Thick Love: Heroic Maternity Gone Too Far

"Love is or it ain't. Thin love ain't love at all." Sethe loves hard, especially her children. Her escape (so her husband and kids could have a better life), her devotion to Beloved's grave, her strong attachment to Denver despite their distance: all of those parts of her prove how far she is willing to go for the people she loves. When she (spoiler alert) tries to kill her children in a desperate bid to keep them from wrathful slavery under Schoolteacher, is she right?

We've actually seen her have the exact same reaction before when a loved one is in peril: when the dog is injured, she knocks it out with a hammer with no hesitation. (Jeez, Sethe, at least use a book or something!) Her protective, maternal reaction is instinct stronger than logic. Think of mother dogs who are ordinarily passive but will bite off your hand if you touch one of her puppies, or a ferocious "mama bear," defending her young above all else. She doesn't flinch, doesn't think, but finds the fastest way to resolve the conflict. (Paul D specifically calls her out on the animalistic nature of her protective tendencies when he reminds her she has "two legs, not four.")

Sethe is, as the kids say, peak "mama bear." She has "a big love that would split you wide open in Alfred, Georgia," as Paul D says. She lives for her children and would die for her children's safety. The big question is weighing how much she wants them to live versus how much she wants them to live free lives. When Schoolteacher's arrival short-circuits her rememory, she goes into hyper-protective mode and loses any secondary mental processes that might have stopped her to let her think. Baby Suggs insists that "there had to be another way," but Sethe holds her conviction that what she did was right. And with all she's been through, you almost believe her.

Clowning vs. Minstrelsy

We talked in-depth in class about the weirdly minstrel-ish overtones of Hurston’s descriptions of the Eatonville townspeople. The basic gist was this: Are the comedic side characters of the town written as “spontaneously funny comedians and gifted linguistic artists” or “dopey, stereotyped, clownish minstrels in blackface”? The underlying question of “what is blackface minstrelsy and what is just non-racially-derived comedy?” lies in audience, performer, and respect. Here are some examples of what I (a somewhat underinformed white person) think is minstrelsy and what’s not.

In part, blackface originated in the North as a way for northern whites to get in on southern black culture (hence the “Jim Crow” dance, plantation dances, and many like it). That idea isn’t a bad one: Zora Neale Hurston did something similar when she performed traditional dances for Northern audiences. So here there is a black person performing with respect and accuracy for a white audience. That works, and I don’t think it counts as that really awful blackface minstrelsy. It’s more of a respectful performance. (This could be debated: it’s still for a white audience, which changes dynamics.) 

But compare Thomas Rice (aka “Jim Crow”) and his dance. We’ll hypothetically call the dance respectful, giving him a lot of credit if we assume he was trying to replicate the dance with respect and accuracy. That is what blackface started as, to an extent. But this is still problematic, because we have this white person performing dances with “respect and accuracy” for a white audience, who ends up appropriating black culture without the drawbacks of actually being black. After he takes off the blackface, he is privileged as any white person, which makes this minstrelsy, playing on race for humor.

 Then there’s the frequent example of white or black people putting on burnt cork, “blacking out” their faces and playing on racialized stereotypes of black stupidity for laughs. This makes for a black or white person performing without respect or accuracy, for a white audience. That’s definitely racially motivated, and thus minstrelsy.

The final option is to have these options all performed for a black audience. That changes the dynamics somewhat, probably because the performer has a chance to get beaten up for being in blackface. It’s like overweight people making fat jokes—you’re allowed to laugh when they make jokes about themselves, but not when someone else makes jokes about it (regardless of whether the joke-maker is also overweight. It’s a personal thing.) In the same way, are black people allowed to laugh at racist jokes made about them, by them, for them? I don’t have an answer.

In terms of Their Eyes Were Watching God: The author is black, the characters are black, and it’s anthropologically, respectfully correct. The question becomes, “Who is the audience?” Are the clownish side characters making jokes for the benefit of the other people in the town, not caring about what an imagined white audience would think? Or is Hurston (as Wright accused her of) as an author playing to the sympathies and desires of her majority-white audience? This is the line between minstrelsy and non-racially-based humor, and Hurston, like with many other lines, walks the divide. What do you think about the audience of Their Eyes?