By Aniqah Khan [Edited by Austin Steele, Oliver Cole and Anisa Taznim]
‘Black Peril’ was the notion that Black colonial subjects would engage in unsolicited sexual relations with White females. This depicted the indigenous population, specifically men, as lustful and morally corrupt. This perceived image of the native peoples began to manifest itself into cycles of mass panic on a global scale. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, such cycles of hysteria took over colonial communities around the world, characterised by accounts of the alleged rape and abuse of White females by Black colonial subjects. By nature of the accusations, a great debate has emerged regarding what drove the panics: were 'Black Peril' panics driven by race or sex?
The argument of race suggests that these panics were a measure taken by White colonisers to maintain control over Black subjects, while the argument of sex operates within the timeless tropes about the sexual prowess of Black men and the naive allure of White women. Although a global phenomenon, this essay will focus more generally on South Africa, and more specifically, on Southern Rhodesia, as these locations have been highly documented. These examples function as a microcosm for what was experienced globally. While this essay acknowledges the intersection between race and sex, and how both factors are valid motivations for the cause of the 'Black Peril' panics, this essay will argue that ultimately, race was the prevailing factor that drove the panics, with the factor of sex being intrinsically linked to that of race. Indeed, what is most important to consider when engaging in this debate is the fact that, to a large extent, the accusations of rape and abuse were false; White women were not being abused by Black men. As neatly summed by Jock McCulloch, Black peril was not “a phenomenon of sexual crime, but of fear of sexual crime”.[1] This is the key idea that has informed the response of this essay.
The first way in which Black peril panics were driven by race was how panics in South Africa institutionalised White supremacy through legislation, which served only to protect the interests of the White population. Indeed, upon the influx of largely fabricated claims of 'Black Peril', legislation was imposed to control the sexual tendencies of Black men, thereby reaffirming a social order that favoured White males. The Legislation Immorality Suppression Ordinance of September 1903 prescribed capital punishment for attempted rape, resulting in a number of falsely accused Black men dying at the hands of their colonisers. As stated by Oliver Phillips, these panics threatened the moral fibre of the ‘civilizing mission’, with the aforementioned “draconian” legislation serving to restore the “sexual and social distance that was necessary for the survival of racial hierarchies in the colonial order”.[2] This argument becomes even more convincing when one considers that there were not any laws introduced to protect Black women from the abuses of White men. Indeed, there was a paralleled phenomenon referred to as ‘White Peril’, which according to John Pape “was far more frequent”.[3] Pape highlights that while Black men were criminalised by legislation, White men were protected by legislation, highlighting the relative power of the Black natives and White colonisers. Pape argues that “the history of southern Africa during the early colonial period presents a classic example of how sexual relations both influence and reinforce the values of a ruling class” indicating that the 'Black Peril' was not a fear of sex, but rather, the fear of sex with a Black man.[4]
The second way in which it was evident that the 'Black Peril' panics were driven by race was the fact that the concept of a 'White Peril' existed, but was not widely condemned or criminalised. This confirms the notion that it was not a fear of sex - but fear of miscegenation and how this lent power to the Black man. Indeed, the White settlers viewed the assault of a White woman as an assault on the entire White community. As explained by Norman Etherington, the panic was caused by the fear of losing control, a constant undercurrent in the thinking of settler minorities. Etherington even credits psychological explanations, stating that “the fear of competition from more virile, potent Black rivals has been deep-seated in the psyches of White males for centuries [and that] White women in colonial situations encourage such fears to revenge themselves on men who impose chastity on them while freely enjoying sexual connections with females of the subject people”.[5] This explanation underscores how 'White Peril' violations were enjoyed freely - the White population did not fear the native population (as they were able to freely enjoy sexual intercourse with them).
In the White and patriarchal colonial hierarchy, women were seen as property to be defended from threats posed by the lower members of society. The concept of a threat from below triggered uproar amongst the settler community, rather than for the sex itself. As stated by Chesterfield, “the political scandal of the Black Peril is the subjection of a woman of the dominant race to the power of a man of the subordinate race; the penetration of a White woman by a Black man is an act of insurrection”.[6] What is more, the fact that legal sanctions were never placed upon White men for the abuses of native women serves to further highlight that the panics were driven by racial difference. It suggests that the rape of Black women was acceptable because it did not threaten the social hierarchy on which its White patriarchy was built.
The concept of a racial hierarchy is further cemented by the context of the colonial relationship. Both Black and White Peril stemmed from the intimate relationship of Black domestic workers and White employers and were thus deeply intertwined. An understanding of this relationship is integral to understanding why race was the driving force in the 'Black Peril' panics. In the eyes of the colonisers, this was the social order that ‘worked’ for the colonisers and thus, this was the social order that should remain. Ann Stoler explains the logic behind colonial rule by focusing on this intimate relationship dynamic, utilising the idea of norms and customs to aid explanation.[7] In one of her works, Stoler concludes that European customs and norms relating to sexuality were intended to preserve and maintain the assumed relationship of racial superiority that justified European imperial practices in the first place. She goes further to explain that European customs discouraged positive intimate relationships because it created a sense of parity between the races - a breach of the idealised White, patriarchal society.[8]
In a report by the British South African Police (BSAP) entitled ‘Black and White Peril’, written in 1915 by Superintendent Brundell of the Bulawayo Criminal Investigation Department (CID), the intersection between race and sex is clear. The 'Black Peril' was referred to as “the actual commission of the crime of rape on white females” or “assault with intent to commit rape on White females”, whereas 'White Peril' was referred to as “White females who prostitute themselves with natives for the purpose of monetary gain” or “the indiscreet and careless attitude adopted by White females in their personal relations with their native male servants” and “nymphomania; a well-known condition which takes the form of hysterical curiosity in sexual matters, in many cases due to inherent temperamental qualities of the individual.”[9] What is interesting to note is the emphasis on the factor of sex and sensuality. While this contemporary source highlights that the BSAP perceived the peril panics to be driven by sex, it is important to highlight the fact that these sexual stereotypes are, at their core, racial stereotypes - the hypersexual Black man and the tempting allure of a White woman.
This excerpt highlights the intersectionality of race and sex. Although the concepts of Black and White Peril were parallel, it is evident that the authorities only acknowledged cases of the 'Black Peril' as serious threats which caused harm to wider society, whereas the 'White Peril' was perceived as less serious and self-inflicted. It is also important to note that in Southern Rhodesia, the 'White Peril' was represented as the danger presented by White women who consorted with Black men whereas, in the wider context of South Africa, 'White Peril' was taken to refer to White men who consorted with Black women. In this way, this police report, while useful in gaining insight into the factors driving panic in Southern Rhodesia, is not useful in reflecting the cause of panic in a wider, global sense.
It is evident that the 'Black Peril' panics that consumed South Africa in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries were driven primarily by racial tensions in the region. This was seen through the need for social propriety within the classist, colonial world which only existed on the foundation of a racial hierarchy. While sex was a factor which caused panic among the masses, it was intrinsically linked to that of race. It was a fear of miscegenation which would threaten the racial purity of the white colonists. In this way, the argument that sex was the primary factor for the 'Black Peril' becomes redundant. Indeed, the 'Black Peril' was not a “phenomenon of sexual crime, but fear of sexual crime” because such crimes were racialised. White women were presented and viewed as vulnerable and naive whilst Black men were predatory and bestial.[10] Sex and promiscuity were not feared, but interracial sex was.
Notes [1] Diana Jeater, “’Black Peril’ in Southern Rhodedia: Review of Jack McCulloch, “Black Peril, White Virtue: Sexual Crime in Southern Rhodesia 1902-1935”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 28/2 (2002), pp. 465-467. [2] Oliver Phillips, “The ‘Perils’ of Sex and the Panics of Race: The Dangers of Interracial Sex in Colonial Southern Rhodesia”, in Sylvia Tamale (ed.), African Sexualities: A Reader (London: Pambazuka Press, 2011), p. 101. [3] John Pape, “Black and White: The ‘Perils of Sex’ in Colonial Zimbabwe.” Journal of Southern African Studies, 16/4 (1990), pp. 699-720. [4] Pape, “Black and White”, p. 700. [5] Gareth Cornwell, "George Webb Hardy's The Black Peril and the Social Meaning of 'Black Peril' in Early Twentieth-Century South Africa", Journal of Southern African Studies, 22/3 (1996), pp. 441-53. [6] Cornwell, "George Webb Hardy's”, pp. 441-53. [7] Timothy J. White, “Review of Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Race and the Intimate in Colonial Rule”, The European Legacy 10/3 (2005), pp. 262-263. [8] White, “Review of Carnal Knowledge, pp. 262-263. [9] Phillips, “The ‘perils’ of Sex”, pp. 101-102. [10] Jeater, “’Black Peril’ in Southern Rhodedia, p. 465.
Bibliography
Anderson, David M. “Sexual Threat and Settler Society: ‘Black Perils’ in Kenya c. 1907–30”. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. 38/1, 2010
Cornwell, Gareth. "George Webb Hardy's The Black Peril and the Social Meaning of 'Black Peril' in Early Twentieth-Century South Africa". Journal of Southern African Studies. 22/3, 1996
Jeater, Diana. “’Black Peril’ in Southern Rhodedia: Review of Jack McCulloch. “Black Peril, White Virtue: Sexual Crime in Southern Rhodesia 1902-1935”. Journal of Southern African Studies. 28/2, 2002
Johnson, Joan Marie. "Sex, Race, Gender and Power: Southern Rhodesia and the American South". Journal of Women's History. 14/1, 2002
Pape, John, "Black and White: The 'Perils of Sex' in Colonial Zimbabwe". Journal of Southern African Studies. 16/4, 1990
Phillips, Oliver, “The ‘Perils’ of Sex and the Panics of Race: The Dangers of Interracial Sex in Colonial Southern Rhodesia”, in Sylvia Tamale (ed.). African Sexualities: A Reader. London: Pambazuka Press, 2011
Ray, Carina, ‘Decrying White Peril: Interracial Sex and the Rise of Anticolonial Nationalism in the Gold Coast’. American Historical Review. 119/1, 2014
White, Timothy J. “Review of Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Race and the Intimate in Colonial Rule”. The European Legacy. 10/3, 2005
Young, Robert J. C. Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race. London: Routledge, 1995
Comments