Gone with the Wind discussion

I absolutely adore GwtW, and I'm in the middle of reading Scarlett for the first time (not especially impressed . . . but that's irrelevant here). And I've noticed something that struck me when I read GwtW, but now with both to look at, has really struck my curiosity. Both Margaret Mitchell and Alexandra Ripley point out a dramatic difference in "classes" of slaves - the house slaves, the yard slaves, and the field hands, which equate more or less to the upper class slave-owning whites, middle class business-involved whites, and "po' white trash." Nothing new there.
What I find interesting is the way those class distinctions remain after the war and all three classes are freed. The house slaves seem to tend to either stay with their families to help them make a new life, or find work with the Yankees and Carpetbaggers that have money to pay them for the jobs they were doing before. The field hands seemed to make up the population of Shantytown, and the others that choose not to work, but rather take whatever handouts they can get.
I was especially intrigued by the description of "the Season" in Charleston in Scarlett. For those who haven't read, here's the nutshell: no one in the Old Guard has a coach anymore, and their old coachmen are working for the Yankees, but the Yankees are afraid of black people. During the social season the black coachmen simply inform that they will be taking the night off the night of the St. Cecelia Ball, the biggest ball of the Season, and they will require the use of the coach. Thus, some semblance of the old life remains, in part because of the former slaves' enduring loyalty to their former slave owners.
The point I'm trying to get to is this: how accurate a portrayal is this? As a white girl from the Western US, I have no experience or family stories to draw on. Obviously both books are slanted toward the South, but surely they couldn't be completely inaccurate.
Secondly, if these depictions are even slightly accurate, I'm curious as to what influence that had on today's African-Americans. Allow me to suggest a sociologist's master's thesis - tracing the geneology of a number of randomly selected African-Americans who have ancestors who were slaves. My theory (if one would give it enough credit to call it such) is that said sociologist would find that families living in the slums still blaming white society for keeping them down would be descended from former field hands that chose not to work after the war, while those that have gone on to build something for themselves and their families (Bill Cosby and Michelle Obama make two excellent examples) descend from former house or yard slaves. Obviously one's parents and grandparents influence who you become, that's why generation after generation live either in suburbia of the slums, and for the most part one doesn't see a lot of dramatic change, at least not quickly. So could these living conditions stem back even that far? Or am I just a crazy white girl reading to much into a mere novel?

Lacey, I think you have a valid theory here, but if you acted upon it....it could quite possibly be the most politically incorrect action you've ever taken! I can see them throwing stones at you now....

Life for the Southern rich and affluent before the Civil War was literally what dreams were made of. The social scene wasn’t seen in the northern, industrialized states but present and popular in plantation life. After the war many southerners (understandably) longed for the days of the past but the economical climate made it increasingly difficult.
Your assertion that class somehow has a defining influence on later generations is faulty as lower classes from other nations came to America and became both rich and influential. One of the cornerstones of the American dream is that nothing is impossible. Hard work (and a lot of luck) can change a man from rags to riches. I must admit that the Negro of the post Civil War era (and in most cases until the mid-1960’s) had more hurdles to clear than many others, but the problem wasn’t with the aspiring colored person and his heritage but with society as a whole.

Well, it's clearly a good thing that I'm merely an armchair sociologist. If one can't put forth an innocent question without being told their ideas are faulty, I fear for the future of literary discussion.

I never said that class was a defining influence on anyone. I wondered if there could be a correlation found if class level was compared across numerous generations. Of course anyone can rise through the ranks. Some do. Some don't. I'm mildly curious as to whether or not there may be a (slight) connection between members of those to categories, and possibly even to the nature vs. nurture debate. Presumably the results of a study such as what I imagined could be applied to the population as a whole, and all ethnicities . . . and who knows, it could empower some people to completely change their lives.

(And @Scoutsbff - you are SO very right! There's probably not much of anything more politically incorrect. An African-American researcher might be able to get away with it, but heaven knows someone like me never could!)

With all that said, I was just looking for some literary discussion based on a thought I had while reading. Frankly, I'd completely forgotten I'd even posted this.

Lacey, I can well imagine that Gone with the Wind could serve as a basis for a number of discussions. Slavery and its social and economical downfalls is always a good subject of debate. The prevalent attitudes about southern women’s place in society could be another. In my previous post I wasn’t intending to criticize your ideas but rather express mine. This blog is the perfect forum for these discussions. It is a welcome break from discussions of vampires and vixens.

I think this discussion not only pinpoints the African-American race, but also numerous other races, for example the Japanese in the internment camps, the Jewish people and the Holocaust. It speaks on different levels, but this is just the opening of the discussion. But since the topic is Gone with the Wind, that is fine also.

Lacey wrote: "Well, it's clearly a good thing that I'm merely an armchair sociologist. If one can't put forth an innocent question without being told their ideas are faulty, I fear for the future of literary di..."
Ok I'm African American and the only offensive thing you said was about the people still living in the slums blaming the white man for his problems. That is a stereotype that has been perpetuated in the media for years, which simply isn't true. Now back to the house slave field slave debate. From what I understand after freedom all slaves had nothing, no education, money etc. The thing that made brought blacks out of poverty was education. Access to education was limited for many former slaves. Eventually the level of melanin in a former slave or their descendants skin dictated their advantages, this could also be a northern dictate that was introduced into the south, because slave owners had light skinned and dark skinned slaves they really didn't care. It has been said that the effects of the civil war plagued the south until the sixties, that was 10-15 years of war and reconstruction that took a 100 years to remediate imagine what 200 years of that. It's no wonder that a lot of black people are living in poverty to this day. Poor whites haven't progressed much either. I enjoy dialog keep t coming

Lacey wrote: "I absolutely adore GwtW, and I'm in the middle of reading Scarlett for the first time (not especially impressed . . . but that's irrelevant here). And I've noticed something that struck me when I ..."

My theory is that said sociologist would find that families living in the slums still blaming white society for keeping them down would be descended from peoples with little or no EDUCATION, as is the case with most "shifltess", to borrow a term from the book, peoples of ANY race!
Another point could be that the field hands seemed to make up the population of Shantytown because they had little or no understanding of why they had been freed or what opportunities or alternatives there were for them. The "house slave" at least would have been better informed of the situation through close contact with the whites, overhearing conversations, access to newspapers,if they could read and generally having more knowledge of the world around them.

Lacey, I think you would find your theory is very wrong. You would find that Bill Cosby, Michelle Obama, and Oprah Winfrey (as some of the examples you mentioned) had parents who were in fact doing "field work" in the South before migrating to the North. In fact, Michelle Obama's great-great-grandfather was an illiterate field slave in South Carolina. So there goes that theory.

House slaves or not, there was very limited education for blacks in the South, and even house slaves weren't allowed to read (etc). Their contacts with whites would not mean that they were "better informed" of the situation. Even house slaves in Texas didn't know for 2 years that they'd been freed under the Emancipation Proclamation, but I am sure their owners did.

While others disagree, I find your current "master's thesis theory" a little distasteful, if only because you refer to the people living in "slums" as "blamming white people" and "shiftless." I think such terms might ignore the greater reality of people living in poverty. After all, there are a great many white people living in poverty who blame immigrants and other minorities. And they certainly aren't the children of field slaves.

I think the bigger issue here--in the context of Gone with the Wind--is that Margaret Mitchell, as a white southern lady of the 1930s, had a highly romanticized version of slavery. Mammy was, if we are honest, a caricature, and a harmful one. It promotes the very idea that house slaves were somehow "safer" and "happier" than others. While research shows that house slaves were just as likely to be physically punished (sometimes more, because of their greater interactions with whites), women were more likely to be sexually abused by owners, equally as likely to suffer the loss of their families through slave auctions, and were no more informed or educated. And we must remember, most adult house slaves were married to someone who likely worked in the field--or had children who did--and so it is hard to truly argue that they had a better position, as their position was so intertwined with that of those in the field.

While I think your thesis is faulty, I think the idea of examining the "Mammy" stereotype and the harmful effects of such wishful thinking is quite interesting. Margaret Mitchell's work has been heavily critiqued for her romantic views of the South. We must remember, she wrote this in the early 1930s, while Jim Crow was still firmly embedded and most whites in the South (and more quietly in the North) viewed blacks as "less-than." Mitchell was no exception. That is not an insult to her but rather an acknowledgement of the times. And while I love Gone with the Wind deeply, I find her portrayal of slaves exasperating and--if I am honest--more than a little offensive (and unrealistic).

I enjoy the opportunity to discuss these ideas, so please don't think I am trying to be hostile. That is not my intention at all. But you began a very interesting thread here, and I could not resist the temptation to comment!

Allison, I completely agree with your above stated views. I do, however, think that the Mammy portrait painted by Margaret Mitchell was how southerners really saw some of their house slaves and the idea that any other life would or could be desired was inconceivable. Many southern bells became very attached to their Mammies. This attachment was born from dependence and couldn’t really adhere to the strict accepted concept of love. Large plantation owners lived in a bubble and refused to see that it couldn’t last. It is now generally accepted that even without fighting a civil war, slavery would eventually cease to subsist. Long into the Twentieth Century southerners thought back with fondness at that that once was; so too did Margaret Mitchell.

Thom, I think you are exactly right about the Mammy stereotype and that it was exactly how many southerners felt about their house slaves. And I think your explanation of southern fondness for their house slaves clarified a point that was muddy in my earlier post. Certainly Mitchell's view was true to how many southerners felt about certain slaves, but I think the slaves themselves would tell everyone they felt much differently. Mammy in the novel is painted as a character who loved Scarlett deeply and completely, and while many slaves may have felt affection for the children they helped raise, overhwelmingly they would have chosen freedom and their own families in a heartbeat.

I think the danger in the Mammy portrayal lies not in the white's "love" (as you so aptly described as dependence) for their Mammies, but in the suggestion that the position of the house slave "wasn't really so bad."

I agree with you but have some reservations about your assumption of their concept of freedom. I think that most slaves saw freedom as someone who was always blind, would see color. I think few had a realistic idea of what freedom entailed and if they did, it would be totally conceptual. Many weren’t happy with their lot and lives but few could picture entering the rat-race of daily existence with relish. I can easily imagine an almost paralyzing fear of the unknown.

You have a point except that, in the post-war Reconstruction South, many newly freed slaves did enter the rat-race. Before the Union withdrew its oversight of the Reconstruction era and Jim Crow laws were instituted, many (most) freed slaves voted, sent their children to school, and owned property. African-Americans held public office. I think anyone who has been denied rights knows very well what he/she is missing out on, as evidenced by the surge of black participation in civic and society life in the Reconstruction era.

After Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the South’s surrender at Appomattox southern slaves had little choice. I’m not suggesting that they should or would have made another choice but this was a mute point as their lives had been turned upside-down. History shows that freedom was a far cry from equality and the road has been long and hard.