INTERPRETATION OF BLACK FEMINISM IN TWO ARTICLES
Student’s Name
Class
Date
Interpretation of Black Feminism in Two Articles
Introduction
How have Black feminist ethnographers grappled with this question of freedom from systemic oppression?
Black feminist ethnographers have grappled with the question of freedom from systemic oppression in several ways, all of which point to the assertion that freeing Black women would mean freeing everyone from all systems of oppression. This notion is premised on the multiple dimensions of oppression that Black women encounter, which can be recognized across every segment of American society. To equate the freedom of Black women to the freedom of all that are oppressed by the systems in the American society is to recognize the different types of oppression that black women share with several other segments of the American society. This means that the Black women’s struggles against oppression, if successful, would liberate a section of the American society that would not be identified as Black feminists. It also means that Black women struggle, not for themselves alone, but for other sections of the American society experiencing similar oppressions. In this regard, the ethnographies of various black feminists demonstrate the multiplicity of the struggles against systemic oppression that black feminists have encountered, which they have shared with distinct segments of the American society.[1] In addition, systemic oppression is embodied in capitalism, imperialism, and patriarchy, which existed during the debut of the black feminist movement and persist in American society today.[2]
In interpreting how Black feminist ethnographers contend with freedom from systemic oppression, one should identify and understand the different systemic oppressions encountered by black women, especially Black feminists. It requires the recognition of the different identities that black feminists assume during their struggles with oppression.[3] Precisely, the oppression experienced by black feminists has multiple dimensions. Oppression comes in the form of racial discrimination, sexism, and economic disempowerment.[4] These diverse forms of oppression constituted the systemic oppression faced by different segments of American society. First, Black feminists are racially oppressed because of their color. They share this oppression with black men and people of color. Generally, the American system is structured to privilege Americans of European descent over African Americans and people of color. Although racial segregation and discrimination were abolished in the United States and all races have their rights secured by the American constitution, institutional racism prevails. For instance, Black feminists have decried how African American women and men have been racially marginalized in many spheres of the American societal structure since the defunct slavery era. Secondly, black feminists are oppressed because of their gender. They share this oppression with other women in American society. The American society is patriarchal, and men domination is visible in all the country’s critical institutions, including political, economic, and social institutions. Thirdly, black feminists are oppressed economically, a situation shared by other Americans in the lower class. The United States has a capitalist economic structure. This structure divides American society into classes based on earnings in monetary terms and material wealth. Black feminists have decried the economic disempowerment they have experienced, which is characterized by tokenism. Black feminists have struggled against the few economic opportunities available despite their competence in diverse disciplines. That struggle persists to date.
Therefore, Black feminist ethnographers have endeavored to demonstrate how Black feminists grappled with the different forms of oppression by narrating the feminists’ lived experiences in the freedom struggles that persist today. By demonstrating that Black feminists had multiple identities, which they assumed in various occasions and circumstances when addressing the different oppressions in their lives, the ethnographers have succeeded in concurring with the Combahee River Collective Black feminist statement. As such, if the Black feminists had been liberated from racism, sexism, and poverty, they would have succeeded in dismantling capitalism, imperialism, and paternalism, which anchor the systemic oppression in American society.
How do the differences between skin folk and kin folk complicate notions of blackness and ‘native anthropology’?
Native anthropologists and advocates of blackness grapple with differences that skin folk and kinfolk present when performing their scholarly research. The scholars in African American ethnography have to assume dual identities to ensure that they obtain authentic and credible findings from their studies. On the one hand, they assume an identity that relates them to their scholarly fellowship, whose work is guided by structured principles of anthropology and ethnography as scholarly disciplines. On the other hand, they have to identify with the communities in which their study informants belong to obtain in-depth nuances from their immersive interactions and experiences.[5] Altogether, native anthropological and ethnological studies, particularly those studying African Americans and blackness require that the researchers navigate the contradicting identities they have to assume to remain faithful to their two constituencies; the academic and African American communities. Contextualizing the complexities of the notions of blackness and native anthropology presented by skin folk and kinfolk requires an understanding of the two types of “folk”.
The term ‘skin folk’ refers to people with common skin color. In this case, it demotes people with black skin, and particularly Americans of African descent. However, these people may be very different in several aspects, particularly related to their ancestral origin and perception of blackness. Contrastingly, the term ‘kinfolk’ refers to people with a common ancestry or family. This meaning can be extended to people in the same profession or discipline, such as anthropologists, generally. In their usage in anthropology, people of the same skin-folk may or may not be kin folk because of differences in identities. This means that the members of a skin folk may have identities that distinguish each other and highlight their individuality.
Although Zora Neale Hurston coined the adage “not all skin folk are kinfolk”, which was reinforced by the findings of studies by Signithia Fordham, Carla Slocum, Chelsea Carter, and Faye V. Harrison, the differences of these term in explaining blackness and in conducting native anthropology are complex because they blur the boundary between African Americans of diverse heritage and those studying them. Native anthropologists studying African American women are most challenged by this dilemma because of their multiple identities. For instance, Fordham describes the challenges experienced by African American women pursuing academic achievement and excellence, including those conducting native anthropology.[6] Although academically successful African American display skin folk affiliations with other African American colleagues, this relationship is dented and questioned when the achieve academic excellence, which distinguishes them from other Black women. Besides, the quietness they display during their academy journey is motivated by the pursuit of kinship with other high-achievers, regardless of their skin color or race. Unfortunately, that quietness robs then the individuality needed to make them unique members of the skin folk. This nurturing is extended in scholarly circles when African American native anthropologists need to be immersed into the African American women’s lives and experiences while staying true to the scholarly principles and practices. While belonging to the Black skin folk may earn them acceptance from the informants, the inability to relate culturally with the study participants may rob them their membership of the kinfolk. In this regard, the researcher must navigate this complex situation to continue with the anthropological study successfully and produce authentic findings.
Bibliography
Combahee River Collective. “History is a Weapon: The Combahee River Collective Statement.” 10 (1977): 1. https://historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/combrivercoll.html.
Fordham, Signithia. ““Those loud Black girls”:(Black) women, silence, and gender “passing” in the academy.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 24, no. 1 (1993): 3-32.
Jacobs‐Huey, Lanita. “The natives are gazing and talking back: Reviewing the problematics of positionality, voice, and accountability among” native” anthropologists.” American Anthropologist 104, no. 3 (2002): 791-804.
Taylor, Keeanga-Yamahtta. “Until black women are free, none of us will be free.” The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/until-black-women-are-free-none-of-us-will-be-free.
[1] Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor. “Until black women are free, none of us will be free.” The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/until-black-women-are-free-none-of-us-will-be-free.
[2] Combahee River Collective. “History is a Weapon: The Combahee River Collective Statement.” 10 (1977): 1. https://historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/combrivercoll.html.
[3] Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor. “Until black women are free, none of us will be free.” The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/until-black-women-are-free-none-of-us-will-be-free.
[4] Combahee River Collective. “History is a Weapon: The Combahee River Collective Statement.” 10 (1977): 1. https://historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/combrivercoll.html.
[5] Lanita Jacobs‐Huey. “The natives are gazing and talking back: Reviewing the problematics of positionality, voice, and accountability among” native” anthropologists.” American Anthropologist 104, no. 3 (2002): 791-804.
[6] Signithia Fordham. ““Those loud Black girls”:(Black) women, silence, and gender “passing” in the academy.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 24, no. 1 (1993): 3-32.