at various times by different people, and some parents and full siblings in the same family may be assigned to different racial groups. One article explained:
*87 Brazilian racial classification schemes defining a person based on the slightest variation of physical characteristics presumably associated with Black ancestry and/or white ancestry could either elevate or demote an individual on the racial ladder. The implementation of such a highly stratified method of categorizing race evidences an extreme effort on behalf of the white minority to preserve their economic, social, and political dominance over masses of people of mixed and unmixed African descent. Additionally, because of its relatively relaxed approach to manumission, which contributed to the rapid growth of free people of color, it was imperative for Brazil to develop a racial taxonomy based on infinite physical distinctions that simultaneously maintained its racial hierarchy and recognized the country’s widespread miscegenation.
The current official categories used by the Brazilian census are White (Branco), Brown (Pardo), Black (Preto), Asian/Yellow (Amarelo), and Indigenous (Indigena). It is estimated that the first three categories account for 99% of Brazilians. In 2010, a majority (50.7%) of the population identified themselves as Afro-Brazilians, a classification that includes both Black (7.6%) and mix-raced Brazilians (43.1%). In a 2010 census, more individuals identified themselves as Black than in 2000.
Despite the Brazilian efforts to project a racially neutral structure through what is known as a racial democracy, scholars have shown that a racial hierarchy composed of a graduated scale of color persists. The data shows that Afro-Brazilians are more economically, socially, and politically disadvantaged than their lighter-skinned counterparts. According to Seth Racusen, “all key socioeconomic variables demonstrate this wide gap between ‘Whites’ compared to ‘Browns’ and ‘Blacks.”‘
Brazilian media also reinforces the social preference for Whites by portraying them as symbols of “beauty, happiness, and middle-class success.” The concept portrayed in television seems consistent with the perception of reality. As indicated by Patricia de Santana Pinho, “the power of whiteness is lived by everyone in Brazil, and it is always operating either in opening or closing doors of opportunity and achievement.”
Given the strong negative stereotypes against dark-colored people and, on the other hand, the potential incentives that could be derived from affirmative action policies, individuals may have personal motivations to alter the designation of their race.
How individuals are classified does not depend solely on their physical appearance. The saying “money whitens” reminds Brazilians that the apparent wealth and status of a person, as well as the immediate social company, are important considerations for the observer who determines their race. Therefore, as individuals accumulate wealth they also gain color status. The ambiguity of race categories along with the deficiencies of the self-identification system makes it feasible for individuals to change their racial identities by becoming better educated or more affluent.
These attitudes can be found in other Latin American countries. Tanya Hernandez examined racial attitudes in Puerto Rico and Cuba, given the acceptance of race fluidity in the former country and the formal rejection of the concept of race in the latter. She found that, despite the apparent respect for social fluidity and flexible racial labeling, racial identity and identification are neither completely fluid nor neutral. For example, like in Mexico and Brazil, Cubans and Puerto Ricans also exercised the plasticity of race labeling in order to avoid Black designation in social status and self-identification. Today, many Puerto Ricans of mixed ancestry (usually called “triguenos” and “morenos”) prefer to classify *89 themselves as White rather than Black on census forms. This response, however, underestimates the long history of miscegenation and African ancestry of much of Puerto Rico’s population. Prejudice and discrimination against people of African descent are the principal reasons for this preference, since African ancestry is associated with slavery and extreme poverty.
Puerto Ricans perceive that having lighter skin and European features increases an individual’s socioeconomic opportunities. Darker complexions and African features severely limit an individual’s economic and social mobility. According to Wendy D. Roth, medium skin tones confer upon people a certain amount of status compared to those further toward the dark end of the color spectrum.
Research suggests that being discriminated against on the basis of color produces feelings of shame and embarrassment. Many Latin American Blacks harbor internalized attitudes about color and phenotype. Skin color, nose width, lip thickness, and hair texture weigh heavily on the self-esteem of Afro-Latinos, since these are considered racial signifiers of denigrated African ancestry. The belief exists among some Latin Americans that color is something that can be controlled by utilizing whitening creams and to “‘improve the race”‘ of their children.
Marrying someone with a lighter complexion is referred to as adelantando la raza (improving the race) under the theory of blanqueamiento. The concept of blanqueamiento refers to ethnic, cultural, and racial “whitening.” It is an ideology and a social practice that places a higher value on White culture while implicitly devaluing non- *90 White cultural norms. Blanqueamiento perpetuates a social hierarchy based on race by linking whiteness to status, wealth, power, modernity, and development, while implicitly associating blackness with a lack of cultural refinement, ambition, and civilization.
Despite the national ideologies of racial democracy, mestizaje, and racial blindness in Latin America, skin tone is a major marker of status and a form of symbolic capital. Light complexions and European features are highly valued; the darker, more African an individual appears, the lower that person is likely to be on the socioeconomic scale.
IV. Colorism in America
In America, skin color is an important signifier of beauty and social status. African-Americans’ preference for light complexions and European features dates back to the antebellum era when skin color determined an enslaved person’s work assignments. Dark-skinned slaves worked in the fields, while light-complexioned slaves worked in the slave owner’s home. James Stirling, a British writer who visited the American South in 1857, observed conditions on Southern plantations and wrote:
In judging of the welfare of the slaves, it is necessary to distinguish the different conditions of slavery. The most important distinction, both as regards numbers and its influence on the wellbeing of the slave, is that between houseservants and farm or fieldhands. The houseservant is comparatively well off. He is frequently born and bred in the family he belongs to; and even when this is not the case, the constant association of the slave and his master, *91 and master’s family, naturally leads to such an attachment as ensures good treatment. There are not wanting instances of devoted attachment on both sides in such cases. . . . The position of the fieldhands is very different; of those, especially, who labour on large plantations. Here there are none of those humanizing influences at work which temper the rigour of the system, nor is there the same check of public opinion to control abuse. The ‘force’ is worked en masse, as a great human mechanism; or, if you will, as a drove of human cattle.
The Hemingses of Monticello provides an example of how slaves with familial ties to their owners lived and worked during the antebellum period. Elizabeth Hemings was the daughter of an African woman and a White sea captain. She had 12 children, half of them by her owner, John Wayles whose legitimate daughter, Martha Wayles Skelton, married President Thomas Jefferson in 1772. After her father’s death, Martha inherited Elizabeth Hemings and her children and brought them to serve at Monticello. The Hemings were treated differently than other slaves at Monticello plantation. None of them worked in the fields. The women were considered a relatively privileged caste compared to others, and worked as house servants performing chores like sewing, mending clothes, looking after children, and baking cakes. The men served as valets, coach drivers, and butlers. Jefferson paid some of the men wages and gratuities, and others were allowed to hire themselves out to other employers of their choice. Sally Hemings, the young daughter of Elizabeth Hemings and John Wayles, was Martha’s half-sister and it was *92 said that the two bore a physical resemblance. Most historians now agree that Sally Hemings became Jefferson’s mistress and bore six of his children.
Lalita Tademy’s novel, Cane River, describes the intimate relationships among slave owners and female slaves that produced racially-mixed offspring. The characters are based on Tademy’s ancestors who she discovered after years of researching her family’s history. It is a narrative about four generations of women born into slavery along the Cane River in Louisiana. One character, Great-grandmother Elisabeth, had a daughter, granddaughter and great-granddaughter who bore the offspring of the French planters. In many cases, the children’s paternity was widely known and acknowledged by their fathers; but, since Louisiana’s laws did not allow slaves to be legally entitled to any property or money, these children were not allowed to inherit anything.
Prior to the Civil War, mixed-race Creoles in Louisiana had a social status that set them above enslaved persons. After the War, they were subjected to the “one-drop” rule, but they maintained family and community ties that distanced them from darker-skinned African-Americans. They were, as a Creole documentary put it, “too white to be black and too black to be white.”
After emancipation, the dark/light division was perpetuated by African-Americans who constructed social classes based on skin color. Blacks created “blue vein societies,” social clubs to which individuals were admitted only if their skin tone was light enough to make their veins visible on the underside of their arms. Color differences continued to *93 play an important role in the Black community. Mixed race individuals attempted to maintain the privileged status they had acquired during slavery. Separate communities were established in which access was based on skin color. Examples include Chatham and East Hyde Park in Chicago, and the Striver’s Row and Sugar Hill neighborhoods of New York.
Charles Waddell Chesnutt’s 1899 short story, The Wife of His Youth, satirized the pretensions of light-skinned African-Americans at the end of the nineteenth century. The protagonist of the story, Mr. Ryder, was the leader of the local “Blue Vein Society” who was dating a fair-skinned female member of the organization. Ryder claimed that he was free born and the product of a respected family, as this was a requirement for Blue Vein membership. He was confronted with a dilemma when a woman appeared in the community. She was an illiterate, dark-complexioned former slave who had spent years looking for her husband. Ryder initially denied knowing the woman. Eventually, his guilty conscious forced him to admit that he had lied about his background. Ryder acknowledged his marriage and reunited with the dark-skinned woman who was “the wife of his youth.”
Researchers have documented the ways in which many Black teachers in segregated schools during the pre-Brown v. Board of Education era were infected with the attitudes that preferred lighter-skinned children over darker-skinned students. Light-skinned students were selected as leads in plays and pageants, called on first in classroom discussions, and visibly favored by teachers. An example of this can be found in a recollection published by J. Saunders Redding, a writer and literary critic who was the first African-American to hold a faculty position at an Ivy League *94 university. Redding was the product of an influential Black family in Wilmington, Delaware. His brother, Louis L. Redding, was the attorney who represented the Delaware students in the consolidated cases remembered as Brown. In No Day of Triumph, Saunders Redding describes his experiences with colorism during his childhood. Wilmington’s Black population grew rapidly during and after the World War I years. A large number of Black families were moving from the rural South to work in factory jobs that were available in rapidly industrializing northern communities. The recent arrivals were poorer, less educated and often darker-complexioned than Wilmington’s Black middle class. To Saunders’ mother and grandmother, the new neighbors were perceived as a threat.
Redding recalled a public speaking contest in which he competed with a dark-skinned student. He was so nervous that he mumbled a few words before bursting into tears. In contrast, the dark-complexioned student’s performance was outstanding. Redding, who was lighter-complexioned and socially connected, was awarded first prize despite his dismal performance. A few years later, when Redding was in high school, the light-skinned, female principal discouraged him from maintaining a romantic relationship because the girl was poor and dark-skinned.
Wallace Thurman’s Harlem Renaissance novel, The Blacker the Berry: A Novel of Negro Life, is a satire in which the theme is colorism in the 1920s New York. The novel’s dark-skinned protagonist, Emma Lou Morgan, internalized biases against dark-complexioned people. She grew up in Boise, Idaho, where she experienced discrimination by the lighter- *95 complexioned African-Americans throughout her childhood. She left Boise to attend to college in Los Angeles. From there, Emma Lou moved to Harlem where she worked as a maid and later as a teacher. Throughout the novel, Emma Lou is plagued by anxieties about her dark complexion. Her obsession with color prevented her from enjoying Harlem’s excitement. In New York, Emma Lou encountered discrimination from Blacks and Whites. At a Harlem party, a character explained intra-racial discrimination, stating, “people have to feel superior to something,” and expounded that light-complexioned African-Americans who look down on darker-skinned African-Americans were perpetuating a hierarchy of discrimination imposed by the White majority. After some romantic disappointments with light-complexioned men, Emma Lou finally accepted her appearance. The book’s title is derived from an old saying: “the blacker the berry, the sweeter the juice.”
In the early decades of the twentieth century, colorism fueled conflicts among African-American leaders, including Marcus Garvey, who was the head of the Universal Negro Improvement Organization. The organization attracted at least a half-million members, and it competed for a time with the NAACP for the position of the premier African-American advocacy group. Many of the NAACP’s members were educated and middle class. Garvey’s group appealed to the masses. Unlike the NAACP, which fought for integration, Garvey proposed *96 migration to Africa as the answer to the “Negro problem.” In 1931, Garvey, who had a very dark complexion and African features, claimed that W.E.B. Du Bois and the NAACP practiced colorism:
It is no wonder that Du Bois seeks the company of white people, because he hates black as being ugly . . . Yet this professor, who sees ugliness in being black, essays to be a leader of the Negro people and has been trying for over fourteen years to deceive them through his connection with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Now what does he mean by advancing colored people if he hates black so much? In what direction must we expect his advancement? We can conclude in no other way than that it is in the direction of losing our black identity and becoming, as nearly as possible, the lowest whites by assimilation and miscegenation.
Du Bois fervently denied Garvey’s claim, but there was some truth to it. Walter White was the head of the NAACP from the mid-1930s until his death in 1955. White’s light skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes did not display a hint of his African ancestry. He took advantage of his appearance to pass for White while conducting undercover investigations of lynchings and other hate crimes in the South. White’s colorism was reflected in the image of African-American women he actively promoted in Crisis, a periodical published by the NAACP. In the 1940s, Crisis was the most important magazine of opinion among African-Americans. The editors used photographs of predominantly light-skinned, college-educated women in an effort to displace entrenched notions of Black women as “Jezebels” or sexual victims. The editors wanted to refashion the image of Black women, but in doing so they promoted colorism. During the World War II years, the light-skinned, African-American actress Lena Horne was featured on two Crisis covers to promote a new *97 image of Black women. As one scholar explained:
The magazine preferred headshots of well-dressed, light-skinned African American women who were college-educated ladies, beauty-contest winners, soldiers’ wives, or celebrated entertainers, over photographs of dark-skinned women engaged in war-production work. Jane Cooke Wright (August 1942), Barbara Gonzales (March 1944), and Katheryn M. Davenport (August 1944) represent the Crisis’s typical war era cover girl. All three women avert their eyes from the photographer; the photograph showcases their upper torsos, shoulders, and faces, highlighting their light skin and carefully coiffed hair.
Alluding to the organization’s perceived elitism, some Blacks joked that the letters “NAACP” actually stood for the National Association for the Advancement of Certain People.
Colorism lives on. Today, African-American entertainers and actors are far more likely to have light coloring than dark complexions. With the exception of an occasional dark-skinned exotic, most Black models can easily pass the “paper bag” test, and many have racially ambiguous coloring and features. African-American news anchors and reporters rarely have dark complexions. Female entertainers, in particular, tend to have light skin and hair that is dyed blonde and made longer with hair extensions. Consider Halle Berry, Rihanna, and Alicia Keys. In her hit song, “Creole,” Beyonce Knowles sings about her Creole heritage and being an attractive combination of “red bone” and “yellow bone” (terms that refer to light-skinned Black women).
Pop singer Fantasia Barrino rose to fame as the 2004 winner on the popular television show, American Idol. She was the object of a barrage *98 of negative publicity surrounding her affair with a married man and the lawsuit his wife filed against her. Barinno attempted suicide and later told reporters that the media criticism was based on her dark skin and ethnic features. She said: “[w]hen I did [American] Idol, it seemed like everybody there was Barbied out. Slim, long hair, light eyes, light-skinned. And here I come with my dark skin, full nose, short hair and full lips-it was hard.” “Barbied out” referred to the appearance represented by the Barbie doll, one of the most successful toys of the twentieth century. Barbies are grown-up looking dolls that allow girls to reflect their personality and dreams in the roles imagined for them. Their appearance is an icon of female beauty and the American dream. The classic thin figure, blonde hair, and blue eyes reflect the Eurocentric ideal, a look that a dark-skinned person with African features could never achieve. Interestingly, when Barbies were introduced at the 1959 Toy Fair, blonde dolls outnumbered brunettes two to one.
V. Importing European Standards of Beauty
The modern definition of race did not appear until the middle of the eighteenth century. During that century, European publications shifted from identifying groups on the basis of their nationality to a preoccupation with race. By the mid-nineteenth century the classification of individuals by race was ubiquitous. However, the current standards for beauty, which reflect and perpetuate colorism, can be traced back into antiquity.
A pale complexion, fine facial features, and light-colored hair became the social construct of feminine beauty during the Classical period *99 of Ancient Greece (ca. 480-323 BC). For example, a female Greek portrait from the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston is described as possessing finely shaped features: large almond-shaped eyes, beautifully arching eyebrows, a full rounded mouth with a plump and bow-shaped upper lip. During this period, Greek artists made a dramatic advance in the execution of their craft. They learned to express the human body in a life-like and naturalistic manner, characterized by a system of proportions. Their statues were detailed, and with anatomically accurate forms. Consider the nude Aphrodite of Cnidos, by the Athenian sculptor Praxiteles, as an example. Expertly crafted presentations of the human anatomy and musculature were depicted in marble, stone, or bronze.
Africans, known as Ethiopians by the ancient Greeks, were present in the Hellenic world and were considered exotic. African images of athletes and entertainers were displayed in pottery and vases by utilizing an attractive black glaze. Noticeably, they were not shown in heroic roles or as aesthetic symbols, since the Classic ideal of beauty was entirely Eurocentric. Angela Harris articulated with conciseness the perceptions of whiteness and Eurocentrism that have informed both art and history: “more white is more European, and more European is more refined; less European is more primitive, and more primitive is more dark.”
The Romans adopted the Greek standard of beauty. The goddess Venus represented love and beauty and was considered the quintessence of feminine beauty and harmony. The famous statue, Venus de Milo, is exhibited in Paris at the Louvre. Her naked torso has an elongated silhouette and a sensual nudity that contrasts with an impassive expression. The nose is a continuation of the forehead forming the *100 classic “Greek profile.” Along with other interpretations of Venus, this image sets the standard by which feminine beauty is measured.
During the Renaissance (ca. 1300-1600), the aesthetics of the Classical period were revived. Botticelli’s Birth of Venus depicts the goddess emerging from the sea as a full-grown woman. Her cascading blonde hair accentuates her slender body and alabaster complexion. In another Botticelli, Venus and Mars, Venus lies opposite her lover Mars, god of war, who has fallen asleep apparently after making love to her. Her alertness, as the goddess of love, represents the triumph of love over war. Although it is believed that Simonetta Vespucci inspired the work of Boticelli, Venus was the expression of the artist’s ideal perception of beauty. During the Renaissance, realistic interpretation was avoided and positive attributes were highlighted. Venus has perfect skin, a high forehead, and a sharply defined chin. Her hair is strawberry blonde, she has delicate eyebrows, a strong nose, narrow mouth, and full lips. This idealized depiction shows the conception of perfect beauty that prevailed during the Italian Renaissance.
Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, Titian’s Venus with a Mirror and Tintoretto’s Leda and the Swan are examples of art that celebrate beauty in the “whiteness” of European women. Other Renaissance expressions of feminine beauty were along the same lines: Caucasian women with pale complexions and fine features.
*101 With the advent of the Atlantic slave trade in the fifteenth century and the colonization of the Americas, Asia, and Africa, black skin became the personification of the undesirable. By the early nineteenth century, theories of scientific racism were developed and widely accepted. Samuel Morton, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, published Crania Americana in 1839. In general, Morton claimed that differences in head shapes could predict a racial group’s intelligence and other personality traits. An appendix written by George Combe expanded upon the relationship between the natural talents and dispositions of nations and the development of their brains. Based on Morton’s findings, Combe highlighted the tendency of the Caucasian race to exhibit moral and intellectual improvement, while referring to the African race situation as one unbroken scene of moral and intellectual desolation, with the exception of some tribes. Combe’s opinion about the Native American race was even more critical: the author could not justify the miserable and savage conditions of these individuals, despite the long-term exposure of natives to European knowledge, enterprise, and energy.
Morton’s theory of Polygenesis hypothesized that racial groups did not share a common origin. This provided a “scientific” basis for viewing African-descended people as a different and inferior species, thus requiring interbreeding to improve the race. A lexicon emerged that equated “blackness” with negative traits. “Black,” “dark,” and “sinister” are considered adjectives stemming from the word “evil.” Common examples include “black hearts,” “black deeds,” and “black magic,” as well as referring to Satan as the “Prince of Darkness.”
*102 Whites expressed what it meant to be Black by portraying negative stereotypes of Blacks in entertainment and popular culture throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In the late nineteenth century, White performers darkened their faces with burnt cork, painted exaggerated White mouths, donned woolly wigs, and performed minstrel shows. The common themes in these performances were jokes highlighting laziness, ignorance, and other negative traits using crude versions of the Black dialect. Characters such as Jim Crow, a na ve and clumsy slave, exemplify this stereotype. With the advent of motion pictures in the early twentieth century, negative depictions of African-Americans moved to the screen. Furthermore, the negative connotation against Blacks became available to children through cartoons. For instance, the 1941 animation, Scrub Me Mamma with a Boogie Beat, depicts the life of a Black river community called Lazytown. With the exception of some Mammies, all men and animals appear sleeping or slacking during the day. The crude scenes of laziness and abandonment are suddenly changed when a modern riverboat arrives and the beautiful White ladies from the crew bring their energy and good manners to the town. This cartoon highlights the cultural preferences of Whites and displays many of the negative stereotypes of Blacks described so far.
In Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, and Bucks, Donald Bogle identified other stereotypes depicted in popular films. Toms were always loyal, never turning against their White masters or employers. Coons, in contrast, were irresponsible, lazy, and dishonest. The Mammy was depicted as outspoken, overweight, and cantankerous. The Black Buck was a large, fearsome, dark-skinned, and hyper-sexualized male. The *103 Tragic Mulatto was a fair-skinned female attempting to pass for White. She was a sympathetic character confused by a divided racial heritage. More recently, the “Jezebel” was depicted as seductive, promiscuous, and predatory. Racial stereotypes were a staple of films, cartoons, comic books, and novels well into the 1960s.
In the 1960s, the Civil Rights movement altered the legal status of African-Americans. The official regime of state-sponsored discrimination was eliminated by Civil Rights legislation. For a brief period during the Black Power era, Blacks embraced their African heritage. A rejection of Eurocentric standards of beauty and the establishment of the politics of representation were encouraged. Women were urged to abandon hair strengtheners and skin-lightening creams. The “Afro” hairstyle became fashionable, and African-inspired clothing communicated the wearer’s racial consciousness. The prevailing sentiment was captured in James Brown’s popular song, “Say it Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud.”
The Black Arts movement introduced a “Black Aesthetic” to art, music, and literature. A revolution took place, which allowed Black artists to look at their social order from their own perspective. The 1960s were a time of protests, demonstrations, and urban riots; a *104 turning point in the way African-Americans perceived themselves. However, their hopes for a permanent transformation were too optimistic. By the late 1970s, the Black Power Movement declined. Opposition to Eurocentric standards survives today in the Black Studies Departments at Universities and in some “Afrocentric” organizations and charter schools, but it has largely disappeared from popular culture.
The commercialization of negative stereotypes has re-emerged and the entertainment industry is exploiting them for profit. Rap music is a multi-billion dollar industry. In the 1990s, “gangster rap” glamorized a ghetto subculture. This was reflected in behavior and attitudes that rejected mainstream values and glamorized dangerous and self-destructive behavior. Conspicuous consumption, ostentatious displays of jewelry, fast cars, and scantily clad women are the images that still predominate in music videos and magazines. Complexion Obsession: A Hip Hop Documentary is a two-part documentary created by Joy Daily. Using filmed interviews of several entertainers, the documentary shows how deeply colorism is embedded in the ethos of hip hop.
In a contemporary representation, the “Jezebel” character is the video vixen, a prominent character in gangster rap songs. Lil’ Kim and Nicki Minaj are current manifestations of this stereotype: they employ exaggerated expressions of femininity and sexuality in their performances; they present images that commodify Black female sexuality; and they are bound by an old stereotype in which Black women are predisposed to *105 sexual deviance and lewdness.
Rap’s product is an extravagant image of life in inner-city neighborhoods. Tough ghetto youths are shown driving luxury cars and wearing oversized shirts and baggy pants while displaying a menacing visage. The “thug” image that many rappers project is merely an updated version of the “Buck” character: a large, threatening, and hyper-sexualized Black male. The old expression “I don’t want nothing black but a Cadillac” conveyed African-American males’ preference for light-skinned women. This attitude persists in hip-hop culture. According to Patricia Hill Collins, the values of individualism, personal expression, and material well-being have prevailed in the hip-hop culture, while issues of racial failure have been overlooked.
VI. Internalized Stereotypes
In the 1970 novel The Bluest Eye, the celebrated author, Toni Morrison, deconstructed Eurocentric standards of beauty. Morrison’s novel conveyed the psychic damage that some Black women suffer as a result of the construction of beauty and desirability in a racially coded society. The story portrays the tragic lives of an impoverished Black family in 1940s America. The eleven-year-old protagonist, Pecola Breedlove, believes she is ugly because her conception of beauty is based on the Eurocentric standard. The title, The Bluest Eye, is derived from Pecola’s intense desire for blue eyes for which she prays every night. Pecola’s obsession and traumatic experiences eventually drive her insane. Pecola’s predicament was caused by internalized attitudes about what was considered attractive and desirable in her immediate reality.
*106 Since 1939, Kenneth and Mamie Clark developed research about self-identification in young children. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, they conducted a series of studies that became known as the “doll tests.” Their studies found differences among children attending segregated schools in Washington D.C. compared to those in integrated schools in New York City. They found that Black children often preferred to play with White dolls over Black ones. When asked to fill in a human figure with the color of their own skin, they frequently chose a lighter shade than was accurate. The children gave the color “White” attributes such as good and pretty, but “Black” was seen bad and ugly. The test was used to show the harm that segregation inflicted on young children, contributing to a sense of inferiority and self-hatred. The Clarks testified as expert witnesses in several of the NAACP’s school desegregation cases and their studies were relied on by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education.
Over the last two decades, a substantial body of empirical and theoretical work in cognitive psychology has confirmed that the causes of discriminatory actions often operate at an unconscious level without the individual’s awareness of the source. Discrimination is an interaction of social cognitions about race and behavioral outlets that bring congruence to a person’s racial preferences and social settings. Many of these beliefs are formed during the early childhood years, and they serve as a basis for judgments about events, groups, and ideas during their adult years. Socialized beliefs can provoke negative sentiments when individuals make judgments about issues that activate stereotypes.
*107 Overt racism has diminished considerably in the years since the Civil Rights laws were enacted, but unconscious stereotypes about color persist, and they are triggered by the ways in which the brain processes information. “Categorization” allows the brain to quickly process large amounts of information. It operates at a level independent of conscious attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions. Categorization is an essential cognitive activity enabling individuals to reduce the enormous diversity in the world to a manageable level. Categorization is the process of understanding something based on an individual’s knowledge of that which is similar and that which is different. It allows individuals to relate new experiences to old experiences; the unfamiliar becomes familiar. Each object and event in the world is perceived, remembered, and utilized for predicting the future, inferring the existence of unobservable traits or properties, and attributing the causation of events. The process is spontaneous and measured in milliseconds.
According to Frances Aboud, who conducted research on prejudice in young children, categorization develops at an early age. In one of her studies with young children aged 3 to 5, volunteers were given a half-dozen positive adjectives such as “good,” “kind,” and “clean” and an equal number of negative adjectives such as “mean,” “cruel” and “bad.” They asked children to match each adjective to one of the two drawings. One drawing depicted a White person; the other showed a Black person. The *108 results showed that 70% of the children assigned nearly every positive adjective to the White faces and nearly every negative adjective to the Black faces. A subsequent study, also conducted by Aboud, demonstrated that these attitudes were not taught by the children’s parents or teachers. Commenting on Aboud’s research, Shankar Vedantam explained that children’s racial attitudes are the products of unspoken messages emanating from the environments in which they reside. Young children experience a world in which most people who live in nice houses are White. Most people on television are White, especially the people who are shown in positions of authority, dignity, and power. Most of the storybook characters they see are White, and it is the White children who perform heroic, clever, and generous things. Young children conclude that there must be an unspoken rule in society that forces Whites to marry Whites because everywhere they look White husbands are be married to White wives. Young children who are trying rapidly to orient themselves in their environments receive messages about race and color, not once or twice, but thousands of times. Everywhere a child looks, whether it is on television, in movies, in books, or online, their inferences are confirmed. As they grow older, these messages remain in their unconscious psyches and can be triggered by the categorization process.
Unconscious stereotyping is associated with the categorization process. According to Quadflieg and Macrae, upon the perception of a target, social categorization is expected to occur, which in turn activates stereotypical knowledge that is then used to evaluate, judge, or predict a person’s personality or behavior. Attitudes about African-Americans are internalized at an early age and retained into adulthood. This may explain why dark-skinned Black defendants get longer prison sentences than their lighter-complexioned counterparts and why most Americans prefer lighter to darker skin tones.
*109 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws protect against discrimination based on color, but courts have been less receptive to claims alleging intra-racial discrimination. Legal scholars have argued that courts should be more receptive to cases alleging discrimination based on color. These are accurate conclusions and important recommendations, but the color problem is much larger. Successful employment claims will not stop individuals from straightening their hair, donning blonde wigs, or wearing blue contact lenses. Laws will not diminish the worldwide, multi-million dollar market for skin-lightening creams. Court cases will not end the preference for light-complexioned models and entertainers. Regulations will not change the images we see in television, movies, magazines, online, and elsewhere that reinforce colorism every day.
In the classic jazz song What Did I Do To Be So Black and Blue, composed by Fats Waller in 1929 and interpreted by Louis Armstrong, a lonely, dark-skinned woman laments her inability to attract male attention:
Cold empty bed . . . springs hurt my head
Feels like ole ned . . . wished I was dead
What did I do . . . to be so black and blue
Even the mouse . . . ran from my house
They laugh at you . . . and all that you do
What did I do . . . to be so black and blue
I’m white . . . inside . . . but, that don’t help my case
That’s life . . . can’t hide . . . what is in my face
How would it end . . . ain’t got a friend
My only sin . . . is in my skin
What did I do . . . to be so black and blue.
*110 Colorism is a vestige of the colonial era when European countries invaded Africa, Asia, and the Americas and imposed their standards on the indigenous populations along with the Africans they imported and enslaved. Perhaps unconsciously, Michael Jackson and Sammy Sosa wanted to make themselves more physically attractive, which to them meant having a light complexion, European features, and straightened hair.
Colorism is well documented in academic research but largely ignored by policymakers. It is as alive today as it was a century ago. Dark-skinned African-Americans and other minorities do not have the same opportunities for advancement as those with light complexions. This form of discrimination is as injurious as invidious racism. Colorism is a combination of overt and unconscious discrimination that places a high value on light complexions and European features while devaluing dark skin and African phenotypes. As America becomes a more multi-racial society, old-fashioned racism is declining, but colorism and unconscious bias persist. If this trend does not change, it will mean that the darkest-complexioned, most African-looking people will continue to receive the worst treatment.