This is a complicated article but read it all! Our discussion, however, is focused on pages 77-82.
I just want you to pull or two things out of that section of the article and talk about it in your Discussion. What do you think about the points Patricia Hill Collins is making in this seminal piece?
Don’t forget to respond to
of your fellow students
First friend resound:
The first thing I wanted to discuss is when Patricia Hills Collins says, “the living-in jobs just kept you running; never stopped.” It was like slavery was done, but at the same time it wasn’t really done and over with. The way the living-in jobs sounded like it was work 24/7, and you never really have a moment to yourself to really relax and unwind. Compare that to a job where we work normal shifts ranging from 4hours-8hours. We work those hour shifts then leave and go do our thing and not worry about having to work until our next shift which is normally the next day or two. But the living-in job sounds like they are constantly working without ever having a break. Even though the quality of life for black people are growing and getting better, that kind of job doesn’t sound healthy. Some perks could’ve made the job worthwhile for some black females
The second thing I wanted to discuss is when Patricia Hills Collins says, “many black men came to see their futures only in terms of being rap stars, basketball players, or drug dealers.” That reminded me of the saying similar to how you grow up to become what you’re surrounded with or see. Kids tend to have unlimited dreams of being superheroes, but then those dreams fade away and reality is sometimes not as kind as it is for every child. I feel like black kids’ dreams are shut down by some because they’re black and the stereotype of black people is you’re either a criminal, basketball player, or rapper. There isn’t anything outside of that, and that really messes with a kid’s mind. So to see that as something that’s from the past, but still affecting black kids today is just sad.
Second friend resound:
When reading the article one of the things that I read was when African American women were fed up with the harassment, if they were able, they stayed home to concentrate on domestic duties. However, when doing what was best for them they were severely criticized by white people. They were told that they were trying to aspire to a womanhood that was inappropriate for them. The only thing that was inappropriate was the fact that they thought this way. Who is aloud to tell women that they are trying to be something that they are not. If they wanted to stay at home and were able to stay at home and raise their children and avoid sexual advances of others then who is to tell them any different. I feel like Patricia Hill Collins was trying to show how utterly unjust this time was for women of color. Reading it almost doesn’t sound real to me. The points that she makes in this article, to me, make it seem like for every turn in the page women of color just got the short straw every time.
Third friend resound:
After reading this article, I realized how little I truly knew about enslaved back women during the early nineteenth century. I never knew how controlling owners were over an enslaved woman’s fertility and reproduction, and how they were used for capitalist exploitations. They were such strict rules about keeping bloodlines pure and preventing enslaved men from having children with a white woman, but hardly any protection from preventing an owner from raping an enslaved woman. Furthermore, when an enslaved black woman had a child, that child would be added as property and further gain capital, overall “enslaved African women were valuable commodities” (Collins 51). To further that point, those who were regularly childbearing were actually treated better in some ways, whereas, those who couldn’t have children would be punished.
Purchase answer to see full