• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

The Strength of African-American Women and American Racism

August 25, 2011, 9:30 pm

A couple days ago I went to see the film The Help with a good friend. My friend is African-American and is originally from the South. Prior to seeing the movie, I read a lot of commentary written by historians, critics, and friends of all racial backgrounds on the film. Some people loved the film, regardless of their race, while others were disgusted by its portrayal of a white heroine telling the story of black women, and still others refused to see the film.

As someone who studies the history of race in the United States, I thought it would be interesting to see how Hollywood portrayed racism in Mississippi in the 1960s. I asked an African-American friend, who had mentioned wanting to see the movie, to go with me so that we could talk about it afterward.

We both enjoyed the film in spite of how difficult it was to watch at times. Although it wasn’t entirely historically accurate, many of the themes in the movie were important and could be used to foster interesting discussions among people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds. Despite the end of “legalized” segregation in 1964, we continue to have great difficulty discussing race in America.  And, regardless of one’s views of this movie, it offers a lot about which to talk.

The characters we enjoyed most in The Help were the African-American women (Aibileen and Minnie). We considered them the main characters, rather than the young white woman played by Emma Stone. Unlike many of the film’s critics who took issue with the white female “savior” character (Skeeter), we thought the black women, in many ways, saved Skeeter. Aiblieen (Viola Davis) and Minnie (Octavia Spencer) demonstrated immense strength, restraint in the face of great oppression, and generous warmth. In doing this, they taught the young white journalist Skeeter much about herself and life. If there were any “saviors” in the film, to us, they were the African-American women who endured immense racism on very personal levels daily, yet still cared deeply about the children of the families they served. Imagine the compassion one must have to love children who you know will one day grow up to mistreat you (in all but a few cases).

One of the other themes that we gleaned from the film was the sense of giving among the black women. These women cared enough about future generations to sacrifice themselves and put their lives at risk. As a scholar who often writes and teaches about philanthropy, especially African-American philanthropy, I thought the black women in the film exemplified the rich history of self-help and communal uplift that has existed among African-Americans since the 1600s.

While we watched, we were reminded of the varying roles and opportunities available to white and black women throughout history. Each year, I teach a graduate course on the History of American Higher Education. In it, I have several discussions focused on women of various racial and ethnic backgrounds and their college experiences. When we get to the section on white and black women during the 1940s, 50s and 60s, students begin to realize that middle-class white women had choices (although they still faced discrimination) that black women never had. First and foremost, white women had the choice of whether or not to work outside the home. Oftentimes, my white female graduate students come into the class thinking their mother’s and grandmother’s lives mirror those of my black students’ mothers and grandmothers. They quickly find out that this is not the case.

Some of the commentaries written about this movie talk about it being a “feel-good” movie for white people. I disagree. Nothing feels good about watching racism, Jim Crow, and oppression, and I worry about anyone who leaves the movie feeling good. Most people I saw leaving the theater were somber and a bit ashamed of our country’s history. Even though the film has somewhat of a “Hollywood ending” for a couple characters (namely, Skeeter), the viewer is left knowing through the character of Aibileen (who is fired from her maid job) that these brave black women are going back to the grind of serving white people. Nothing has changed for them; however, much has been retained in terms of their self-worth and integrity.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • newpseudo

    I thought the movie was outstanding.

  • 2faraway

    I echo your points of view.  I read The Help thru audio…it was amazing.  It was like the narrators were puttting on a play just for me.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cherie.k.miller Cherie K. Miller

    I thought there were many themes in the book that carried over into the movie. Besides the lives of the black maids (and their men – which weren’t even covered in the movie), there was the “white cracker” woman, Cecilia and Skeeter’s lack of social standing because she had a “job” – but was given “women’s work” at the newspaper and everyone was just waiting for her to settle in and get herself a man. A lot of women’s lives were constricted by the social structure in that Mississippi town. But, innovations, such as television, radio, and newspaper brought the “good news” of work being done by activists all over this country to change it for the better. This movie made you really think about how ALL people are treated. The measure of a society is how we treat our weakest members.

  • misscreant

    “Despite the end of “legalized” segregation in 1964, we continue to have great difficulty discussing race in America.  And, regardless of one’s views of this movie, it offers a lot about which to talk.”

    Seriously?! We never talk about anything else!!

  • jadee

    Yeah, and yet the more we talk about it, the more nothing changes!  Racial issues and racism still abound– I wonder why!

  • misscreant

    @jadee…you really think nothing has changed since 1965? My suspicion is that you are what the old folks used to call, “young, green, and ignernt”…

    And the definition of ‘racism’ has changed a bit, as well.

  • jadee

    Misscreant, I may be young, but not so “green” and certainly not “ignemt.”  I will just pass on to you a response I saw on CHE a few months back: “It is easy not to ‘see’ racism when it is not negatively affecting your life.” 

  • lizziec

    I’ve come to see academia as a petty, irrational world full of miscreants who hold on to their power bases at any cost, with the only consideration being that of protecting their turf. Students? Colleagues? Growing the department? Expanding the skill set in the faculty? Not if there is one small chance that this would impact them in a negative manner. 

    Think about it: what kind of a threat to an entrenched, and “comfortable” tenured faculty member does “someone in their mid-20s with little to no teaching experience (or life experience, for that matter) and a publication or two” present as compared to someone like yourself who not only has the teaching, mentoring and graduate research experience, but actually knows what is going on outside of academia?  

    I’ve seen that ugly green facade.  I’m afraid that in many cases, you’re in a no-win situation until/unless you find someone who is evolved to the point of self-actualization and is strong enough in their own rite, and comfortable enough in their own skin to say “there’s room for many perspectives here, and I may even learn something from you!  Welcome to the department.”  Too often this crowd prefers “the way it’s always been done”.

    I left academia about a year ago (still adjuncting – left a FT position at an R-1) and one of the reasons was the chair, who told us in a faculty meeting, with a straight face, that the curriculum they had been teaching since 1982 has been “working” for students, and she saw no need to change anything.  When I tell you this was a technology department – you might be disgusted (as were the faculty members who were trying to get some classes brought into the 21st century).  At the end of the day, the TRUTH was that this chair had no flippin’ idea about ANYTHING that had emerged since 1982, and was an expert in all things 1982,… so she fought growth and progress, and threatened / punished anyone who tried to bring in anything new because she was afraid of looking irrelevant (sorry to tell her, the students already know this…)

    If you’re looking for magnanimity, pass the ivory tower by, as it seems to be most rare in the hallowed halls of the academy, sad to say.

  • adjunctcarol

    So I had to watch MoneyBall to get a handle on this column. Poor MoneyAcademia. Not like wages are super high, but show respect for the talent you have or could develop. From a local newspaper: Friday, Feb. 03, 2012
    KATHERINE LONG – THE SEATTLE TIMES; http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/02/02/2377548/wwu-president-budget-cuts-hurt.html Cutbacks to higher education are causing a brain drain at Washington public universities, and the state is gaining a national reputation for the severity of its cutbacks, the presidents of Washington’s six four-year higher-education institutions said Wednesday . “Washington is now known as a place to go headhunting” for out-of-state universities hiring new faculty, said Bruce Shepard, president of Western Washington University (WWU). “This is a real threat, long term, to sustaining the excellence of our universities.”