Jane Austen Fight Club: YSA Gyrls Make Good on YouTube
A YouTube Video fMh readers have to see,
The video was made for a YSA ward’s annual film festival. Apparently it was written and directed by Emily Card, daughter of Orson Scott Card. She also plays Fanny. Cool huh?
It first landed on Jezebel.com, the feminist media blog (with the kind of audience that would easily love to hate on the Mormons - but Jezebel LOVED it). http://jezebel.com/5595473/welcome-to-jane-austens-fight-club
And, a commenter aptly noted it was made by a bunch of Mormon girls in LA - http://jezebel.com/comment/26484995/ , which prompted discussion.
Also, the same commenter submitted the video to Boing Boing, and they straight up mentioned the Mormon angle - http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/24/jane-austen-fight-cl.html
Some discussion went on about how this video represented a “cry for help” by repressed Mormon women. “Oh dear” indeed…
And now Time Magazine’s website has it, and they directly mention the ward, that Mormon girls made it, and everything - http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/07/27/jane-austens-heroines-kick-butt-literally/
This made the rounds on my twitter feed last week and then FB a few days ago. I enjoyed it, but I really wish they hadn’t bothered with trying the accent. Painfully terrible.
I’m curious why the Mormon angle is seems so important? It doesn’t seem important to me, but I’m not Mormon. I’d love to know what you think.
Comment by m — July 29, 2010 @ 11:10 am
ROFL. I like those girls. I think it depends on the type of Mormon they are referring to… many still view “Mormons” as the polygamist sects that live the “principal” and some of those still dress as though they lived in a bygone era. I could see how that would be surprising to have a video like this come out of such a group, though any person that knows anything about the largest group of Mormons knows that these girls are not they
But even then, Mormonism and Feminism often times are at odds, as anyone who has read here much would know!
Comment by April — July 29, 2010 @ 11:26 am
I don’t think that the Mormon angle is that important (at least to other Mormons) I think that people honestly know so little that they think that Mormon girls really do just sew, play the piano, and wait for a marriage proposal.
The comment about the “cry for help” is really ridiculous. I think that it isn’t a cry for help, but a representation of strong women, especially since they won the festival.
Comment by Alyssa — July 29, 2010 @ 11:31 am
m,
I think the Mormon angle is interesting for a couple reasons, one I think would be that non-Mormons often think that Mormons are a weird cult, so if we manage to do something they also think is interesting or noteworthy or amusing, then that messes up their pre-conceived notions of our one-dimensional strangeness.
I think for Mormons, the Mormon connection is interesting because we Love to hear about interesting or famous Mormons, to the point that we have our own rumor mill industry about whom or what is Mormon or has Mormon influence.
I actually suspect this is true of any “group” identity. People love to hear about “their own people” doing cool stuff.
I also wonder why the “oh I heard about this ages ago on twitter, I’m surprised you’re so far out of the loop ” angle is an interesting enough to you to comment on it? I also think this is pretty common, but I wonder why we get such satisfaction from being the first to know something, like what does it satisfy in our longings? I wonder?
Comment by fMhLisa — July 29, 2010 @ 11:43 am
fMhLisa, the only reason why I commented that it I had seen it on both my twitter and FB feeds was not to be the first to know something (because I *never* am, sadly!), but just to underline the original post with how viral this has gone. I kept getting the link from publishing and feminist circles and it’s being celebrated in my tiny world, which I think is cool. I really had not meant to sound snarky at all. I apologize if I came across that way.
And I’m sorry if my question asking why the Mormon angle seemed important sounded snarky, too. Again, it was an honest question and I had no intention of upsetting anyone.
I have been lurking here for quite a few months now because I’m interested in your culture, religion, and history (especially the women) and am loving the feminist discussions. I haven’t commented much, because I know I’m an outsider.
My hands are shaking as I write this. I really did not mean any disrespect. I’m going to go back to lurking. I’m really sorry.
Comment by m — July 29, 2010 @ 12:03 pm
m, I don’t think you were rude at all, not sure why you got the reaction you did. You should stick around:)
Comment by Roxanna — July 29, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
I agree M. And I don’t think Lisa was trying to be reactionary either. I think she was thinking out loud and not in a accusatory way. It really can be hard to read tone, but I don’t think her tone would have been harsh in that comment. I think both your comment and Lisa’s were interesting musings and thoughts about how things might be seen.
Comment by April — July 29, 2010 @ 12:14 pm
I have seen this around the past few days, but haven’t watched it yet. I just did, and laughed my butt off. One of the things I was just reading was saying that Jane Austen’s books have been romanticized and misunderstood and this clip was used as an example, but I disagree. This is spot on analysis of the position that upper class women found themselves in at the time–either marry or be consigned to a life of degradation and dependency on others.
Anyway, I didn’t know it had Mormon origins and I find that adds another layer to my enjoyment–rah team and all that.
Funny and very well done. Not exactly what I expected!
Comment by ClaudiaHen — July 29, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
M — Do participate. Sometimes things come across wrong, other times folks are crabby or downright mean. Just remember it’s a conversation — sometimes calm, usually heated.
I think Lisa is a nice woman. Have no fear. Just jump in over here.
Comment by ErinAnn — July 29, 2010 @ 1:08 pm
M- you didn’t seem snarky to me either, so don’t worry. I love hearing that it was making the rounds on twitter and fb.
I agree with you half-way about the accent, it wasn’t the best, but I think they had to go for it.
The Mormon angle is fun for us Mormons because some of us who grew up Mormon felt pretty isolated and unique if we lived somewhere where we were the only Mormons at school and so you only know the Mormons at your own church building. So it was always a big deal if someone famous was Mormon because it was so rare.
Now, of course, with the internet you can connect so well with others accross the world/country and read so much information that anyone can be famous. But, being Mormon we can imagine a group of young women from church getting together and making this video and think “How cool is that?”
Comment by jks — July 29, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
I love this. I’ve not seen it before. I am currently taking karate with my children, and am in the same class as my bishop’s 7 year old son. I’m not sure what the bishop really thinks when he sees me sparring adult men. Add to this, his mother taught me how to tat last week. I’m a walking paradox of femininity.
Comment by JC — July 29, 2010 @ 1:27 pm
I love that! Probably because I’ve always believed that at their heart, Jane Austen novels are incredibly subversive. The Fight Club of their time.
Comment by Chelsea — July 29, 2010 @ 1:31 pm
I loved this video when it went the rounds on my Twitter feed, and it makes it even more awesome that it’s made by some Mormons. I don’t know why, it just does. Community solidarity, I guess.
I would agree with Chelsea - I had always hated Pride and Prejudice because of the way girls became so fangirlish about it. But when I actually sat down and read it, it quickly made it into the top five of my list of favorite books ever.
Comment by Ted — July 29, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
The first time I saw this, I nearly peed myself. I couldn’t decide if they were poking fun at how staid the women seemed in the novels or if they were just breaking out of the formal, societally imposed correctness that has been tirelessly imposed upon women in general. (And maybe they are taking a shot at LDS fascinating womanhood, I don’t know). In any case, even if they were goofing off to be silly, it was a good laugh.
Comment by Kimberly — July 29, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
These young women have used parody and humor to comment on the current interest in Austin and Austin spin offs as well as false notions of romance and women’s roles in general society and Mormondom. If we can laugh at ourselves and our social conventions as a culture hopefully we can change them. My young adult daughters get the creeps each time a young acquaintance gets married just out of high school to her first serious boyfriend. The young man is usually a RM several years older than the girl. Both my daughters respond that this is like child molestation since none of the girls is educated or have any career skills. I must say that I feel the same way as the couples move into my ward and I get to know them.
I’m proud of the young women who are learning to fight their own fights, to take a punch and delightfully pick fights with the stereotyped gender roles that are expected of them in the church and the world at large.
Comment by Black Sheep's Gray Lamb — July 29, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
oh poor m. i hope you comment lots- we like hearing from you- hope you jump into the fray more.
and lisa b- what a bully! (hahahahah- sorry lisa.)
Comment by crazywomancreek — July 29, 2010 @ 1:49 pm
m, I’m so sorry, my tone was all messed up! I was just typing really quick between doing ten other things (making apple butter, getting the kids ready for the pool, running a mile, cleaning the train wreak of a house, getting a part time job teaching yoga! yay, I’m very excited about that last one).
April is totally right, I wasn’t trying to be rude, (though apparently I am rude) I just found it curious at the moment, why people like to be the first to know stuff, and I meant it (though I was not clear at all about it) about myself as well, because I was disappointed that I wasn’t the first one to tell you about it, and you were excited to tell me that you already knew, and I was just wondering what is it in us that makes us long to be the first in the know? What satisfaction is there in it for us? Musing, not accusing. At least that was my intention.
sorry about the tone again, so so sorry that I upset you.
Comment by fMhLisa — July 29, 2010 @ 1:51 pm
One of my most favorite things about fMh is how we like to “mix it up” a bit but also how everyone who is quick to soothe hurt feelings and welcome newcomers. M, please continue to jump in and express yourself and ask challenging questions. It gets our blood and our minds moving.
Comment by Black Sheep's Gray Lamb — July 29, 2010 @ 2:00 pm
I love the end part with Lizzie at the 2:54 mark.
Comment by StarieNite — July 29, 2010 @ 2:06 pm
JC,
I’m going to assume you don’t mean that his mother taught you how to tattoo, but it would indeed be a paradox of femininity if she did
what is tat?
Comment by Enna — July 29, 2010 @ 2:34 pm
Enna, tatting is the creation of lace. JC, I think it’s awesome your mother taught you how to do that! I didn’t think many people did that anymore!
Thanks for posting this video, Lisa. It made my day. My guy friends started a fight club in high school, and I always wanted a girl version of it…..
Comment by Dancer 007 — July 29, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
I saw this about a week ago and have been spreading it among my FB friends, male and female alike. Hilarious! I love it. I have a friend who wants to join a roller derby just because it is practically the female version of a fight club. I jokingly told her my roller derby name would be “Fanny Smasher” because who doesn’t love the name “Fanny”? Is there some underlying subtext with Emily Card playing Fanny? If there isn’t, there should be :).
Comment by Ella Menno — July 29, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
Thanks to all of you who were so kind, especially fHmLisa for clarifying. I feel sheepish now. I was up extra early this morning and have been in strange state all day. I’m sure if I had a proper sleep, I wouldn’t have been so sensitive and run out of the virtual party like that. But here I am! I’ll keep commenting and I think I will hop over and introduce myself properly.
Comment by m — July 29, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
That was awesome. Thanks for the laughs. I shared it on Facebook.
Comment by Emily A. — July 29, 2010 @ 3:49 pm
Ella- I did not know they still did roller derby…awesome.
Comment by Kimberly — July 29, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
Ah, that got me laughing. Such fun! Thanks for sharing!
This is a delightful, albeit unsanctioned, method of expanding the “Mormons are just like every one else” campaign. I also like that the clip itself doesn’t have a “Made by Mormons” tag on it anywhere.
Comment by Janell the Great — July 29, 2010 @ 4:38 pm
“I’m going to assume you don’t mean that his mother taught you how to tattoo, but it would indeed be a paradox of femininity if she did :)”
LOL Tat artist, karate kid…paradox indeed.
Kudos to Emily Card. Am I the only one who thought she’s beautiful? Not that that has anything to do with the post! I think Jane would be proud.
m, for me the Mormon angle is important because unfortunately, we’re not exactly known for humor (okay, everyone’s going to cite some hilarious Mormon now). So, when we see someone do something like this or the recent BYU library ad spoofing the Old Spice commercials, we feel vindicated for typically being portrayed as humor-impaired.
As for being the first to know/see something, I just think it’s fun to share things that are genuinely funny and that you think someone else will enjoy (which excludes up to 98% of what is forwarded to me). I appreciate it when people take the time to post stuff here or forward Onion articles etc because I simply don’t have the time to check everything out that I’d like to. That’s what friends are for
Comment by Lupita — July 29, 2010 @ 6:30 pm
Lupita, I *loved* the BYU library ad! I also saw first saw it on a book news site, with no mention of the LDS connection. When I saw the name of the library, I thought, “Hey! That’s a Mormon name! Could it be?” I don’t know why that gave me so much pleasure. Maybe it is, as you say, that LDS aren’t known for their comedy.
When I learned that the above clip was made by Mormons, the first thing I thought was “I wonder what they’ll say on FMH”, so I totally expected to see it here, or at least referred to at some point. I get that when your own do well you want to celebrate it. I guess I was just wondering more about why the commenter on Jezebel wanted to point it out, but now I understand why. It’s good to shatter those stereotypes.
Now, I hope either that movie gets made or those women come up with something else soon.
Comment by m — July 29, 2010 @ 6:51 pm
Just a little interesting tidbit of info. When I was attending BYU, there was a rash of Fight Clubs put together by students. They were pretty well hidden, but I least heard the existed. Just goes to prove that not all BYU students are peter priesthoods or molly mormons.
Comment by Emily A. — July 29, 2010 @ 7:40 pm
A terrific mashup, combining two things I love. Very well done.
Comment by Kevin Barney — July 29, 2010 @ 8:02 pm
A terrific mashup, combining two things I love. Very well done.
Comment by Kevin Barney — July 29, 2010 @ 8:02 pm
I love SO many things about this….
Comment by sare — July 29, 2010 @ 8:06 pm
The fact that it was made by a group of Mormon ladies was a total non-issue for me. The only thing that got me going was the rudimentary costuming. Just because it has a long skirt doesn’t make it “period”, ladies! But I only think that because I sew semi-professionally. I also ride a bike to church (yes, in a skirt- missionaries do it all the time) with my kids in tow, and did Tae Kwon Do until I had to quit due to pregnancy issues. If they ever re-do it, I want to help make proper dresses- they totally rocked
Comment by Jessica — July 29, 2010 @ 9:04 pm
I think the obviously amateur versions of the accents and the costumes just makes it better! I love this! No idea it was Emily Card or an LDS YSA group, though. Lol, that just makes it better. I did totally think Marianne Dashwood was an LDS girl I know named Anneke, though, or else one of her many look-alike sibs. It’s particularly great because during the whole of Mansfield Park I so wanted Fanny to grow a spine and just … idk… DO SOMETHING! She’s my least favorite Jane Austen heroine. Catherine from Northanger Abbey is the best, I think, though she didn’t make it into the video.
I wonder who played Lizzie. She was wonderful!
Comment by Tatiana — July 29, 2010 @ 11:25 pm
Um, yeah…. the lace making tatting is what I learned, not skin tattooing. That’s the first thing that comes to most people’s minds.
As much as I love the needle arts, I would be bored out of my skull living an upper class Jane Austin life as traditionally presented. I call myself a paradox because although I do some very traditionally female things, I also do some untraditional things like practice karate, reload ammunition with my husband, and today I am taking apart my dryer because it decided to stop producing heat yesterday. I would hang my laundry out, but it’s rained almost every day for the last 2 months and it’s only 50* F. Not that great for getting things dry.
We had a thriving roller derby community in our area until the roller rink shut down a couple years ago. My daughter’s 6th grade teacher was really good.
Comment by JC — July 30, 2010 @ 9:06 am
# 22
Please do not use that nickname - where I come from, fanny is slang for womens genitalia…
Comment by Lulu — July 30, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
I thought “fanny” just meant “butt”. My mom was nervous about naming me Stephanie because she thought people could call me “Fanny” for short. (Fortunately, of all the nicknames boys came up to tease me with, that was not one of them)
Comment by Stephanie — July 30, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
In the US and Canada, a ‘fanny’ is a bum but in the UK and in Australia a ‘fanny’ is a woman’s vulva.
…which can be embarrassing when a train conductor in Scotland asks you for your ticket and you reply, ‘oh, just a sec I have it here in my fanny pack.’
Comment by barmy stoat — July 30, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
“Fanny” is butt in the US, crude slang for vagina in the UK. Gives new meaning to a “fanny pack” doesn’t it?
(Over there they call it a “bum bag”.)
Comment by Chelsea — July 30, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
Well, it’s a good thing that nickname didn’t catch on then . . .
Comment by Stephanie — July 30, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
I had never heard of “Feminist Mormon Housewives” until seeing this truly awesome video. Are feminist Mormon housewives anti-equality bigots? Do they support psychological warfare against (and high suicide rates of) their sons and daughters who, though no fault of their own, end up being gays and lesbians?
Comment by Jeff — July 30, 2010 @ 1:25 pm
Someone needs to block Jeff.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 30, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
*sigh* There’s one way to find out, that is, read some previous threads on the subject.
Comment by AllieKay — July 30, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
M- the first time I commented on this site I was shot down viciously by long-time members who disagreed with my stance and wasted no time letting me know that they thought it was stupid. It was almost a year before I commented again under a different alias, and this time around my comments have been taken much more kindly. It’s unfortunate that you felt attacked your very first time commenting. You are not the only one, and you will find there are many kind people on this site as well as ones who feel the need to stamp on anything they disagree with.
Comment by no name this time — July 30, 2010 @ 5:06 pm
#36
I don’t mean to offend, of course. Although the term is slang for all kinds of things, it is also a nickname that was used frequently in the past. If you know anything about roller derby in the US, many of the names are crude and often rather offensive to genteel society. It’s purpose is not to be socially acceptable. And when I refer to “Fanny” I refer to the name used in the video and common in the past (including LDS history), not any other connotation, although they do make the roller derby name even more desirable in a roller derby context.
Comment by Ella Menno — July 30, 2010 @ 10:19 pm
26- Janell the great
Such fun! I love it. I’m assuming (hoping) that was a reference to Miranda.
Comment by Brian — July 30, 2010 @ 11:03 pm
Glad to see I’m not the only one who sees this and thinks of roller derby.
Comment by Mommie Dearest — July 31, 2010 @ 12:38 am
Hm. I suspect I would be admitting some grand personal failing by saying this, but…
I don’t get it.
Comment by Coffinberry — July 31, 2010 @ 9:17 am
coffenberry, you need to have read Jane Austen and have read or, mostly, have seen Fight Club, to make sense it. In a nut shell, the Jane Austen characters were using fight club as psychotherapy for the emotional and cultural ills they were suffering. At least that is my take.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 31, 2010 @ 11:38 am
I’d kinda figured that, but since I’d never slogged through any Jane Austen and have never seen or read (or even heard of before) anything about Fight Club, that would explain why it was most definitely not funny,. That, or spending too much time in court working domestic violence cases.
Comment by Coffinberry — July 31, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
Just look up the trailer to Fight Club on Youtube. That was enough of a background for me, anyway.
Comment by AllieKay — July 31, 2010 @ 3:50 pm
Or you should probably go and immediately watch Fight Club. So that you can be a real American.
Comment by nat kelly — July 31, 2010 @ 4:48 pm
[…] do it and the movies…don’t even get me started. Anyway, I saw this video today on Feminist Mormon Housewives and I just had to post it. Apparently it was made by a YSA ward in LA. This is one way to make Jane […]
Pingback by Jane Austen's Fight Club | Nebulous Mooch — July 31, 2010 @ 5:49 pm
I’ll pass, thanks.
Comment by Coffinberry — July 31, 2010 @ 8:15 pm
Well, now THERE’S one to show my 9th graders.
Comment by A Paperback Writer — July 31, 2010 @ 9:44 pm
Slogging through Jane Austen? I’ve slogged through many a book, but never a Jane Austen one. Seriously, she is witty and cutting with biting social commentary, but with the best love stories. She was a keen observer of human nature and not one to hold back on the satire, but in her heart, I think she was a romantic. She couldn’t help herself. If you like books at all, she’s a must.
Comment by ClaudiaHen — August 1, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
I both fear and love how popular Austen has become of late. I love that my daughters (and maybe even my sons) will read her without being pushed. (That’s a recipe for failure.) I don’t care much for the tarted up sequels that she wouldn’t approve of, mainly because they are so poorly done in comparison to her perfectly brilliant original. And her characters are sold into pop-culture slavery with zombies and vampires and whatnot. That’s one of the hazards of popularity I suppose, all the cheap buck-making derivative efforts.
But this effort I like. It’s funny and charming and tough-girl at the same time. It’s perfect for its purpose—which is not to sell out at Target.
Comment by Mommie Dearest — August 1, 2010 @ 11:20 pm
I like her novels, but I don’t like what they’ve become. I don’t like that Pride and Prejudice has been made into a million film versions as of late. Even more so, I don’t like that all the ladies in my RS don’t seem to read anything besides Jane Austen, Jack Weyland, and Stephanie Meyer.
I guess that’s not fair of me to say.
I don’t know. I’ve just been irked ever since we had that one RS lesson on wholesome entertainment and how we should listen to classical music and read the classics instead of all of that garbage we’re apparently reading. That lesson was just a bunch of elitist drivel. Yes, Mozart and Dickens were great, but the fact that they are dead and you’ve heard of them doesn’t mean they are inherently better than what I listen to and read on a daily basis. The RS president asked everyone, “So what are some good examples of good books for us to read?” EVERYONE answered Jane Austen, and nobody said anything else. That’s why her books bother me. They’ve become the token “classy books that good, classy ladies read”. They’ve become markers of culture and class for people that may or may not actually have culture and class.
Sorry. That was awfully elitist of me to say.
Jane Austen was a brilliant novelist, and I like her stuff on their own. I’ll pass on the film versions (except the Colin Firth version because he’s gorgeous as hell) and the RS book club discussions.
Comment by AllieKay — August 1, 2010 @ 11:39 pm
And what is funny about that is that Jane Austen herself would have laughed herself silly about it and written it into her novels.
But, I have to agree with your point. And she is delightfully irreverent and pokes endless fun at the clergy, so from that angle, she’s not exactly “wholesome,” although I suppose as Mormons, that wouldn’t particularly bother us.
Comment by ClaudiaHen — August 2, 2010 @ 12:34 am
Jane Austen, so, would have blogged on fMh.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — August 2, 2010 @ 8:51 am
@ 22 &34 and all the others who commented on “Fanny,”
Yes, all the characters named are from Austen novels. Fanny from Mansfield Park is the only really wimpy Austen heroine. She is totally passive and ends up marrying her wimpy cousin. The writing is good but the plot is horribly dissatisfactory if you’re a fan of Austen’s earlier heroines. That’s why it’s so funny to see Fanny in fight club. Lizzie has spunk, Catherine, Emma — feisty girls all. But Fanny is pathetic and passive. Hence seeing her put another girl’s face in a cake is delightfully funny.
And the UK slang about women’s body parts is much more recent than Austen. Charles Dickens also used the name Fanny (Ebenezer Scrooge’s younger sister, for one) without irony.
Comment by A Paperback Writer — August 2, 2010 @ 10:19 pm
Oh come on..it has nothing to do with the women..Mormon or not..it just has to do with how men treat us!! We’re supposed to be equal partners….!!!!
Comment by Alicat — August 3, 2010 @ 10:42 am
APW,
I remember that from “A Christmas Carol”, but I’ve also noticed that 90% of the film versions call her Fran.
Comment by AllieKay — August 3, 2010 @ 11:48 am
Ugh, Jane Austen should never be used in the same sentence as Stephanie Meyer and Jack Weyland. Oops. I just did it again.
Comment by KS — August 3, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
Mephanie Steyer? Never heard of her. Or any books she may or may not have written that may or may not have been absolutely terrible. Though if they were in fact written I would \have to believe they were terrible.
Comment by Travis — August 3, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
I’ve got to chime in to say that I actually really really liked the LDS version of Pride and Prejudice. It was one of the only LDS films that I did like, but I thought it was great.
Probably because the Darcy (Orlando Seal) was a major, major hottie. Seriously. I hoped desperately that I would accidentally meet him somehow and make him fall in love with me so that we could get married. He was even (dare I say it?) hotter than Colin Firth.
K, you can stone me now.
Also, I don’t really enjoy reading Austen.
You can continue stoning me.
Comment by nat kelly — August 3, 2010 @ 7:27 pm
@ Ella Menno:
The word fanny in UK slang is actually a relatively nasty word for vagina.
Comment by K — August 4, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
I just appreciate the fact that her heroines don’t have a predestined partner that they meet and magically fall in love with, resulting in uninterrupted happiness. Even though it’s pretty silly at times, the characters have to work hard to make things work with the person they like. They think long and hard about the institution of marriage, and what it can provide them with/what they want out of it.
Comment by Nadi — August 16, 2010 @ 2:41 am
Dear Madam,
Your forum came up when I punched Jane Austen + forum in google, but only you show true friendliness, independence of mind and a most prudent distrust of historians. Never loose these qualities. But speaking of qualities; it’s incumbent on me to thank you for showing excellent judgement by not accusing me about three times of having an agenda. So I’m looking out for you when I urge you to discard all prejudices you might have been taught about Blacks, just like all men should discard their prejudices they were taught about women. I’m like Mrs. Norris, only when she is speaking with Jane Austen’s voice: ‘My object, Lady Bertram, is to be of use to those that come after me […] and [enable me] to live so as not to disgrace the memory of the dear departed.’
I have pointed out to you some passages that scholars have consciously ignored since 1860 and have asked you to use your own powers of understanding. When you write: ‘Your quote from the Watsons would seem very apropos but for the fact that the Watsons are by far the poorest family Austen ever depicted,’ you are taking a step forward and many backwards because you mix two observations that are not related. You assume that a Black identified writer will only show all Blacks in a favourable light, and whites as devils. That’s not what I have learned about good writing, and nobody surpasses Jane Austen in that department.
Personally I do not find Mr. Henry Crawford such a despicable person; neither did Sir Bertram, nor did the Miss Bertrams, nor did Edmund. His excellent sisters dote on him! He is a flirt and he hits on those who like to flirt, even though they are engaged to be married and should know better, and were warned too. I assume him a virgin until Maria Bertram, a married woman, seduced him. My only quibble with Mr. Crawford is that he would accuse Maria, like Adam accused Eve, for leading him astray. However; Maria Bertram did not rape him. Like a truly high-born lady she was able to contain herself for a maximum of six months. Any ordinary women would have him as soon as she could get her hands on him, in the Mansfield Park shrubbery, for instance. If I were a woman I would have married Mr. Crawford in a heartbeat, even claiming pregnancy if I must, and if he took lovers, so would I. As a wife of his I would have many resources to gratify all my needs. I’m joking a bit, but I do not find him such a sinner, nor would I throw the first stone.
But seriously, I take my cue from her nephew who writes about readers with ‘true abilities’ and they, like me, will understand ‘pure and eloquent blood.’ The rest who came after are victims of revisionism. All of Austen’s books take the same stand, are one concept of the world. ‘Black’ as in Emma, should be ‘black’ as in M.P. and Mr. Crawford, following your fancy, should be a vicar too; which most definitely he is not. Black or brown girls have black or brown sisters, who might have regular or irregular features, as not all Black girls are beauties nor are all Black girls ugly. I almost believe you not to be a native English speaker, like me, by your struggling with the word ‘fair.’ This word has many meanings, like ‘the fairer sex’ includes all women, even if they are coal black or hideously ugly with a moustache; they remain members of the fairer sex. Then you have your Ex-Miss America Vanessa Williams who is Black, but quite fair. The runner-up who replaced her, when those gynaecological photo’s came out in Playboy, was much browner. The Bertrams are ‘fair,’ lighter then Mary Crawford, yet all the Bertrams are so exceedingly greedy for the Crawfords. And because they shunned poor Mrs. Price for so many years, we know how they feel about mix-race marriages. There is no pure Black blood, I never made that claim, but Mr. Crawford is pitch-black, for sure. Yet even Rushworth finds only fault with his length and Fanny does not think him handsome at all. There is never a slur on his black skin. Instead, he is a natural Shakespeare reader, gentlemanly, educated, perfect manners, countenance, charming, caring and an accomplished landlord; a quintessential British gentleman and a true Renaissance man.
My other latest brainwave regards Eliza Bennet whose brown complexion strikes fear in the hearts off both Caroline Bingley and Lady de Bourgh. Not a beauty, nor rich she has something they do not have: colour. This by Austen’s equates with health. Darcy is not an aristocrat, but came from trade. It’s his accomplishments as a good landlord and a good master which make him worthy to have Eliza Bennet. He is Black but some colour is wanting. Like with Jane Fairfax.
Complexion is complex, texture and health play a role. You might know that black skin is thinner then white skin, and if the blackest person scrapes his knee you will see the white, non-pigmented skin layers. Some exceptional black or brown beauties have a very transparent upper skin which shows the white underlying skin and give a certain ‘translucence’ or brilliancy to their skin. It would be like brown, opaque, silk velvet versus brown silk chiffon. This I learned after reading Austen and going out in the street to actually look at women and men and the qualities of their complexions. I advise everyone to do the same.
To finish, please hold on to your scepticism rather then your skepticism, and favour me with your questions, rather then favor, and do not be fueled by acquiescence but be fuelled by a distrust of revisionist historians. I have been addressing you, not the Austenites, nor the Austen family. This Austen research is just a sub part from my Blue blood is Black blood (1500-1789) research and confirms everything I have been saying since 2005. My improvements are my method of identifying a person as Black, by accepting that Blacks, like the Irish or Jews, have an identity. Like you would not go and measure someone’s ears or nose to determine his Jewish identity, so the nuance of black skin on Blacks, is of less importance. There are more or less Classical African features among people of colour, which do not automatically exclude them from beauty. As a writer, Austen gives clues about her identity by writing about matters which concern Blacks: Blacks among a majority of whites, Blacks losing power, Black beauty versus white beauty, mix-marriage, skin bleaching with Gowland’s and rouging with white face-paint. And we are provided with at least eight descriptions which state that Jane Austen herself was dark brown. As to the plausibility of gentle families who are black and coloured, the extended Austen family is proof. Comtesse Eliza de Feuillide describes herself as ‘the native brown of my Complexion,’ and is proud to show off her Tan.
Thank you and god bless
Your Friend and well wisher,
Egmond Codfried
The Hague
The Netherlands & Surinam
Comment by egmond codfried — August 25, 2010 @ 11:58 am
[Sonam Kapoor and Abhay Deol as Emma Woodhouse and Mr. Knightley]
AISHA
The timing could not have been better for me as I’m presently surrounded by scholarly books about author Jane Austen (1775-1817). I’m writing a research ‘Was Jane Austen Black?’ based on her personages who all are Blacks, and her own personal description as a dark brown woman, with African facial traits. All of these works are seriously flawed and ideological racist, as they never touch on the insistent skin colour schematics Austen offers. But they have an analysis of Emma (1816), which is credited as her most accomplished and cynical; but the hardest to analyse. Aisha (2010) is an Indian, movie adaptation of Emma and there is no colour subtext. To me Emma seems to resist analysis because it should not be read as a straight romantic story, but as an allegory about Black History, the causes of The French Revolution and the new political realities the classes must accept. Emma also points out the folly and dangers of race mixing leading to the downfall of black ruler. It’s a novel about self-knowledge, self-improvement and a warning to Blacks to pay attention and not to be afraid of change.
The movie treats the book as a straight romantic story, without any attempt at historification. (is this not an English word?) There are a few faint references to her other novels and scholarly approaches. It’s in a sense a picaresque story, with things just happening to the protagonist; Aisha/Emma. A rich, and wilful girl who takes up the business of matchmaking with disastrous results. Hurting the ones she sets out to help. It takes a long time before she discovers how wrong she is. Finally at the brink of self-annihilation her instincts kick in. Throughout she is questioned and scolded by her livelong friend Arjun, the Mr. Knightley of the novel. The film writers carefully preserved the basic storyline, asking themselves; what makes Emma, Emma? A true cinematographic tour de force! Any adaptation is a new reading, an experiment and a comment on the original. Emma is much about class and rank, which does not translate well to the meritocracy and cosmopolitan world in which we live today. So the makers omitted these two major forces, which in the novel work on Emma. Aisha now only belongs to metropolis of Delhi, hardly a country village, and the moneyed higher classes. There is no threat to her social position, which is really the greatest driving force and the danger in Emma. Aisha is not, like Emma, the dominating presence, nor is she a queen about to be dethroned. Just someone who manages to be the centre of attention. And this she does most beautifully in a stunning Dior wardrobe.
The white Miss Harriet Smith, Shevaly in the movie, is a middle class girl from the village who, even worse in light of the original, does not accept being perceived as socially inferior. Miss Smith from the novel is acutely aware of her inferiority to Emma, which makes Emma’s attention to her so remarkable. Gear is of great importance, also cars and houses which today only scream ‘money’ and not ‘class and breeding.’ The trips to Donwell and Box-Hill are represented by a trip to a white water rafting resort, where the company also indulges in some weed smoking. It’s a nice touch to be alerted to the fact that Emma and her set would today be knocking about in Dior, Chanel, Ferragamo and Louis Vuitton, but I ‘am not prepared to have them smoking pot! Perhaps this shows too much realism, even to the point of showing them sitting on toilets; as a device of verisimilitude. The unity of place is however less enforced as it is in Emma because we actually get to see the places outside Highbury/Delhi, where Emma as a novel is situated.
It’s hard. How would the movie have satisfied me if I did not know the story beforehand? What about the folks who don’t know Jane Austen? The look is very modern and contemporary. The main characters are dressed in European style. Stylish, elegant but very skimpy. Only Shefaly wears some traditional sjalwaar chamise, off and on. In the hospital where Aisha visits her sister who gave birth, we notice how short a dress Aisha wears, as the camera catches her panties. The women are young but at times appear disturbingly like pre-teenagers, children really, even sitting in a dollhouse. Perhaps this is a pointed reference to Austen’s fierce feminist criticism of how society looks at women? We also see Aisha standing outside the hospital in her short dress with two fully dressed Indian ladies in the background. As if Aisha escaped the movie set, to symbolise how detached she has become from reality.
The personal struggle Aisha has to face when she realises how lost she is, is symbolised by her binging on desserts and Häagen-Dazs ice cream. She then applies for a job which means quitting Delhi, like Aarti/ Jane Fairfax, but is saved from this somehow wretched fate by Arjun who finally states his love for her. They had loved each other for a long time but did not think themselves worthy. She was distracted by her projects and was not really thinking. He because he watched her mainly to find fault and keep her from harm.
The question is: does the movie convince on its own merits? Perhaps the story needed to be watered down, because we live in more complicated but less trying times. There is less a climate of change and uncertainty, then when Emma was written. We are however never more in need of a global revolution, to eradicate the last vestiges of colonialism. India has fully outgrown its status as a former British colony and matches or even exceeds anything perceived as western and forward. An Indian producer can even do a better Emma adaptation then a western filmmaker and sets a hard act to follow. The choice was made to take the major incidents from Emma out of context and give them another, less dire meaning. The ill-judged, untimely and unforeseen marriage proposal by Mr. Elton is an error of manners and high comedy, but becomes in Aisha an ironical joke about sexual harassment. Without understanding of the underlying story about revolution and change, a full strength presentation would have been too long, complicated and bewildering with the many twists, to a movie audience. Austen’s contemporary readers would readily understand her references to the outside world, while we would first need a long history lesson.
It’s a very satisfying movie because of the visual spectacle it offers, as we may expect from any Indian movie. There is some alluring, but functional dancing and singing, that don’t put the plot on hold. All in keeping with the novel, too. The characters have the unusual appearance of purpose, although we have no clue where all this leads. So this movie version is a string of unrelated incidents, which yet give some measure of gravity to the characters; but only the final denouement is what really ties them together. This can also be said of the book version, which keeps us guessing with its many false leads. Aisha has given clues of little jealousies toward Arjun and Aarti, Knightley and Jane Fairfax, but nothing major. And towards the end she agonises because she thinks that Arjun and Shewaly are united, while they are not. All the while Arjun is like a big brother, all about solicitude and criticism. Yet from these disparate feelings, intensified by the incidents; love grows. It’s because of this strange story, told with great and unfaltering authority, we are forced to ask; what is the story Miss Austen really wants to tell us?
How would I go about making a movie adaptation of Emma? It would have to be a two-tiered affair; two stories, simultaneously told. An overpoweringly, romantic one with magnified bucolic charms and a fairy tale like air, commenting on itself. And a totally newly created, relentless and harsh story of civil war and terror, set around the French revolution, with the same players, doubling. The themes would be the corruption, inherent to class and rank without true personal merit. Upsetting the natural order by elevating a conquered people. And imposing equality on two disparate nations, which goes against historical truth. Both storylines singing the praise of decency and benevolence, a true love of humanity under pressure. These war-like themes would find their counterpart in her indolence and the race-mixing practises Emma indulges in. It has to be historical because of the central role of rank and class, which are alien to us today. The players would have to be as Austen decreed. Mr. Elton, spruce, black and smiling. Jane Fairfax would be a light skinned Black and Harriet Smith; a blue eyed blond. While Emma and Frank, who used to tease Jane for her paleness would indeed be extremely dark skinned, like all the characters from Paradise by Toni Morrison. As would Mr. Weston and his wife. Mr. Knightley; and Mrs. Augusta Elton are Blacks, for she soon dethrones Emma to become a vigorous surrogate but vulgar replacement. Gentleman farmer Martin, the proper partner for Miss Smith who really loves her, is off course white.
Comment by egmond codfried — August 25, 2010 @ 11:58 am
JANE AUSTEN IS ALL ABOUT BLACKNESS
Blacks need to research history to liberate themselves. They have to find out what was stolen from them and claim it back, in order to strengthen their identity. Who are we, where do we come from, what is our history, where did it go wrong, when and why? That eurocentrist will hijack Black History, as the British sites about historical blacks indicate, will just not do. Since I have started my research there been historical blacks ‘discovered.’ A grand total of five. At this rate it will last forever. What do we care about one ‘black’ woman in a British Roman cemetery? And black by who’s definition? We know there were Blacks in the Greek and Roman world and they shared equal status with whites.
Blackness is more a question of identity then head shape or DNA There are those with a Irish or Jewish identity, which has nothing to do with the length or shape of their nose, but their ideas, ideals, problems, geographical movements, politics, solidarities etc.
Snowden in Blacks in Antiquity has proven that there was no racism as we know it today in antiquity, but rather 20th century American researchers imposing their racist views on the ‘colour-blind’ Greeks and the Romans. The Greeks were aware that Egypt was the source of their civilisation. And they did not have rules against race-mixing. They understood black skin only as an adaptation to environment. And they looked up to Africans, as blameless. Africans were favourites of the Olympian gods, who would spend 11 days each year to feast with the Africans. The war god Mars was represented as a black man.
Then the political issues surrounding Cleopatra have no bearing at all to us living today. Declaring Cleopatra black, according to the definitions of eurocentrism, is of no use to blacks living today, dealing with the racism today. Race Theory and Racism is a liberation ideology starting in 1760, to free Europe from a reversed apartheid system, when the nobility and royally was black identified. They intermarried because blue blood was black blood. Anyone who was not white was considered superior to whites. They were a fixed mulatto race from very fair to very black, some looking more African, Asian or white. But they shared a black identity: blue blood. The whites then were not the whites we know today. They were born in a system ruled by blacks and coloureds; they knew nothing else. If anyone questioned this system he was despotically silenced. This also explains the ferocity of the French Revolution which ended the Ancien Regime, which was black rule.
Now I understand that blacks are frightened away from Jane Austen (1775-1817) because of all the blond actresses playing personages, who in fact are clearly described as very brown and black. Austen writes about things that still influence us today, the causes and the aftermath of the end of black rule in Europe. In Emma (1816) she points to the dangers of race-mixing and blacks trying to civilize whites and raising them to equal status. These are the causes of the downfall of blacks, their own folly. She was writing about historical realities, not wishful thinking. Emma is not a straight romantic story; it’s an allegory, its Black History and confirms my blue blood is black blood (1500-1789) research.
On builds on the research of the ones who came before. There is no need for young blacks to go and rediscover the wheel time and time again. And we do not need whites to explain to us who is black and who is white. We are not that stupid! The sources are just the novels by Jane Austen who wrote for and about the 3 and 4 black families in an English country village, who were a gentle or noble elite. Towards self-improvement and to warn blacks about the dangers ahead. Austen teaches us the use of correct language, good manners, prudence, relations, culture, reading of good books and women rights. She shows how blacks have many colours or looks, invites us to look at blacks in all their diversity. She urges blacks not to be afraid to change or they might be loosing even more.
Egmond Codfried
25 August 2010
The Hague
Comment by egmond codfried — August 25, 2010 @ 11:59 am
WAS JANE AUSTEN (1775-1817) BLACK?
By Egmond Codfried
The glory of nations is chiefly derived from their writers wrote Dr. Samuel Johnson (1708-1784). And many around the world deeply enjoy Jane Austen’s books and letters, of which the interpretation is constantly fine-tuned and made into movies and TV series. They study human behaviour and are satirical of human failings. Her style was based on Dr. Samuel Johnson’s: ‘cool, well-ordered, witty and incisive observations of life.’ But because Austen’s live straddled the decisive period around the French Revolution (1789-1795), her life, her books and surviving letters can also be mined for her ideas about the radical changing times. Although she wrote novels in the Romantic fashion: ‘The passion of Romantism did not inspire her.’ So I, because of my research interests, look for Austen’s ideas about the changing views on the emergence and the controversial role of Race. In this light, the fact that there is no credible portrait of Britain’s finest nineteen-century female writer should be considered as highly problematic. Jane Austen, properly read, might grow into our greatest activist in proclaiming the glory of Blacks.
[Scene by William Hogarth]
Austen is very insistent about the brown and very brown complexion and the special beauty of her heroines. There can be no doubt that she is writing about brown, very brown and black skinned persons belonging to the gentry and aristocracy. Henry Crawford in Mansfield Park (1814) is ‘absolutely plain, black and plain.’ His description can be compared to the Moor, always a Classical African, in many eighteen-century scenes by painter Wiiliam Hogarth (1697-1764), which show a Moor in the middle of a noble assembly. The Moor, often disguised as a servant, is one symbol of blue blood, and informs us about the true looks and high birth of the company. In Northanger Abbey (1818) two women talk about there favourite complexion in a man: ‘dark or fair.’ This is answered as: ‘I hardly know. I never much thought about it. Something between both, I think. Brown—not fair, and not very dark.’ The other woman prefers light eyes and likes ‘a sallow better then any other.’ Marianna Dashwood from Sense and Sensibility (1811) is Austen’s heroine who is ‘so lovely,’ ‘uncommonly brilliant’ and a delightful beauty: ‘that when, in the common cant of praise, she was called a beautiful girl, truth was less violently outraged then usually happens.’ But only after all this staggering praise we are told that: ‘Her skin was very brown.’ The most famous of Austen’s heroines, Eliza Bennet from Pride and Prejudice (1813) is described deprecatingly by her rival in love, Miss Caroline Bingley, as: ‘grown brown and coarse’ and ‘her complexion has no brilliancy.’ However, Mr. Darcy, their love interest; does not find any fault in any of that but perceives her as ‘rather tanned’ because of her ‘travelling in summer.’ From The Watsons, we learn about its heroine Emma Watson: ‘Her skin was very brown, but clear, smooth, and glowing.’
Austen is clearly not talking about whites who happen to be more or less tanned. In a letter to her sister Cassandra Austen she mentions a Mrs. Blount with: ‘Her Pink husband & Fat neck’ (20-21 November 1800). White skin is referred to as ‘Pink.’ She rather discusses the many shades we see among Blacks, in a way that Blacks today have abandoned. We consider this talk today as colorism, the dangerous antagonism between ‘good’ and ‘bad complexion.’ So naturally Emma Watson’s beauty does not ‘improve on acquaintance’ with everybody. Austen states: ‘Some saw no fault, and some no beauty.’ And: ‘With some her brown skin was the annihilation of every grace.’ But Miss Austen is clearly not fooling around when she discusses complexion. In Persuasion (1818) she never mentions brown or black complexion, but subtle yet with devastating force mentions ‘Gowland’ twice. She refers to real life Gowland’s Lotion, a skin-bleaching potion introduced in 1760. So it had grown into quite an institution in her lifetime. Although advertised as a panacea for many beauty problems, the real purpose was to bleach a black or brown skin by peeling with lead white, a corrosive ingredient. Lead white was also used during the Renaissance by Elizabeth I and Catherine de Medici, Queen of France, as a whitening make-up and bleaching agent named Venetian Ceruse or Spirits of Saturn. By the addition of mercury derivates, another corrosive substance, to Gowland’s, it also functions as our Botox today, as it paralyses the facial muscles and causes a youthful radiance, but an immobile facial expression. Both substances are poisonous and their constant and excessive use attracted censure by scientists. Austen ascribes the use of Gowland to Sir Walter Elliot, the father of the heroine Anne Elliot. Her personage had ‘an elegance of mind and sweetness of character.’ She had taken after her mother who was: ‘ an excellent woman, sensible and amiable.’ Austen introduced Sir Elliot as: ‘Handsome with the blessing of beauty,’ through Anne’s eyes, and as a ‘failing’ and ‘conceited, silly father.’ So we may assume Austen decidedly rejects the skin-bleaching practises by the black and brown Europeans in her books.
[Eliza de Feuillide (1761-1813), Jane Austen’s first cousin]
The brown beauty of Emma and Eliza and the very brown beauty of Marianne and Emma Watson are reflected in the six detailed descriptions of Jane Austen by her family and friends. Even towards the controversial nature of the views of black and brown looks that we can derive from her books. Austen is described as: ‘in complexion she was a clear brunette with a rich colour’ (1864) and: ‘- she had a bright but not a pink colour – a clear brown complexion’ and: ‘she had clear brown skin.’ But the language also becomes cryptic: ‘Her pure and eloquent blood spoke in her cheeks,’ and needs deciphering. Her niece Eliza de Feuillide (1761-1813) married a French aristocrat, who was guillotined during the French revolution (1789-1795), describes her own looks as: ‘add to all this a very share of Tan with which I have contrived to heighten the native brown of my Complexion, during a two years residence in the country.’ One takes notice of the self-deprecating tone of voice, which is also encountered in the works by contemporary Isabelle de Charrière (1740-1805). She described herself as: ‘She does not have the white hands, she knows this and even jokes about it, but its not a laughing matter.’(1764) And in Lettres écrites de Lausanne (1785) her heroine Cécile is described by her doting mother as: ‘she would have been beautiful if her throat was whither.’ Jane Austen died young from a still unidentified disease and she wrote in a final letter: ‘I’m recovering my Looks a little, which have been bad enough, black and white & every wrong colour.’(1817)
[Maria Jacoba van Goor (1687-1737), Isabelle de Charriere’s grandmother]
The prevailing emphasise on brown and very brown skin in both her works and the way she herself was described, forces us to consider Jane Austen’s personal identity as Black. And there we are double crossed by the absence of an authenticated portrait which shows her own rich brown complexion and prettiness. In my ongoing research, my Blue Blood is Black Blood (1500-1789) Theory (2005), I have already encountered some so-called ‘missing’ portraits, which however do exist, or existing portraits which are not put on display in a museum because of African looks, or those portraits which show the same person who is described as ‘noir et basané’ (black brown) and ‘chimney sweeper’ as a blue eyed, white man. This scandalous falsehood we also encounter in the present day depictions of Austen’s personages by white actors and actresses. Marianne Dashwood, who was ‘very brown,’ is played by the lovely Miss Kate Winslet, who is blond and white. Miss Jennifer Ehle is white and has ethnic looks, derived from her Rumanian grandmother, but does not look ‘brown’ nor ‘’rather tanned’ as Austen describes Eliza Bennet.
Apparently, I’m not the only one who has discovered Jane Austen’s blackness. Yet where I welcome this as a valuable addition to my research after Blacks and coloured Europeans who were a dominating elite, others seek to deny, hide and submerge. They are denying Blacks the glory that derives from Black achievement and Black writers. The one un-authenticated portrait, which was acquired in 2000 by The Jane Austen Trust is supposed to show Cassandra Austen, but can be considered to be Jane’s, as it perfectly conforms to all her descriptions. Yet she will not be identified by them as Black because eurocentrism claims ‘There were no Blacks!’ Or what one might perceive as a Black is most likely a ‘Black Caucasian’ and not a ‘True Negro,’ they say. As some might know that according to eurocentrism Africans should be divided in African Caucasians, who might be pitch black but display no prognatism, and the ‘True Negroes’ who are prognastic. Apparently an unforgivable offence, we will see. And eurocentrism will blithely insist that there is no proof because we cannot employ biometric pliers to measure Austen’s skull to proof her a Negress. Or some easily disproved nonsense about Blacks who cannot be rendered in paintings. And their final obstacle is demanding from a researcher a Black ancestor, who must be named. And has to be a ‘True Negro’ who is a SSA, from below the ‘South of Sahara.’. Someone, just like Alexander Pushkin’s great-grandfather, Abraham Hannibal. Or Alexander Dumas’ father, General Dumas whose mother was an enslaved woman from Martinique. Yet Africa is just across the very narrow Straights of Gibraltar and Africans first arrived 43.000 years ago in Europe. Who knows their names? Whites, descendents of Albino’s who are in my experience just normal and healthy people who need a sunblock, are only 6000 years in Europe, coming from Central Asia. But mostly whites claim, unconvincingly, not to be the least interested in whether Jane Austen was white or Black, but rather focus on her work and personality. As if personality is not also informed by an ethnic identity. As if any writer can be studied without some reference to the personal context. Jane Austen also wrote about persons whose fortune was derived from slavery, as Isabelle de Charrière did and struggled with her own wealth. Fanny Price’s outburst against slavery is met with silence, in Mansfield Park, by the slaveholding Bertram family. Reverend George Austen (1731-1805), Jane’s father, acted as a trustee for a plantation on Antigua owned by Mr. Nibbs. Jane Austen was perfectly in the know about emerging views of Blacks. Does she refer to this when she cries out in a letter to her sister: ‘If I’m a wild Beast I cannot help it’ and ‘It is not my own fault.’(1813) The Moor, the Classical African who symbolised blue blood and black superiority was demoted to the base of the evolutionary ladder, now a creature between the superior white Human and Apes. This part also highlights the role of European Blacks in exploiting Africans in slavery. Yet eurocentrism blocks any dialogue or argument as if these views are dangerous and extremely pernicious and would threaten the very fundaments of the whole western civilisation. Any solicitation is met with rudeness and next dead silence. And even sabotage by library workers, as I have found out. Interesting is that on the Internet this portrait is shown out of focus which renders her prognastic lips fuzzy. And therein I find the reason for suppressing her portrait: Jane Austen displays clear Classical African features that make her Blackness undeniable.
[Scientific Racism]
The suppression of Jane Austen’s true portrait had already started during her lifetime and apparently no public portrait was issued by her in 1811 when she debuted with Sense and Sensibility. She knew that her ‘peculiar charm,’ which pointed to ‘the purity and eloquence of her blood’, put her straight in the line of fire of revolutionaries who had violently brought down the Ancien Regime. This regime I have defined as Reversed Apartheid. Sadly, I sometimes have to point out to some that South African Apartheid was an unjust and a wholly evil system. Likewise Reversed Apartheid, but this Black and Coloured nation shaped Europe in the way we know it today. My research shows a great and universal scramble to amend ancestral portraits to hide Blackness, even to the point of defacement. Now I can safely push back this panic to at least around 1811. I have concluded that there most certainly were many portraits of Jane Austen adorning the walls of the stately homes of family and friends were she was received as a favourite relative and guest. Yet they displayed her Classical African features, a mark of ‘her pure blood,’ and thus became a liability. Black Europeans who considered their blackness as proof of their superiority over whites, who they derisively called ‘Pink’ or ‘t Graauw’ (the Grey’s), were bullied into abstaining the propagation of Black Supremacy. As total revisionism was aimed at, I seriously doubt any documents toward this directive will be found. They would have defeated the revisionist purpose.
[A book bound in human leather]
I consider the horrible practice of using white human skin for bookbinding’s by the Black nobility as further proof how some viewed their white subjects. But they still alluded to their black superiority with jewellery and imagery with Moors and what I perceive as cryptic phrases: ‘blue blood,’ ‘not the white hands’ or ‘the purity and eloquence of her blood.’ Austen’s heroines could have only been Blacks as she was Black and her pride was based on her blackness. She considered herself through her accomplishments as a writer combined with her blackness as a true noble. The titled aristocrats are often portrayed in her books as: ‘ill-bred’, ‘sickly and crossed,’ ‘cold,’ ‘insignificant’ and ‘plain and awkward.’ And even the final blow by sweet Anne Elliot: ‘they are nothing.’ Jane Austen who was Black did not renounce Black Superiority if it was enforced by personal brilliance by applying ones talents to become accomplished. Mr. Darcy, the ideal hero who ravaged Eliza Bennet’s heart, was extremely rich, but not a titled noble. His fortune was achieved by trade, thus by accomplishment. And his housekeeper said: `He is the best landlord, and the best master,’ Austen’s family and publishers would have been perceived as promoters of Ancien Regime values and would have placed themselves in great danger if they would have promoted her portrait. Even Austen herself might have experienced ridicule, hatred, violence and harsh rejection based on her Black appearance. Yet through restorations the nobility slashed its way back into power but was finally subdued in 1848. And only then whites came into power, whitewashed European history, and claimed the glory like any conqueror would usurp the spoils of war.
[Queen Alexandra (1844-1925)(1923) at 79 years of age]
The absence of a portrait of Jane Austen and the portrayal of her personages by white actresses should be viewed as the ongoing revisionism of history. Any European museum should be regarded as a Church of Revisionism because they show whitened copies, over painted authentic portraits and outright fake images of the black kings and nobles. A practice facilitated by these persons themselves by issuing whitened portraits. A look they did achieved in real life with white face paint and bleaching crèmes. It seems that the views from whites about Blacks were frozen in 1760, when nationhood was hence identified by colour. Queen Alexandra (1844-1925) (1902-1910) was famous for her beauty in advanced age, achieved by a practice called enamelling. She preferred an application of paint which made her pink all over. This technique also prescribed the careful application of blue pigments to the temple veins to heighten the illusion of a translucent, super white skin. Her rather lifeless and ethereal look suggests paralysed facial muscles by mercury derivates, as well. This miraculous vision of beauty was then further enhanced with mysterious veils that blurred the view. Yet there are photographs which show her and her mother, Queen Louise of Denmark, as brown and frizzy haired. Her husband, Edward VII was a son of Queen Victoria, who was a granddaughter of Queen Charlotte-Sophie whose ‘true mulatto’ and ‘brown’ looks were deemed ‘propagandistic’ and gave rise to many comments. Some over painted portraits of the nobility show a solid pink face, and excessive, gruesome blue veins in the face and on the hands. This undoubtedly gave rise to the nonsense about the nobility to be very white and that blue blood meant blue veins showing. It could only be understood that frightened and indoctrinated coloured Europeans took to protecting themselves from the sun with umbrellas, veils and gloves, as Blacks tan easily.
This article should be understood in connection with my Blue Blood is Black Blood (1500-1789) thread elsewhere on this site and in Google. Any writer writes less then he knows; for sake of brevity, yet all my conclusions are based in facts and argument. Voltaire was accused by his detractors of ‘inventing his own facts.’ What are facts? I reject eurocentrism which is supposedly based in ‘fact’ and ‘empirism’ yet its a fake and evil science to hide the traumatic fact that Europe was a Black Civilisation, with Blacks despotically oppressing whites. Nobody observed Evolution, no one reproduced Evolution, and there are many ‘Missing Links,’ yet to Evolutionist, the Evolution Theory is a fact, as it better explains nature and human descent then Genesis’s Believers can. No one should believe anything; they should research everything by Google. The more sources to confirm a fact, the better. I will post more sources and welcome serious questions from readers. Whites seem to perceive Blacks as biased and therefore not capable to research these matters. But whites do not seem to suffer the same bias when researching the same matter. How come?
Egmond Codfried
The Hague
June 2010
Comment by egmond codfried — August 25, 2010 @ 12:01 pm