Hello again readers, and welcome back to my blog about Race, by Marc Aronson! Since last week, Aronson has continued to move through time. In this section, he mostly focused on religion, particularly within Europe, and the ideas of ‘otherness’ and divisions that came from religious conflict. Aronson discussed the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the expulsion of Jews from much of Europe, in addition to other examples. Each of the historical events that Aronson touched upon was focused on ‘cleansing’ Christianity from an outside ‘other’ force -- the Muslims, the Jews, heretics, and other nonbelievers were deemed to be unworthy. This was fascinating, and I really enjoyed reading about it. However, there was one particular concept developed during this time that caught my attention.
At the end of the 15th century, Spain, previously a very religiously tolerant area, combined into one Christian kingdom and managed to gain power over the Muslims and Jews who lived there. Some non-Christians were killed or forced out, but others converted. Despite this, “everyone knew that … they [converts] followed the forms of Christianity in order to fit in, but secretly they worshipped as they always had (86).” This led to the Spanish Inquisition, but not before the idea of ‘pure blood’ became widespread.
In order to have pure blood, a person had to be descended solely from other Christians. This idea was codified by the Spanish government, which passed laws making it impossible for people of non-pure blood to hold positions of high office. Not only did this discriminate against former Jews and Muslims in the short term, but it also created a permanent connection between a person’s bloodline and their immoveable position as part of a group, an important concept of race. In fact, it is one of Aronson’s four pillars of race: “Our personal features are actually the characteristics of our group, which are passed down from one generation to the next (3).”
As I was reading about the concept of pure blood shortly before the Spanish Inquisition, I was forcibly reminded of a current event. In a recent interview with Oprah, Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, revealed that members of the royal family had “concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born (Markle qtd. in Brodsky).” Oprah was shocked by this statement, as was I. It is incredible to me that, in the 21st century, Markle’s baby’s skin tone could be cause for concern.
In the time before the Spanish Inquisition, anybody with a non-Christian ancestor could not have ‘pure blood.’ By expressing concern over the color of the baby’s skin, the British monarchy implied that Meghan Markle was part of a different, lesser group and that her child would also be part of that group, despite the fact that he would have an equal number of genes from Prince Harry.
When reading about it in a historical context, this Harry Potter-esque concept is shocking, to say the least. However, even in modern times, people are still discriminated against, not only for being of a certain race but also for being descended from somebody of a certain race. As a white girl in a predominantly white town, I thought that this one drop, pure blood idea was something that we had moved beyond, but Markle’s interview clearly expresses otherwise.
Brodsky, Rachel. "Oprah Winfrey Gasps in Horror as Meghan Markle Reveals Palace Questioned 'How Dark Baby Was Going to Be.'" Independent, 8 Mar. 2021, www.independent.co.uk/arts-
At the end of the 15th century, Spain, previously a very religiously tolerant area, combined into one Christian kingdom and managed to gain power over the Muslims and Jews who lived there. Some non-Christians were killed or forced out, but others converted. Despite this, “everyone knew that … they [converts] followed the forms of Christianity in order to fit in, but secretly they worshipped as they always had (86).” This led to the Spanish Inquisition, but not before the idea of ‘pure blood’ became widespread.
In order to have pure blood, a person had to be descended solely from other Christians. This idea was codified by the Spanish government, which passed laws making it impossible for people of non-pure blood to hold positions of high office. Not only did this discriminate against former Jews and Muslims in the short term, but it also created a permanent connection between a person’s bloodline and their immoveable position as part of a group, an important concept of race. In fact, it is one of Aronson’s four pillars of race: “Our personal features are actually the characteristics of our group, which are passed down from one generation to the next (3).”
Oprah reacts to Markle's statement about the concerns over the color of her child's skin (Brodsky).
As I was reading about the concept of pure blood shortly before the Spanish Inquisition, I was forcibly reminded of a current event. In a recent interview with Oprah, Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, revealed that members of the royal family had “concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born (Markle qtd. in Brodsky).” Oprah was shocked by this statement, as was I. It is incredible to me that, in the 21st century, Markle’s baby’s skin tone could be cause for concern.
In the time before the Spanish Inquisition, anybody with a non-Christian ancestor could not have ‘pure blood.’ By expressing concern over the color of the baby’s skin, the British monarchy implied that Meghan Markle was part of a different, lesser group and that her child would also be part of that group, despite the fact that he would have an equal number of genes from Prince Harry.
When reading about it in a historical context, this Harry Potter-esque concept is shocking, to say the least. However, even in modern times, people are still discriminated against, not only for being of a certain race but also for being descended from somebody of a certain race. As a white girl in a predominantly white town, I thought that this one drop, pure blood idea was something that we had moved beyond, but Markle’s interview clearly expresses otherwise.
Brodsky, Rachel. "Oprah Winfrey Gasps in Horror as Meghan Markle Reveals Palace Questioned 'How Dark Baby Was Going to Be.'" Independent, 8 Mar. 2021, www.independent.co.uk/arts-
entertainment/tv/news/meghan-race-oprah-interview-baby-b1813764.html. Accessed 11 Mar.
2021.
Hi Francie,
ReplyDeleteI think the point you raised towards the end of this post is very compelling. The idea of pure blood does strike me as very "Harry Potter-esque", as you put it. It just seems old fashioned, and I was also under the impression that we'd moved past that kind of thinking as a society. However, as you've written here, that's not always the case. Considering this point, I think it's really effective how Aronson's writing unearths the historical roots of destructive habits such as this, and guides us as readers to make these connections between past and present. Very interesting stuff.
Good connection to a very current event. Oprah's expression reveals a lot about people's reactions, especially to the idea that someone would even feel comfortable asking that question out loud. It seems like a question that would have been asked a century or more ago, not in the past year or two.
ReplyDeleteOprah's shock really resonated with a lot of people who felt the same way! I think this whole event really shows that, while public racism by larger institutions is no longer as widespread as it once was, there is a lot of underlying and more hidden racism that still definitely needs to be dealt with.
DeleteHi Francie! I enjoyed your blog post. In the book I am reading, Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together In The Cafeteria? And Other Conversations About Race, Dr Tatum the author also discusses the idea that minorities are considered "others." I like how you added the current event as a connection to what happened in Spain, and what is know happeing in England. I was doing some reading about the issue, and many people would like to know who questioned the baby's skin. So, do you think that the people under the british monarchy deserve to know who it is? Or do you think it should stay a family matter, should the public blindly follow the monarchy? Just some food for thought, I enjoyed your blog.
ReplyDeleteEmily
Hi Emily!
DeleteThank you for commenting and reading my blog! I don't think that revealing the specific person who made the comment is important, but I do think that it is important for the British monarchy to take responsibility and work to prevent such incidents from happening again. There is obviously a lot of buried racism within the monarchy, so I don't think that singling one person out would be beneficial, when it is likely that the problem is much larger than that.