Iola Leroy and Theories of Colorism
The Skin Color Paradox — Background
In a 2007 article, Jennifer L. Hochschild and Vesla Weaver characterize the “skin color paradox” generated by contemporary social science research.
Research in the field has found differences in income, educational attainment, prison sentences, and other measures within the African-American community along lines of color. But at the same time, Black Americans describe their experiences of discrimination and their political views in terms that do not vary based on skin tone (Hochschild and Weaver 6). Researchers find a paradox in the concept that members of the Black community can live a wide range of experiences, without dividing that community.
Robert L. Reece and Iola Leroy
In his recent scholarship, Robert L. Reece uses census data from the late 19th century to argue that light-skinned African-Americans “leverage” their skin tone to achieve economic advantage (“Color Crit” 17). In Iola Leroy, however, Watkins Harper offers an alternative perspective on issues of color within the Black community during the 19th century.
“Genesis of U.S. Colorism and Skin Tone Stratification: Slavery, Freedom, and Mulatto-Black Occupational Inequality in the Late 19th Century”
In this 2018 article, Reece argues that modern discrepancies in economic outcomes between light- and dark-skinned African-Americans stem from the “privileged positions” of light skin during slavery (“Genesis of U.S. Colorism” 3). He appeals to common knowledge of the “fondness” slaveowners held for their lighter, biracial slaves (4). Reece also counts the frequent role of “house slaves” as one among a “number of advantages” bestowed upon enslaved people with light skin (8).
In the novel Iola Leroy, Harper depicts the specific dangers Iola faces inside slaveholding households. Contrary to Reece’s implication that the house was a privileged location, white male plantation owners make Iola their housekeeper specifically to sexually exploit her and “break her in” (Harper 88). Iola refuses every attempt at abuse, declaring that she would rather die even when threatened with a whipping, but her fight to protect herself is nearly constant: as far as Tom Anderson has heard, Iola was sold seven times in a six-week period (90).
While Harper shows the specific form of abuse to which Black women in slaveowner’s houses were vulnerable, she focuses on Iola’s determination instead of her victimization. When Dr. Gresham sympathizes that Iola was “tried and tempted” by white slaveowners, Iola counters: “I was never tempted. [. . .] I was abased, but the men who trampled on me were the degraded ones” (Harper 140). Rather than assuming, as Reece does, that being enslaved in the house was an advantage, Harper shows that enslaved women were subject to physical, psychological, and sexual abuse inside slaveowners’ houses.
Reece asserts also that the biracial children of slaveowners benefited socially and economically from their white parent’s status. According to Reece, these benefits existed within and outside of slavery: “[f]ree Mulattos were able to leverage ties to Whites for economic gain and the Mulatto children of slave owners were often afforded a significant amount of freedom on plantations” (“Genesis of U.S. Colorism” 10).
During her childhood, Iola Leroy lives in freedom on her father’s plantation, largely because she was raised as a white child with no knowledge of her Black ancestry. In this sense, Iola’s “connections to powerful whites” do insulate her from the horrors of slavery while she is young ("Genesis of U.S. Colorism" 10). However, these connections only last until her father’s death. Iola’s mother Marie fears from the beginning that “if [Eugene] were dead, [their children] could be turned out of doors and . . . reduced to slavery” (Harper 116). She is proven right when, after Eugene Leroy dies, Alfred Lorraine pulls the legal strings to enslave Iola’s family.
Once Iola escapes slavery, and then seeks employment after the Civil War, she cannot call on her white ancestry to become financially independent. Even in environments where she is perceived as white, Iola is dismissed from work and housing whenever her status as a woman of color is discovered (Harper 199-200). Harper makes it clear that, in the few instances when Iola’s light skin or assumed whiteness protects her from harm or discrimination, that protection is conditional and short-lived.
"Color Crit: Critical Race Theory and the History and Future of Colorism in the United States"
In a different paper, Reece examines 1880 census data through a framework of critical race theory to show that colorism has been reinforced through the marriage market. He argues that light-skinned Black women in the 19th century were most likely to marry light-skinned men, and that they married men with higher “occupational scores” than the men dark-skinned Black women married (“Color Crit” 8, 16).
Reece hypothesizes that this was possible because “light skinned Black women were able to leverage their favorable skin tone in exchange for more affluent marriage partners than their dark skinned counterparts” ("Color Crit" 3, emphasis added). Reece uses similar verb choices throughout the paper, further suggesting that light-skinned women “capitalize” and “seize opportunities” based on their color (17, 8). The connotations of Reece’s analysis veer close to derogatory stereotypes of Black women manipulating men and seeking money.
Through the relationships in Iola Leroy, Harper pursues a different perspective on issues of color in Black marriages. When Dr. Gresham proposes to her and offers a position in society, Iola refuses, saying instead that she will search for her mother and “cast [her] lot with the freed people” (Harper 139). Dr. Gresham meets Iola again after she has found her mother, and Iola’s answer remains the same: “No, Doctor, I don’t think that I could best serve my race by forsaking them and marrying you. [. . .] I must serve the race which needs me most” (219). Rather than “capitalize” on her light skin and Dr. Gresham’s insistence that she could easily pass for white, Iola Leroy remains committed to staying with her family and supporting her community.
At first glance, Iola’s life appears to support one facet of Reece’s argument: when she marries, she chooses Dr. Latimer, a Black doctor who is often mistaken for white. This falls in line with Reece’s hypotheses of skin tone homogamy and the higher economic status of Iola’s husband. However, Harper balances this plot point by also depicting marriage between a light-skinned man and a dark-skinned woman. Before introducing her to his family, Harry Leroy describes Miss Lucille Delany as a “remarkable,” “wise,” and “excellent” woman with no apparent white ancestry (Harper 194). Harry and Miss Delany are both educated and successful—contrary to Reece’s assertion that “when [dark-skinned Black women] married mulatto men, they married lower status mulatto men whose occupational scores were lower even than the Black men who married mulatto women” (“Color Crit” 17).
During Harry’s proposal, Harper directly addresses issues of color when Miss Delany warns him: “complexional prejudices are not confined to white people” (Harper 249). Harry answers, “with an air of confidence,” that his family members are “too noble to indulge in such sentiments” (249). Through the marriage between Harry and Miss Delany, Harper acknowledges tensions related to skin color within the Black community while showing the characters’ mutual commitment to educating and working within their community.