Mixed Race Studies

Robert Stafford of Cumberland Island: Growth of a Planter

University of Georgia Press
1995
376 pages
Illustrated
Trim size: 6 x 9
Paperback ISBN: 978-0-8203-1738-0

Mary R. Bullard

Society, politics, agriculture, and mixed-race unions in a coastal Georgia planter community

Robert Stafford of Cumberland Island offers a rare glimpse into the life and times of a nineteenth-century planter on one of Georgia’s Sea Islands. Born poor, Robert Stafford (1790-1877) became the leading planter on his native Cumberland Island. Specializing in the highly valued long staple variety of cotton, he claimed among his assets more than 8,000 acres and 350 slaves.

Mary R. Bullard recounts Stafford’s life in the context of how events from the Federalist period to the Civil War to Reconstruction affected Sea Island planters. As she discusses Stafford’s associations with other planters, his business dealings (which included banking and railroad investments), and the day-to-day operation of his plantation, Bullard also imparts a wealth of information about cotton farming methods, plantation life and material culture, and the geography and natural history of Cumberland Island.

Stafford’s career was fairly typical for his time and place; his personal life was not. He never married, but fathered six children by Elizabeth Bernardey, a mulatto slave nurse. Bullard’s discussion of Stafford’s decision to move his family to Groton, Connecticut—and freedom—before the Civil War illuminates the complex interplay between southern notions of personal honor, the staunch independent-mindedness of Sea Island planters, and the practice and theory of racial separation.

In her afterword to the Brown Thrasher edition, Bullard presents recently uncovered information about a second extralegal family of Robert Stafford as well as additional information about Elizabeth Bernardey’s children and the trust funds Stafford provided for them.

…One wonders whether any of the interwar eugenists, anthropologists, or biologists, Cedric Dover excepted, could have foreseen that in the twenty-first century to be both ‘English’ and ‘mixed race’ is not a contradiction in terms. And ‘passing’ has nothing to do with it.

Lucy Bland, “British Eugenics and ‘Race Crossing’: a Study of an Interwar Investigation,” New Formations, (Number 60, 2007): 66-78.

…Fleming’s use of the term ‘passing’ is also worthy of comment. Not only does it have the connotation of deceit and disguise, but it also implies that the offspring of mixed heritage could never be truly English, despite their birth in England and their English mothers. To cross racial boundaries (‘race crossing’) had two meanings: crossing the ‘colour line’ in terms of sexual relationships, and crossing races in the sense of being of mixed race. The white women who crossed the colour line and gave birth to mixed race children were not aliens as such, but liminally placed by virtue of their ‘unBritish’, ‘unpatriotic’ behaviour. Where the mothers were Irish, as some were (as Hodson noted) the mixed race children were even less likely to have been permitted the mantle of Englishness, for the Irish were not only ‘not English’, but frequently seen as ‘not white’ either. There was (and is) a hierarchy of whiteness, in which some people were/are white only some of the time, such as Irish, Latinos, and Jews. Fleming’s assumption that mixed race children were not, and implicitly could not, be English, sounds not dissimilar from the ‘one drop of black blood’ rule that was operating at this time in US Deep South. This ‘rule’ proclaimed that even a single black person in ones ancestry deemed one black. The system was a means of policing entry to the privileged category ‘white’. In the context of Britain in the interwar, the Eugenics Society was concerned with classifying and codifying those of mixed race in an attempt to reduce the threat to racial and national boundaries represented by their presence…

Lucy Bland. “British Eugenics and ‘Race Crossing’: a Study of an Interwar Investigation”, New Formations. 2007,  Number 60, pages 66-78.

Mixed-race women’s experiences cannot be separated from the history of race and gender politics and contemporary racial debates. The history of hybridity is one in which bodies of mixed-race people have been observed, theorized about, and used as evidence in racial power debates, but their individual experiences are often disregarded. Women of mixed heritage, mixed white and “of color,” are caught in these politically charged, race-based controversies. Given general heteronormative assumptions, as women, and thus as people who can potentially bear offspring and who are expected to assume primary responsibility for raising children in a patriarchal culture, mixed-race women occupy a particularly charged social position. No matter what path a mixed-race woman chooses, she can be perceived as a traitor to both whites and people of color—a traitor to either side of her family, a traitor to equity, a traitor to cultural preservation, and a traitor to cultural purity.

Silvia Cristina Bettez. “Mixed-Race Women and Epistemologies of Belonging,” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. 2010, Volume 31, Number 1, pages 142-165.

Obama and Race in America

The Huffington Post
2010-08-06

Marcia Alesan Dawkins, Visiting Scholar
Brown University

In his first major comment on race and race relations in our nation since his “A More Perfect Union Speech” on March 18, 2008, President Barack Obama called for frank discussion about race last week. In both a speech to the National Urban League and on the ABC daytime talk show “The View,” the president talked about race relations in the context of the political controversy over last month’s firing of long-time Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod.

Obama agreed with those who have been calling for some sort of national conversation on race beyond CNN’s “Black in America” and “Latino in America.” He invited us to “look inward” and find the space to have “mature” dialogues about “the divides that still exist.” For Obama, these honest conversations should be based on our personal experiences and occur “around kitchen tables and water coolers and church basements.” However, many are left wondering whether Obama’s remarks represent a racial dialogue initiative or a post-racial accomplishment.

Here’s a question we might consider: Does Obama want us to talk about race while he effectively sidesteps the conversation himself?…

…Some might argue that statements like this one are clever attempts to use multiracial identity to sanitize the country’s history of chattel slavery and racist discrimination. After all, Obama made no mention of how black and white people got “all kinds of mixed up” in the first place. It follows that if we hear Obama from this perspective, then we may be hearing a call to transcend race without getting beyond racial inequalities. On the other hand, there are those who assert that Obama makes use of his multiracial identity to do precisely the opposite: to acknowledge racial division as well as its problems and awkwardness…

Read the entire article here.

Race-specific norms for coding face identity and a functional role for norms

Journal of Vision
Volume 10, Number 7, Article 706 (2010-08-02)
doi: 10.1167/10.7.706

Regine Armann
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tuebingen, Germany

Linda Jeffery
School of Psychology, The University of Western Australia, Australia

Andrew J. Calder
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, UK

Isabelle Bülthoff
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tuebingen, Germany

Gillian Rhodes
School of Psychology, The University of Western Australia, Australia

High-level perceptual aftereffects have revealed that faces are coded relative to norms that are dynamically updated by experience. The nature of these norms and the advantage of such a norm-based representation, however, are not yet fully understood. Here, we used adaptation techniques to get insight into the perception of faces of different race categories. We measured identity aftereffects for adapt-test pairs that were opposite a race-specific average and pairs that were opposite a ‘generic’ average, made by morphing together Asian and Caucasian faces. Aftereffects were larger following exposure to anti-faces that were created relative to the race-specific (Asian and Caucasian) averages than to anti-faces created using the mixed-race average. Since adapt-test pairs that lie opposite to each other in face space generate larger identity aftereffects than non-opposite test pairs, these results suggest that Asian and Caucasian faces are coded using race-specific norms. We also found that identification thresholds were lower when targets were distributed around the race-specific norms than around the mixed-race norm, which is also consistent with a functional role for race-specific norms.