Who Controls the Past Controls the Present

The major point in discussing racial formation is how various racial projects throughout history frame modern “common sense” about the racial hierarchy of contemporary society. Indeed, one such project is that of Black Sexuality. Patricia Hill Collins reinforces this aspect of racial formation as she asserts in her work “Why Black Sexual Politics,” that “Sarah Bartmann’s past frames J-Lo’s present” (Hill Collins 27.) What she finds important to express is that the new racism of this century does not replace the prior forms of racial rule, but instead incorporates elements of past racial formations (Hill Collins 32.)

In order to fully grasp Hill Collins’ thesis it would be necessary to understand who Sarah Bartmann was and the significance that her life and subsequent dissection play in creating the sexual stereotype of Blacks. Born into a tribe of Khoi Khoi, Bartmann was later captured and enslaved in South Africa. She was then put into a contract with the brother of her master to go to Great Britain. Upon her arrival she was treated similarly to a slave, while the country had just ended the slave trade. She was paraded around as a “freak” of nature for the size of her buttocks and sexual organs. After traveling to France, Bartmann continued to be announced as an oddity; however she was also submitted as a research specimen. It was not until her death in 1815, that researchers would dissect her and conclude that her African sexual organs were not human while scientists today conclude they were.

With the subsequent dissection of Sarah not only can we see how racism intersects between the various “schools” of academia, but how there is also the creation of the stereotype of the animalistic nature of Africans in terms of their sexuality. Hill Collins chooses to highlight Bartmann in comparison to J-Lo due to society’s fascination with both of their rear ends. While it may be argued by some that there is a clear difference in their treatment, Bartmann being considered a “freak” while J-Lo is considered a sex symbol; this is precisely the point which Hill Collins is making. Bartmann’s proportions helped frame notions of the hypersexuality of Blacks which evolved allowing for J-Lo’s butt to be considered sexy in this modern context. It is this very notion of the “wild,” animalistic sexual nature of Blacks which causes Destiny’s Child and other Black models to associate with animal skin print clothing and sets in which they appear in cages, etc.

Another interesting point Hill Collins chooses to discuss is how the technological advances of mass media allow audiences to view entertainment contained and safe in their private spaces. She questions “Just who are these videos for? What are the imagined race, gender, and sexual orientations of the viewers?” (Hill Collins 31.) There is a lack of accountability in the presentation of these images, “it’s one thing if Jennifer Lopez and Beyoncé Knowles profit from their own images…it’s entirely another if adolescent girls tap into this message of female power and head off to their eighth grade classroom decked in the same “bootylilcious” apparel,” (Hill Collins 50.) She reiterates notions of hegemony stating “contemporary forms of oppression do not routinely force people to submit” (Hill Collins 50.) It is through these seemingly benign forms of entertainment that consent is manufactured allowing domination to be achieved as “we lose our ability to question and thus collude in our own subordination” (Hill Collins 50.)

3/01/05