Over these past couple months, I received several e-mails and comments about my column. The ones that intrigue me most ask about the title of my column. For some reason, a lot of people see it as perpetuating racial stereotypes. Rarely would I write a rebuttal to spurious claims, but this one is so peculiar.
There is no stereotypical image of a Black woman that even hints at anger. The most common images are the archetypical Mammy, Jezebel and Sapphire.
The Mammy is a good-natured, loud and often overweight caretaker. She is a servant who seems content with solving others problems, as her job hours allow her no time to have her own. She has no power.
The Jezebel archetype is that of a hypersexual Black woman whose presence justifies the sexual abuse of all Black women. She is animal-like in her pursuit of sex and shows a discontent for her own body. She has no power.
The Sapphire is an antagonizing Black woman, but she can only exist to serve in the presence of a Black man whom she emasculates at every turn. She has no power.
Anger is a very powerful emotion. It takes personal strength to be angry and elicits the need of an individualistic right to happiness. According to Marilyn Yarbrough with Crystal Bennett in Cassandra and the 'Sistahs': The Peculiar Treatment of African American Women in the Myth of Women as Liars
these stereotypes characterize African American women in a monolithic image. Consequently many people find it difficult to appreciate the diversity of African American women and instead impose identities based on negative stereotypes.
Dictionary.com defines angeras a strong feeling of displeasure and belligerence aroused by a wrong; wrath; ire. How can any of these stereotypical characters with no power assert their individualistic right to happiness by being angry or wrathful about the lack of it? My anger does not fit any of these stereotypes.
To take it a bit further, there are no stereotypical images of Black women that even lend the provisions of womanhood. The Mammy is a completely asexual being, often single and with no children of her own. The Jezebel is so hypersexual that she takes on a depiction of a savage rather than a woman. Sapphire is simply a tool for emasculation. None of these women is given the right to be a woman, and their existence is to counter the presence of a heterogeneous Black woman.
When you just have three archetypes to choose from, will you shove each of us into one of these three? Challenge yourself to see us as more than just one cookie-cutter Black woman.
Is the problem that I am an angry Black woman or that I self identify such strong attributes to myself? Would this column read better if the title were The Happy Black Woman or The Overly-Socially Conscious Black Woman? Or is that affirming my Blackness is offensive in our colorblind society?
Denying my right to self-definition is existentially denying my overall existence. If I cannot exist as an Angry Black Woman, then what can I exist as instead? My race is just as important to me as my gender. It makes me who I am and shapes the way I live my life. My anger is as vital because it asserts my right to happiness and my right to show the world my wrath in the absence of it.
The title of my column will not change. I will continue asserting my angry Blackness as long as The Post allows me.
Aisha Upton is a senior studying African American and columnist for The Post.Don't like what she has to say? Send her an e-mail at au173107@ohiou.edu
4
Opinion
Aisha Upton
