Cheryl
Harris states over and over again in her paper that whiteness is a property
that bring white people many kinds of advantages. The skin color of white
people has evolved from a sign of freedom, to a value and a right, to an
advantageous position of power, selection, and resources allocation, and ultimately
to the legitimacy of avoid affirmative actions. When Harris mentions the skin
color of African population, she never uses blackness; instead, she uses black
identity. Then a question
occurs to me: is blackness a
property?
From her refusal to use the word “blackness”, I
assume that she does not regard blackness as a property. But as Locke said, “every
man has a property in his own person (Of Property).” If whiteness is a part of
the white people and a property of them; ceteris
paribus, blackness should be a part of the black people and a property of
them too. To fully investigate this question, I will then examine blackness
through the same criteria that Harris used in part II-C in “Whiteness as
Property.”
1) Blackness as a
traditional form of property: As a traditional form of property, certain rights
of a person is determined because of his/her color (1726). Whiteness can bring
some exclusive rights to white people, whereas blackness can deprive some
rights from black people. Even though blackness cannot bring advantages to
African American people, their rights are determined by their skin color.
2) Blackness as property
to define social relations: Blackness does influence people’s power selection,
and allocation; therefore, it is a modern-view property.
3) Blackness and
expectation: Property is often associated with certain expectations. Similar to
whiteness, people often generate certain expectations to blackness.
Differently, the expectation of whiteness is often desirable whereas the
expectation of blackness is undesirable.
4) The property functions of blackness:
a. Right of
Disposition: Blackness is a property so long as whiteness is a property.
b. Right to Use
and Enjoyment: The right exists de jure and is usable, but nobody enjoys de
facto. This is the only right that is hard to justify.
c. Reputation and
Status Property: As written in page 1735, to call someone “Black” is to defame
someone. Blackness is associated with certain impression or reputation.
d. The Absolute
Right to Exclude: It is apparent that one’s skin color only belongs to oneself.
I believe that the distinction between Harris’ view
and my view lies in the definition of property. Harris thinks property can only
bring benefits to its owner, whereas I regard property as an attribute. Whether
it is beneficial or destructive does not make a difference so long as it makes
certain impact to the person. In a mathematical model, Harris would only
acknowledge any positive numbers as numbers. On the contrary, I would
acknowledge all numbers, both positive and negative.
Sebastian,
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding of Harris' writing, it seems that she does not find "Blackness" as property because it is only recognized in opposition to whiteness. Of all of the reasons that you list in support of blackness as property, the qualities are only present through the systematic opposition to the property of whiteness. For example, blackness only deprives the rights of people because whiteness as a property gives people the right to exclude them. I would liken this to a person fencing off their area of a commons. Yes, everyone else still has accesses to the resources in the area, but they cannot keep anyone off of their area of the commons without a fence, too. In this case, their property is only defined in terms of fenced-in property, and in this case, do they really have any property at all? As Harris repeats in her writing, with the right to property comes the right to exclude, and a property of blackness, I would argue, does not give an individual a right to exclude in the same systematic ways that whiteness does. This is supported given the historic ways that white people have appropriated black culture, such as in hip-hop and rap or in fashion, as well as with blackface. There are even cases as far out as that of Rachel Dolezal, a woman who tried to "pass" as a black woman successfully for many years. The difference between these cases and black people trying to pass or appropriate whiteness is that at the end of the day people like Dolezal can return home and take off their 'mask' and still enjoy the benefits of whiteness as property. The same cannot be said for most white-passing people.
Kyla,
DeleteOne thing I am trying to say, and may not say it clear, is that the whatever right color bring to people does not come from the color. Instead, it comes from the superstructure people, or white people, build upon the color, for "the property rights and interests are not "natural", but are "creation[s] of law (1730)." Therefore, all, so long as the color has been interpreted, it is an inalienable property.