We are taught to privilege house slaves over field hands for a variety of reasons. We are led to believe that house slaves are taken better care of, have more opportunities for mobility than field hands, and even dwell in their master’s “big house.” Some of this is true. House slaves were a privileged group of enslaved people. Just look at the photo above. The first image (clockwise from left to right), is a still from Django Unchained showing Monsieur Candide and his slave Stephen. Next, I offer you the archetype of the “happy slave”, David O’ Selznick interpretation of Margret Mitchell’s character “Mammy” from Gone with the Wind. Beneath Candide and Stephen, you’ll notice the resilient and strong Ernestine of Underground’s Macon plantation. And then there’s Alfre Woodard’s incarnation of Mistress Shaw from Solomon Northup’s narrative 12 Years a Slave in the film of the same name. While watching these films or pilot episode, one can become enraged by the complacency of these house slave characters. One may condemn these characters for perpetuating a hierarchy that pits them against all other enslaved Afro-Americans. One may even despise these characters and wish their demise or limited inclusion in the film or episode arch. However, to limit these characters to a one-dimensional reading misses other aspects of their lives that reveal that a more complicated dynamic between house slaves and their masters.
In Django, Stephen amuses and disgusts viewers. He greets Monsieur Candide with the expression of a puppy embracing its owner after a few days or even hours of absence. Stephen possesses a pathetic aura, one that is completed dependent on Candide, or so it seems. Let’s reconsider this character. Stephen commands the respect of all the white overseers and inspires the fear of other house slaves and field hands alike. I’ll draw the conclusion that when Candide travels for business, Stephen, not Candide’s wife or another white person is left in charge of the plantation. For example, take the scene where Stephen realizes that Django and Broomhilda know each other. He does not make a scene alerting them of his new-found knowledge, but asks Candide into the study where Stephen explains the situation. In this scene, Stephen displays a paternal demeanor, lecturing his naïve son over something that should have been so clear. This scene confuses viewers, not only because Stephen guides the conversation, but also manages to convince Candide that he is correct. This phenomenon exists in Gone with the Wind too.
Mammy is clearly the most senior of the slaves at Tara. She is to Scarlett what Stephen is to Candide, a parent or an advisor. It appears that Mammy knows Scarlett better than her own parents and Mammy almost expects Scarlett to give her that respect. It’s a subtle expectation, one that Mammy’s manifest through her stern and powerful attitude. Still, Mammy does not have a name or at least one that is given. She exists only as an extension of the children, or in Scarlet’s case, child, that she is charged with rearing. Mammy’s existence is predicated on the rearing of her master’s children, but once that is complete, what is to become of her. For all of Mammy’s “status” in the household, she has one specific task. And yet, Mammy recognizes this maternal role, which is why she becomes that surrogate figure for Scarlett and I would imagine many of the other house slaves at Tara. She exploits that dynamic. Thus, while viewers may detest both Stephen and Mammy for appearing compliant, viewers should also understand they command some influence over their masters and dance a careful dance of exerting that influence when necessary.
Ernestine and Mistress Shaw represent a harsher reality of slave hierarchy in plantation society. Yes, Ernestine governs the Macon Plantation better than Mrs. Hawkes (the mean one). Yes, Mistress Shaw has her own servant staff and appears to live a luxurious life relative to other slaves on her plantation. They appear well-dressed, more learned than other slaves, and even happier than field hands, but to end our conversation here would be disingenuous. Viewers of Underground’s pilot and 12 Years a Slave do not see what actions Ernestine and Mistress Shaw take to afford them privileges. These women are live-in concubines, sex slaves for their respective masters to abuse and rape at will. Ernestine seems to be more aware of this dynamic than Mistress Shaw, but her scenes are limited in 12 Years a Slave (film). Ernestine does not want field hands to envy her position in the house and only remains there to prevent her children from being put into the field or sold by Mr. Hawks. On at least two occasions, Mr. Hawks rapes Ernestine producing two children, Rosalee and James. Ernestine is trapped not only by her desire to keep her children safe, but her master complete possession of her sexuality. If anything, the big house feels like Ernestine’s prison and the field feels like her sanctuary.
Perhaps, this argument can be extended to Mistress Shaw, but I have not read Northup’s full narrative and the scene where she’s featured in the film is brief. While Mistress Shaw smiles as she relishes in her control over her own slaves, I question what events proceeded her social climb. She too is a product of sex slavery, not in control over her own existence. She and Ernestine are so sexually connected to their masters that if they even dared speak of marrying another slave, specifically a field hand, the repercussion could have been dire. Their masters deemed themselves honorable men for their “humane” treatment of certain slaves, but fail to realize, or maybe they do and do not care, that they are rapists and kidnappers. Their relationships with Ernestine and Mistress Shaw are not rooted in a deep emotional connection (love), but an understanding of having an advantage in a power dynamic giving them the authority to rape these women. My point is not to suggest that neither Ernestine nor Mistress Shaw did not love their masters intimately, but that love is fixed in a sort of Stockholm Syndrome.
I’ll close with a return to a title, “The Complexities of Hierarchy.” Working in a plantation home may have meant less physical toil than working in a field. On the surface, these slaves presented the appearance of being treated better. They dressed better, smelled better, ate better food and interacted with the larger society. But we cannot forget an obvious, but I think understated fact: House slaves were still slaves. Even if the most benevolent of slave owners provided their house slaves with amenities some white folks lacked, these slaves were still slaves. They did not possess ownership of their bodies. If they incurred the wraths of their masters, they could be beaten, sold or even killed just as easily as any field hand. In the “What would you rather be” debates that I’ve overheard and have even been a part of, I think this point is lost in our attempts to hold the house slave on a pedestal and glamorize their lifestyle. But do not forget that these men and women were no freer than that field hands that so many reject in the hopes of finding a silver lining to slavery. Slavery has no silver living…