NOTE TO COMMENTERS: Welcome to bluemilk. In this thread, the same points are now being hashed and re-hashed in comments. Please read the entire post and thread before replying. In addition, please note that any comments downplaying slavery & racism may not be accepted. Some existing unacceptable comments may be left in place at the moderator’s discretion, especially if already replied to/called out.
Let’s move the conversation forward. Thankyou.
—-
An African mother and slave, presumably wet-nursing for a white master’s baby while her own child goes without. The image is from The Sociological Cinema files and they are having trouble tracing its true credit. I find this photo incredibly painful – breastfeeding, with all its hormones, bonds, and intimacy, and the transferral of that unwillingly from one’s baby to another’s.
Looking at the photo I was reminded of a description in this piece, which is not about slavery but which is truly beautiful writing from Mona Simpson in The New York Times with “Nannies – Love, Money And Other People’s Children”:
Seeing Michele Asselin’s portraits, I remember the heightened sensitivity of my first months as a parent. The pictures are beautiful and idealized. The women look at the children with love. No one looks frustrated. No one looks bored. No child is having a meltdown. They conjure the dome of tender air that encloses a mother, whose body is coursing with hormones, and a newborn.
But these moments of private contentment, with the serenity and depth borrowed from the portraiture legacy of the Madonna and child, do not depict mothers with their infants. The women holding the children are nannies. Part of what’s striking about the pictures is that they position front and center a person who is often left on the editing-room floor when a family’s memories are being assembled. Nannies have told me that their employers crop them out of photographs of their children. On the wall of a West Los Angeles home, I noticed a blown-up photo of a baby in a pretty white dress, held by a pair of hands of a darker color. In her photos, Asselin captures a radiance between caregivers and children, often of different races…
.. We don’t like to mix love with money. We want love to come as a gift that offers as much pleasure and reward to the giver as to ourselves. No one receiving love wishes to break it down to its component parts, of good sense and feasibility, much less to consider that payment may be necessary to inspire the whole project.
I highly recommend that article, it takes what can be a one note guilt-trip topic and goes somewhere else with it.
UPDATE: As you can see below in the comments the picture has now been identified – this is one of the things I love about writing on the Internet. Pretty much instant knowledge. Harper has the story in a comment below and the mother in the photograph may or may not be an African slave, because she might instead be a paid ‘wet nurse’.
The second thing that has changed since I first wrote this post is my assumption that this photograph would make everyone uncomfortable, as it did with me. The title of my post was, in part, a reference to all the many photographs of mothers breastfeeding their babies that we see where anti-breastfeeding types complain that the pictures are making them uncomfortable, offending them, or turning them on. I thought, now here’s a photo that really does make me uncomfortable and it is because the mother is doing this lovely, nurturing activity with the baby but there is, what I assumed to be given the information I had, a pretty awful backstory. It is the juxtaposition of ‘mother love’ against the cruelty of slavery that makes me feel uncomfortable. But Minna Salami of MsAfropolitan, and a Huffington Post blogger, told me she had quite a different reaction to the photo:
Minna Salami: Does this photo make you feel uncomfortable? I find it strong and compassionate even if poignant. Wondering why you presumed that the African woman’s own child wasn’t being breastfed? Takes away agency..
Me: Guess I’m imagining her baby isn’t allowed to be prioritised over this other baby. And it’s missing out on something.
Minna Salami: Whether prevented or not, a mother could find ways to protect her children. And surely often would. There was still agency. To me, the photo says love and humanness triumphs despite patriarchy and racism.
This is another thing I love about writing on the Internet. New ways of thinking. Minna Salami makes an excellent point and it is one that was also expressed by ifyspify in the comments below.
Finally, a word to clarify my original post: I wasn’t assuming that the mother in this photo was necessarily not able to also breastfeed her own baby but I was assuming that she would be forced to attend to this baby over her own baby.
PerthMum makes a good point in her comment that breastfeeding supply equals demand and obviously mothers are able to breastfeed twins and other multiples. My opinion on wet-nursing was also influenced by having recently read this article about Europe where Anne Manne says:
There was, however, an entirely different rule for poor women. For them it was not merely okay but necessary to breastfeed for they became wet nurses to elite women’s babies. Such babies replaced at the breast their own infants, who frequently died.
More Update: You must read Elita’s reply to Minna below.
blue milk 
Oh, my God… This both turned my stomach and made me light-headed. That poor woman.
I think slavery means everything that a slave does, even raising their own children, is a tragedy. What I find interesting about this is how it fits into the “separate but equal” oppression of the 20th century. Depending on when that photo was taken, that baby might have used a “whites only” water fountain as an adult.
they did…(from choc milk two “whites only” water) go back to the pic. slaves was always getting pissed on look closely at the pitcher ?????
Hi bluemilk
From what I know about breastfeeding, isn’t it usually done together with the wet nurse’s own child? (That is, the wet nurse feeds both children from the same milk, one after another.) The milk supply would adjust to the level required by the wet nurse.
I don’t know if they did things differently when they made the African slaves be wet nurses . If they deprived the wet nurse’s own child from milk, then that would be incredibly cruel, given that there was really no need to do so – nor any real benefit for the “white” baby.
Also, based on what I know, wet nurses used to be an essential part of life – before there was formula, people used to employ wet nurses to feed their babies if there were any issues with breastfeeding (or other female family members would help out if they had just had babies.) In some parts of the world, I think it’s still common for family members to help each other out in this way (it’s happened with people that I know personally). Again, the two babies would feed from the same milk, one after another.
I suppose that is part of what makes the expexploitation of this process so incredibly sad.
SLAVERY IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE CRUEL…….HELLO……..SLAVE MACHINE, ENTER, PUSH,DESTROYED……
Hi there!
The image in question is part of a French postcard line depicting scenes and people in the Ottoman Empire around 1910. Slavery was still illicitly practiced in some parts of the Ottoman Empire at this time, but on the decline. So while it is unlikely that this photo is of a slave, it is possible.
Here’s the original citation:
Type de « négresse » d’Adana Nourrice noire allaitante éditions G. Mizrahi, Adana, carte postale, 9 x 14, vers 1910
Most of this information is visible on the original, un-cropped postcard:
I find it interesting that there seems to be a pervading belief that this woman is breast-feeding this “white baby” against her will or as a condition of her enslavement. Perhaps, she was gainfully employed to perform this service. Perhaps the mother of the baby died at childbirth and she was the only one around with the ability to provide nourishment for this child. Or this may be her child. Forced upon her or begotten by sperm from her “white master” or something to that effect. Anything is possible.
I s bby hvng th tme f hs lf jgglng ths jggs ll [mod note: disemvowelled. Don’t do that.]
Was she also “gainfully employed” when it came to taking photos with her breasts exposed?
From what I understand she was a SLAVE, and slaves are NOT “employed” they are exploited.
(anything to excuse the brutality and savagery of white people)
To amend my previous comment, slavery didn’t end for blacks just because it was officially declared to be over. We know this is true because after the so-called “Emancipation Proclamation,” former slaves were RE-ENSLAVED by the creation of the Black Codes, chain gangs, and share-cropping, followed by Jim Crow and “legal” segregation.
So, whether this black female was “officially” a slave or not, she was in all likelihood still functioning as one.
Well said!
Free or otherwise, this photo of a black woman nursing a white child back then, is just as disturbing as the sight of the thousands of black nannies of white children today. Raise and nurture your own children.
In other words: Let’s not go with overwhelming historical data on the plight of black women and white women’s children. Let’s just all pretend they were “happy black people singin’ in the cotton fields pre-entitlement”.
I bet when you see pictures of lynchings, you opine that perhaps it was just a frat joke and no one really died ’cause the ‘victim’ was in on it, too.
Thank you!
Gainfully employed does not mean equally employed. People become products of situation and circumstance.
“against her will or as a {condition of her enslavement}”
Most slavery came with only one really relevant condition: Do as you are told.It is not a stretch to believe this woman is doing what is depicted against her will, considering. I find it distressing even given the possibility that this woman had a choice. Key takeaway: Slavery happened and this is just a horrible reminder of what was done to generations of people by design. Additionally, the effects of slavery still continue to poison….
What an asinine last sentence!
Thank you PerthMum, ifyspify and Harper for these comments.. I have amended the post accordingly.
I would like to add something to the conversation. I think that one of the most problematic and confusing aspects of the language used to support breastfeeding is that invariably insists on the special and particular bond between mother and baby, which is an exclusive one. But in many other cultures, and in many other historical moments, babies have been breastfed by many women at once, as women in a town or village would help each other out where necessary.
This is one of the reasons that I, as a feminist, find much rhetoric around breastfeeding off-putting, is that it envisages the breastfeeding relationship as this intensely exclusive one, which means that the mother is invariably entirely responsible for the baby’s nutrition. But there are so many historical models that tell us otherwise.
I am not speaking about wet-nurses here, of course, and there are a host of other issues that obtain there, in regards to class, and race. I am just expressing my irritation at the idea that the breastfeeding relationship is normally one of birth mother and child. This intense exclusivity is a relatively recent historical development, and one that emerges out of modern western assumptions about the nature of the nuclear family.
Clare – good point. I experience mothering as a fairly intimate and exclusive relationship, one that I am loath to admit probably includes a sense of ownership over my children and you’re right, it is largely a factor of my culture. I live in a community and economy that is individualistic and not communal. It has taken until the last couple of years for me to imagine breastfeeding another person’s baby and they breastfeeding my babies without some aprehension.
Why would the other child do without? I am sure that many mind of twins would tell you successful stories of breastfeeding both. Supply and demand. The more demand, the more the supply even if its not her own child.
Although I don’t know the particulars of this photo (I can’t see that tumblr link, blocked at work!) I saw this picture and looked at it through the lens of a black American. And anyone who knows anything about American slave history would know that if this were a woman who was a slave in the US in the south, that no, she would not have been able to nurse her own baby but maybe once or twice per day. The other slaves would have been left to feed the baby with cow’s milk and corn meal and whatever other scraps they could gather up to try to keep the poor thing alive. How this is in any way a beautiful image is baffling to me. Even if she was “gainfully employed” to provide this service (which, at what point in time were black folks “gainfully” employed by white people? Even after slavery, when black folks worked for white people it was not much more than indentured servitude anyway) there would still be the issues of class and race that would make this image grotesque. I wonder how much MsAfropolitan knows about US history in regards to breastfeeding. It seems likely very little. My reaction to this photo as a black woman in America with its history of racism and slavery is that this is anything but beautiful, and this was the universal reaction from all of the black women I know who saw the photo.
Thank you for this very informative and thoughtful comment, much appreciated.
Except that is was taken in the Ottoman Empire in 1910… Where do you get American, slavery or US south?
Come on people. Anyone who has had a baby knows that breastfeeding is an intimate and bonding event. It exchanges love and affection from mother to child and vice versa. This woman has no eye contact with the baby, is barely holding the child, and her eyes tell the entire story. Please do not try to romanticize the horror of slavery by pretending that she could be the mother, an indentured servant, or a nanny. Her body language tell the true story. SMH
First she was having her picture taken she was probably told to look up at the camera and her eyes say shes tired, breastfeeding can be tiring i know i look tired when i nurse, and about the holding she looks confident with how the baby is being held the baby is sitting on the chair with her, leant back and being held just fine the baby is big and comfy. I like it it shows a mom who opted for nursing instead of formula.. formulas been around since 1860s or something like that.
Thank you for sharing. I love a blog post that forces people to think and act on their thinking. In fact both the post and its comments are thought provoking. My initial thoughts were, “Ooh, that’s gonna hurt if that baby slides off her lap.” Not at the top of my game today. 🙂
I was a “wet-nurse” so to speak for a friend. While nursing my 14month old, my friend had issues with breast feeding so she asked my quite humbly if I would pump and give her some of my milk. I didn’t actually nurse her baby, but I did supply it’s milk. As a mother, it was a natural thing to do and I didn’t hesitate. The photo for me was not a negative, it was a baby getting nourishment. Remember Salma Hayek nursing the little african baby? I felt pure joy as a woman and mother seeing that.
Lets not forget that if this woman were enslaved (which has been proven unlikely) that there would be no good reason for her not to be allowed to breastfeed her own baby as well. In fact, the opposite is true. Her child would have been the property of this child’s parents. If it died they lost money. The longer it lived, the more money they gained. Harsh, but true.
I’m not so sure that she would have been allowed to feed her own baby as well as the child she is holding, as freely as she might have wished. I think it was mentioned up thread that she would have been responsible for the care of the child she is holding and that her own baby would have been fed in the few minutes she had free and her own child would have otherwise cared for by other people. Babies are surprisingly tough and can manage on very little. I doubt her own child would have been so robust as the one she holds in the photo.
In the nineteenth century, it was an ordinary thing for women from French villages to wet-nurse babies for wealthier, urban families.
Yes, but their own babies also died often while they did it.
Not the same comparison. The woman pictured is clearly enslaved and in many cases, she couldn’t even feed her own baby. Different all together. Those French women were most likely PAID to do it. It’s not that hard to see this is a completely sad and different circumstance.
How is she clearly enslaved? It’s not clear to many people commenting here, even the original post has updates on that erroneous assumption. Not that I’m saying she’s not enslaved, it just isn’t clear. Slavery was illegal in the Ottoman Empire during the time this photo was taken.
people see what they want to see. “SAD PIC”.
The white folks are nothing without us.
Wow, that is racist!
Fyi.. statement could not be racist as there is factual evidence to support it… even today as white supremacist numbers grow, as politicians have increased their coded racists language to garner white votes and push for policies against all Americans, as police departments and civilians across the nation shoot unarmed black men with impunity there is a still a gravitation, a hijacking, a repackaging and commercializing of black culture.
What in the world is this minna person talking about. It is a horrible photo that speaks volumes to what black women went through. Look at her attire. You have to be kidding me? This was not live nor voluntary. It is clear this woman is not happy. The thought that this photos says love and compassion over racism is ridiculous. If you feel so strongly about that why don’t you let your child suck on someone else’s breast!!!! No I am pregnant. This was never okay and never will be!
So reading some comments people are saying why would she have to give up her own child milk is based on supply and demand. Mind you all up untill recently people believed black people were dirty and genetically different, im saying this to show how shallow the mind can be. So there is an extremely high chance she did have to ween her child. White ppl never even wanted “dirty” black ppl to touch them, so why would they want a black child’s saluva to be where their baby eats. Also is it possible that they difnt know about supply and demand and didnt want the mothers child to “drink it all up”.
If you look at her hands they are not in an comfort manner for the baby they show no love or safety to the child she look as if that baby don’t belong here .Her left hand is almost under the baby and her right hand is on her knee, there is no love in this picture and how or why should their be love for child that will grow up to beat and rape her own kids .
This is an incredible picture accompanied by incredible insights. We will never know if this woman’s own child was considered valuable enough by the white family to warrant being breastfed. I am sure many a babe died as there mothers nursed white babies. She may have had to ask another mother to feed her baby for her if one were available. The fact that she wasn’t edited out of the picture speaks volumes as does the fact that she is bare breasted in front of others. I must make note that the mother is not pictured here. Quite and extraordinary find.
that what they wanted you to believe…..black women that wet nursed did so cause massa wife was to remain unmarked, the same as when he married her. and as fair as dirty black……most affluent whites had black nannies to nurse and do all the caretaking of their children…..if that black women had a child it was most likely made to be a playmate…..to be submissive to the white child and never to strike back at…….up until the white child was school age and then the separation of class and race was made prominent, a beating would also make the seperation clear for the black child. So racism was, is taught! Like anything else the exposure of her breast was photographed as a curiosity for the amusement of whites……many blacks, like Venus, were considered freaks of nature..
Why is it that people seem to miss the forest for the trees? Lets look at the facts here: We all know that blacks women were forced to breast feed white babies. It is well documented, even by the dumb perverted masters that would take a picture of the act for everyone to see. Also, it’s a representation of the twisted mindset of a people that would dedicate generations of time to the creation of a tale of inferiority to describe enslaved africans in America, then turn around and allow their children to drink from the breast of the so called inferior being. Give me a break!!! This is why they want to move past all of this. Never forget… always remember that we are the Alpha and Omega. Everything that is done against us is because of this fact.
As long as there is sucking, the breast can produce milk, (for years). The child that she had when she originally produced milk may be quite older and long since weened. I think it’s really simple, nursing this baby is her job, paid or not, it’s something she’s gotta do, a chore. Only white women’s bodies were revered. So I’m sure there was not even a 2nd thought about exposing her breast. Also since nursing was a natural act, women did not tend to cover their breasts when nursing like we do these days. Ya’ know, it may have been a traveling news man (or woman at that date) that saw something they had never seen before & took the picture. Not shocking, not grotesque, not painful, not sad, not beautiful, not dirty. Just a fact of life. An image of a time gone by A reminder of how it used to be.
I am sick to my stomach at the comments by some people here who are trying to make this something beautiful. Is it shame? Is it callousness? or is it cruelty? Whatever it is, you can never make us believe your rubbish!
This woman’s face tells the truth of what was occurring in that very moment. I see neither love or enjoyment. I see a forced half-smile, and eyes that decry an air of melancholy and sadness. If Wet Nursing is so popular, why isn’t it highly practiced today? The reality is, that we now know that some slaves suffered from the Stockholm Syndrome, wherein, they valued the lives of the slave masters and the slave masters’ families, more than their own. However, some of the indoctrination processes the slave masters used, sublimely enforced the Stockholm Syndrome’s tenets, inculcating them deep into the minds and DNA of the slave, as exemplified in the moments when the slave master was sick and the slave would beckon, “We sick, Boss?,” or, “Us sick, Boss?” Further exemplified in found evidence when the wives of slave masters, who suffered from Postpartum depression and was rendered incapable of caring for, inclusive of breast feeding their children, would turn to the slave women to care for newly born white babies, sometimes, at the cost of the lives of the babies of the slaves.
No, we cannot act like this was a beautiful thing. Aren’t we tired of trying to make something beautiful, out of something that was completely and utterly ugly? Every time I see something about slavery, wherein attempts are made, trying to beautify the ugliness surrounding slavery, I grow insulted. Stop trying to extricate and exonerate white people for what we did! I am highly embarrassed that I come from a culture who suffered from the dogma of white supremacy and the cult-affliction born of the Messiah Complex, that led to slavery! We impugned, debased and de-humanized an entire race of people, and we should be held accountable for that heinous travesty, for all time. This doesn’t mean that we can’t bridge the gaps and chasms born from slavery. This doesn’t mean that we can’t heal the wounds born from that period in history, but we should never be allowed to forget that trespass nor beauty a damned thing born from it, because to do so, is to continue to impugn, debase and de-humanize blacks, and I for one, am sick of it! Why? Because even still today, the chains remain.
My last question is this, where are the pictures of the white women, chiefly the wives of the slave masters, who suckled slave babies? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Well put. It is time for all to be held accountable to the truth of slavery. The comment about “white women..who suckled black babies” really put things into perspective.
Thank you, erik!
While the woman in the picture does not look unhappy to be caring for the child, the immediate issue that I have with this picture is that this woman is exposed. You will have a hard time finding a picture of a white women from this time period nursing any child with both breasts exposed. A white woman would have be scandalized for taking such a picture. This woman, slave or not at the time, did not have the privilege of saying, “No,” to participating in this portrait. The mother was probably in the room or nearby when the picture was taken, as well as the father and male photographer. Can you imagine having so many people standing around and looking at your body while you nursed? If she had a husband or brother or father in her life, he could not protect her from being exposed. If he tried, he would probably be killed. So yes, this picture is uncomfortable to look at. Many black women were violated this way and worse during this period in history. They did the same thing to Sarah Baartman, exposed her for their own good pleasure.
Well spoken. Thank you.
What bothers me is that the child at her breast will more than likely demean and disrespect her when it grows up.
i find it interesting that blacks were treated as cattle…but were apparently fit enough to nurse white babies.
it’s a twisted delusion at best.
How do “we” know that is not in fact her child?
Is there even an iota of logic in your head? You really want to make a case for that? REALLY?
Makes me want to stuff a Republican’s mouth with elephant shyte when I hear them talk about how Obama’s policies are “slavery”. The day Bristol Palin is forced to suckle a black child ahead of her own, I’ll believe it.
A bit contradictory for a white person to allow their baby to nurse from a slave. That hated the race so much, but, would allow this.
Hate(d)….LOL
When I see and read about things like this that happened to my people, I don’t understand the white people’s thoughts. They wrote and described how our people were less than dogs, but on the other hand they had sex with the slaves and impregnated many of them. And then the slave women and maids nourished the whites’ babies with their “less than dogs” breast milk! I don’t get it! Sex and nursing are both intimate and personal. So how can they describe our people as being less than a dog? They contradicted their words with their actions!
I’m black and I will always feel like we are the most hated race. But it would wrong to feel all white people hate us and feel like we were less than dogs….(maybe PETA does). If you really study history, a number of whites died for standing up against slavery and inequality. We honestly would not have progressed throughout history without the loving whites fighting with us.
Yeah where would be without the good ole loving white folks? God knows how our race even managed to survive for thousands of years before the white man even existed. My mind will not be changed on the overall group just because a tiny fraction of the group decided to do the right thing. Nor will I give that tiny fraction, all or most of the credit for the progress that was made, when so many black people fought extremely hard for the freedoms we have today and many lost their lives in that struggle. To feel like we would’ve had no progress from oppression, by the same people who were benefiting from our oppression is naive and pathetic.
White’s abolished slavery for socioeconomic reasos ONLY not because they love your Black ass! Don’t be such a ‘nigger-dandy!’
I actually saw the opposite a lot when I was growing up, believe it or not: white women nursing their black friends’ babies. That’s how it was handled when surgeries came up or one mother had to start taking harmful medications or even just for baby sitting purposes…formula wasn’t considered an option, even once the time came that it certainly was easier. Obviously, they were still nursing their own babies as well. I completely understand why it was such an outrageous situation back then, but without the background information, the image itself is beautiful to me. It makes me think of the adoptive mothers of today who are strong enough to force lactation, so they may feed babies they did not give birth to from all different ethnic groups. What if the woman in the photo chose to feed the infant in her lap? In the case that she was a slave, what if her “masters” were kind to her and she offered when the mother became ill? She does not appear to be starving, so maybe she was treated as one of the family and loved as any other nanny would be? Not likely, perhaps, but we do not know the specifics and can only make assumptions based on what was recorded of the majority. I think we forget that there were slaves who were treated very well and even written into family wills in some cases. Black and White children grew up side by side, nursing and playing together. The White children were taught to hate the same people who were more family to them than their relatives. Certainly not an excuse of any kind. Just my thoughts.
There are many definitions of starving: One definition is obesity. It is without doubt that this nursing woman is undernourished in that she in all probability nourished herself on pork fat and carbohydrates. She is exhausted!!! Her eyes are falling down from low blood sugar and infiltration of candida!!!! She is giving her last oz. of strength to ‘obey’ and subsume her own integrity. I nursed all three of my own children….It is a HUGH job!!!! I ended up depleted of B vitamins and Iron….I was on the verge of a complete collapse. As is this woman.
And incidentally, ‘masters’ are never kind, by the mere definition of the word: ‘Master’ not only infers control, ownership, domination, cruelty, rape, incest, power, lust, it is all that is of the patriarchy, by the patriarchy and for the patriarchy..
There is so much in your thinking that you may want to examine as ‘brainwashing,’ ‘conditioning’ and thinking that was inputted to your brain. Jus sayin’
Also, ‘slaves’ and ‘treated well’ is an oxymoronic juxtaposition. Not possible. Same as above with connotation of ‘masters.’
Just for the record, I’m a white woman. I need a shot of B vitamins for the stress I’m feeling for humanity. Please read some literature written by slaves.
Perhaps, start with Sojourner Truth or Frederick Douglas…
You saw the opposite growing up…because…you…were…not…in…slavery…POINT…BLANK…PERIOD. A lot of cruel, “background information,” about the reality of American slavery is omitted to make our founding of this nation seem less fucked up. She does not appear to be starving… Really…that’s your argument on if she was treated well or not. JUST KNOW she still was a SLAVE, and if she wasn’t mentally oppressed as well, (Stockholm syndrome) she would leave if she ever got the chance. Sickening how people try to justify and try to insert themselves in the situation like the picture has anything to do with anything you’ve gone through…smdh “I think we forgot there were some who were treated very well,” SICK!
I suppose this is why I never get involved with such discussions…*sigh*
Today, there remains slavery of one kind or another. Again, I do not seek to excuse or justify any of it, but families claiming to “love” one another still treat their children like they are worthless, beating them and starving them to death, forcing them into adult situations long before they even understand what is about to happen to them. The reality is Africans were enslaving one another between tribes long before the Middle Passage. This picture does not mean the same to me as it does you. That is part of what makes this America: diversity in being and thinking and the freedom to express such. Have I read literature written by slaves? Absolutely. Is the foundation of this nation fucked up? Absolutely, that cannot be debated. I do not think this situation has anything to do with what I’ve gone through, but I know I would not be here if she, and others, had not endured the atrocities encountered. There is nothing to justify. I was simply sharing my personal impression of THE PICTURE.
My apologies for causing such an uproar in each of you. I am not uneducated regarding my foremothers’ and forefathers’ pains, contrary to your thoughts, but I was treated horribly by my Black family members. If anyone conditioned me, it was them. Perhaps for being light, or maybe for simply being at all. In either case, I am certain it has played a role in my emotional disconnect.
Thank you for your…interesting ways of expressing your thoughts.
This is not an American photo… it was taken in 1910 in the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) for a French postcard. Why bring any American History into the dialogue?
Stop trying to romanticize slavery. This image is not beautiful. And though I’m doubtful, even if she was one of the ones who was treated nicely she had no choice in this or in any other matter regarding her life. Do you really think this is what she wanted to do with her life, and with her time? To have to have her oppressor’s child on her breast ? How dare you try to spin it into something beautiful so that you don’t actually have to think about it and realistically feel what it must have been like to be in this woman’s shoes for even a minute. I’m sorry if I was her, I don’t care how well my master treated me I would be repulsed and I would want to throw that baby off of me. Clearly she was in no position to do that, but she probably dealt with it by shutting down her feelings, and disassociating, putting on a brave face to keep from crying at the humiliation and the sadness.
Wow….romanticize slavery?? NOT my position at all! How dare you, ma’am, even accuse me of such a thing! As other people have stated, AND IS NOTED WITHIN THE ARTICLE, she could have been a wet nurse. For all we know, this is how she earned a living. As a mixed child, I find the image beautiful. That is all. It has nothing to do with the background of when or why, so I should have omitted my comments in that regard entirely. I appreciate your difference of opinion, but cannot comprehend why you would attack me for not sharing in it; welcome to America.
I hope you enjoy the remainder of your week.
I think this picture is in the same genre as the 19th Century ‘Venus’ pictures were, a curiosity of the ‘other’… neither fully human nor woman, just something to be gawked at.
On the other hand, on the issue of breastfeeding, when I was in Panama, I was able to pump and donate my milk for premies at the local hospital, something not available to me in the US. We have this ‘ick’ factor to deal with here, regarding breasts and breastmilk, that other cultures haven’t adopted.
We can infer a couple of things about this picture that would make me uncomfortable. First you can infer that this mother wasn’t allowed to see her own children and you could be right, then there’s the situation where is depicted in the movie twelve years a slave when mothers was separated from their children by slave owners and sellers. So therefore she might not even have her own child for the child could have been sold into slavery. This picture doesn’t tell us quite the whole story we can only look at this picture and observe their a presumed slave is feeding a white baby and that’s all I can gather from the picture.
This is another picture revealing the power of black people making a positive life saving act to the world.
I bet she fed her child as well because he/she was considered valuable property and an investment in the masters wealth. Although I do find it rather ironic to allow your child to be fed by someone considered subhuman I wonder how well she was treated, and fed.
I think what we see is colored by our own experiences, and the comments on the original article express that very clearly. Some of the more recent comments even ignore the date and location that were provided after the original post. Instead, there is an immediate and visceral reaction.
One thing that I see missing from the comments is the awareness that children weren’t necessarily seen in the same light we view them today. Women had children because they didn’t have the means to prevent it. Women had children to provide heirs or, in the case of female children, to provide a means for joining families together through the “sale” of a young woman to a suitable husband, often adding to the coffers of the woman’s father. As recently as the 1940s, women frequently didn’t share the news of an impending birth until the second trimester, in case the pregnancy didn’t “take.” And children often weren’t named until they reached their first birthday (being referred to simply as “the baby”) in case they didn’t live.
As far as the attitude and posture of the woman, I could have had a photograph made of me in a similar pose when nursing my own children. Not every mealtime is a “bonding” event. Sometimes you’re tired and wish the baby would just go to sleep so you can get on with what you need to do. Sometimes you’ve fed from one breast and leave it uncovered to “air dry” while you feed from the other.
Wealthy white women didn’t breast feed in order to preserve their “figure,” but poor women of any color didn’t have this luxury. “Bonding” wasn’t part of the lexicon – you had children, you raised children, you sent them on their way. Most wealthy white women saw their children infrequently, “visiting” them in the nursery, or having them brought to them to say goodnight. Read the biography of Rose Kennedy sometime to see how she managed her children’s lives without actually being part of their lives until they were old enough to behave in company. None of this is to say that children weren’t loved. However, they didn’t have the place in society that we have given them today.
We can have no real knowledge of how this woman felt about feeding a white child. We don’t know if she was a paid wet nurse, who was happy to have a way to earn money (which, given the origin of the photograph, seems likely), or if she was enslaved (less likely, but possible). We don’t know how old her own children are – they could be grown, since lactation can continue indefinitely. Her child could have died, and she could have accepted this role gratefully. The point is, we simply cannot know, and to impute our own biases onto what is happening in this picture doesn’t, in fact, make any of what we might think the truth.
Slavery in this country remains the single most horrid blight on our history. It is a stain that remains even today, as evidenced not only by the comments on this page but in the public and political arena on a daily basis. When we impute the horror of that institution on each and every photograph or event that we see, we begin to desensitize people to its horrors. Let us remember what it was and how it has impacted lives – and still does, more than 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation. Let us not react to every imagined slight, some of which are easily disproved, but instead shine the bright light of truth on those horrors that we know to be true and accept that there are some things we simply cannot know. This picture falls into that latter realm.
You’re kidding, right??? You in a similar pose??? With camera man, lights, ‘masters’ and ‘whatnots’ walking by…Like at a circus….or, the mall, maybe??
We can know the horrors of what ‘we know to be true.”’ We have written testimonials…We can know that this woman suffers…”The EYES have it.” The first step to enlightened liberation is getting rid of our programming…Making this picture ‘alright’ because we rationalize away what we really see is exactly that, denial that we have been programmed: It is uncomfortable to sense that we have been taught to ‘believe’ and rationalize it all away with suppositions. The ‘proof is in the pudding:’ The proof is in the picture.
Exactly!
Do you read before you strike? Someone commented that her posture clearly indicated she didn’t love the child. I merely pointed out that nursing a child is sometimes exhausting – and, yes, I did use myself as an example. And I said I *could have* had a photo made in that same posture, not in that same circumstance.
You see what you see in her eyes; I happen to see differently. The truth is, neither one of us KNOWS what she was feeling or thinking. Unless you are a descendant and know her story, there’s no way either of us can know. As has been stated, this is not the 19th century South, it’s early 20th century France. She could have chosen to be a wet nurse for money. And it’s true that she may not have had other options; my grandmothers didn’t have many options, either – one cleaned houses and one took in laundry. But if – and I’m saying “IF” – she chose to earn money as a wet nurse, why would anyone be critical of that path?
You say the first step to enlightened liberation is getting rid of our programming. I would say that you’re absolutely right, and you need to apply that to yourself as well. You are reacting to your own programming even as you accuse me of reacting to mine.
I am certainly not trying to have an argument, I am simply offering that the picture is open to interpretation. If we aren’t willing to listen to each other, if we can’t have a conversation, then what hope is there for us to ever understand each other?
Milk does the body good!
Ignorance, hatred and fear will lead us to believe that this photo is sad and wrong. We all are assuming her own child was going without or was still a baby or even alive. Some mothers can produce milk for a long time even after their own child stop breast feeding. We also are assuming that the birth mother can produce milk and refused to feed her own child. Some women cannot produce milk or not enough to feed their babies. In some countries, women who farms, will take turn feeding their’s and other’s babies.
Don’t turn this image into something that is not. It is a beautiful photo of a woman breast feeding a baby.
nyiaj i think you are right..lets not turn this into something its not. With that being said, it most likely IS NOT a beautiful photo of a woman breastfeeding a baby. It most likely IS a photo that depicts a woman being used for her milk because the child’s mother is too wealthy or socially prominent to be bothered with the task of breastfeeding or raising her child. That is not beautiful. It creates a completely different dynamic when viewing this picture. Its hard for me as a black woman to not consider the circumstances that most likely came before this photo was taken. For me they are extremely important and I find it insulting that others will discount it as if it doesn’t matter.
Comparing a woman who is forced to breastfeed and care for the children of those that own her, to the idea of women coming together of their own free will and breastfeeding each others children to meet a need, is ridiculous and they are not the same. It doesn’t matter if her own kid got her milk or not. Its the idea of it that makes this photo something other than whats on the surface. Not to mention the fact that she is photographed in such a way that was no doubt frowned upon during the era that this photo was taken. Its a clue as to how she was viewed. No white woman who was valued or respected would have EVER been photographed breast feeding, much less with full breast out for the world to see. But slaves, especially black female slaves, were often photographed and put on full display naked. After all, they were just property no more important than an animal or cattle. She is not being respected as mom helping out another mom. She is being used as cattle who happens to still have milk. So forgive me if I don’t see this pic through the lens of the 21st century idea that women embrace about breastfeeding. I see this picture through the eyes of my grandmother and the women that came before her..
Thank you for this post, I’m tired of the romanticizing that is going on here.
The first sentence uses the word “presumably”, which means that the words following it were pulled out of the air. It is a very provocative picture but there are any number of things that one could come up with that one could come up with that doesn’t land at “while her own child goes without.”
For example, the child could be the child of the master (or some other white man) and the woman in the picture i.e., just a fair skinned black baby being fed it’s mother. It could be that the white mother died at birth and the black woman volunteered to nurse, because she had a baby of her own and could produce enough milk for both.
So given that the writer chose to leap to assert a single presumption of what the picture represents vs. exploring what could be other likely presumptions or potential truths, I’m left to believe that either knowingly or unknowingly the author landed on the side of simply writing something provocative.
The problem with this is that rather than challenging people to think, we force them into commenting on something that has little or nothing to do with the truth. I may be wrong, but at the end of the day, i’m not sure there is much to be gained from the exercise.
Just at thought..
My grandmother used to tell me about how black women were often employed to breast feed white infants because the white women did not want to “ruin” their breast. This not only took place in the slave era, but well into the 40’s-50’s. This photo speaks volumes about the irony of how blacks were treated. Blacks, especially black women, were thought to be extremely inferior in every way, couldn’t drink from the same fountains, eat in the same room or live in the same housing as whites. We were thought to be filthy and unsanitary due to how we were forced to live. But it did not stop whites from forcing those same “filthy inferior black women” to raise their kids, and breastfeed their babies.
I’m well aware that wet nurses often came to the aid of women, who for some reason, were not able to breast feed. But many times this situation took place due to the sheer social privilege that many white women took over black women. Making them do the “lowly” task that white women felt they were too good for or too busy to do. My first thought in viewing this picture is “where is this kid’s mom and why cant she breast feed her own damn baby..” Yes this photo makes me angry! How ironic is it that they would entrust their most precious belonging in the hands of the ones they considered to be so unworthy of any kind of respect or dignity. And then those same babies often grew up learning to hate and disrespect the very women from whose breast they were nurtured and fed.
However its interesting to read all of the comments about this photo and the different opinions that we all have. I guess it depends upon your reality and what “lens” you look through. I am an advocate for breast feeding and I am aware that moms share their milk with children of other mothers to get the job done. But situations like that are completely different from incidents of black women who were forced into doing something because they had little choice. It takes a beautiful thing like breastfeeding and turns it into something ugly.
My grandmother was a wet nurse. They were needed before there was formula because some women could not lactate. I am an advocate for breastfeeding. I would have been a wet nurse too in that era. I just made way too much milk for one child. Why throw milk out when another child could thrive with it. There are just too many assumptions being made about this photo without all of the information. This is a beautiful woman giving nourishment to a beautiful child. That is what I see.
I am surprised by the number of comments that take the point of view that any nursing is a good thing, because also nursing can be a tender, bonding, life sustaining thing. Sex can be a tender, bonding, life-producing thing, but we acknowledge it can also be the violence and dehumanization of rape.
The relationship depicted here carries the deep historical weight of institutionalized violence: whether this specific image depicts this or not, there is deep and damaging history about black women being forced by conditions of bondage or economic servitude to nurse and care for white infants, usually while being unable to feed or care for their own. If you think of yourself as an advocate for breastfeeding, please consider what it means that you are unable to listen to, hear, and acknowledge the pain – for both mothers and children – of these generations of deprivation for black women.
Every black woman brings some version of this historical memory to her own choices about nursing. If you need to create a story in which the relationship depicted is voluntary and not necessarily harmful, you are likely not available or conscious enough to be an advocate for nursing *for black women*. What does it mean that your advocacy, with its intentions of love and well being, are causing harm to actual black women?
MYS, thankyou for this comment.
“It takes a village to raise a child”
About ten years ago, I worked in several South African primitive villages and there it was not unusual to have several different woman breast feed several different children. It was a culture shock for me at first, but after awhile it seemed normal under the circumstances..
Lets be real. This picture, whether forced to or paid to, depicts a bigger story. In no way, shape, or form, was a black woman (in the late 1800’s – early 1900’s, even now) considered equal, favored, liked or treated well by a white person. Therefore, I think we all know, that the article rings true.
I feel sorry for the baby. How terrible not to have that motherly love and bonding that should be accomplished while nursing. I know it was probably the “thing” for rich women to do back then, but it must have been a very lonely feeling for the baby.
I love how blacks where not considered human enough to vote- and not be property but they were plenty human to feed their raggedy ass children. This photo makes me feel angry and violated for my ancestors and anyone who tries to rationalize it is coddling their own ancestral guilt. This is sick and disgusting! People who are to rich and or lazy or inconvenienced to raise their children really need to think about that before bringing children into this world and paying someone to do it. If a woman can’t have sex with her husband should she pay some black woman to do that too? Wtf?
ashanti you are so right, but remember they did not have to “pay” these women to breast feed their babies, they were slaves and they had to do it or be whipped or killed. They also did not have to pay them to have sex with their husbands either because the slave masters went to the slave quarters and took what he wanted.
Also, the babies often died due to sickle cell disease which had a high infant morbidity rate. Sickle cell had been thought to be a curse bc of the swelling and excruciating pain and fever babies would often exhibit before death. There were so many odds stacked against us it’s a wonder we are not extinct. Being a wet nurse and having agency I’m sure was a rarity. Most often, it was a “rock and a hard place”situation.
Can I ask.. where are all you new commenters coming from? How did you find a link to this old post? Thanks.
i saw it on Facebook, someone posted a link to their page
A friend posted in on facebook yesterday. It is an interesting photo, the comments make me concerned for humanity.
How do you know it is not her child?? I am black with 2 biracial sons and they both looked like that as infants.
If she was a wet nurse she fed both babies our breasts adjust to the demands. Additionally, I think white women of that day thought nursing was repulsive and had black women do what they thought was “dirty work”.
if you’re a junior student of history you’d know that the camera was not around during the period of slavery in the western hemisphere. so without the facts of this photo one could easily assume this was a black woman being exploited elsewhere, but not in ‘slavery’ as we know it here
the details of the time period are not as important as the truth of the exploitation. Its all slavery to me.
In an earlier comment the origin of the photo is mentioned. It was taken in 1910 in the Ottoman Empire for a French postcard. And yes, there are a lot of comments on here ignoring that. Jumping to all these conclusions must wear them out!
Photography existed well prior to the American Civil War; daguerreotype photos were widely available by 1839 if one could afford it… so this picture very well could be of an enslaved woman.
Are unsure of the source? Clearly it is from Adana, Turkey, and not a daguerreotype. If you know anything about dating old photos, c1910 seems accurate for this postcard.
http://vintageblackbeauty.tumblr.com/post/26255822411/type-de-negresse-dadana-turkey-c1910
Mark Jacobs,
Check your facts slavery was abolished in 1865 with the Thirteenth amendment to the constitution. These practices of “wet nursing” continued even into the twentieth century. The truth is this is factual and was a common practice. Photography as we know it was commonly available by the 1840s. You are the “Junior” at history sir, did you ever see Civil war photo? Duh!!! Drink_Up!
“The first permanent photograph of a camera image was made in 1826 by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce using a sliding wooden box camera made by Charles and Vincent Chevalier in Paris.Niépce called his process “heliography”, The first photographic camera developed for commercial manufacture was a daguerreotype camera, built by Alphonse Giroux.The early daguerreotype cameras required long exposure times, which in 1839 could be from 5 to 30 minutes.”
I say all this to say….you need to check your “History” sir. You’re wrong. It is very possible that this was taken during Slavery…which lasted from the 17th century to the 19th century here in America. So it is very reasonable to believe a camera was used during the 19th century and in fact that is when this picture was taken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
OBVIOUSLY you’ve never studied history. How might you explain the pictures of the civil war if the camera was not around during the time and period of slavery?
Cameras have been around since the 1800s
They were so contradictory…blacks weren’t even considered humans but yet you put your own flesh and blood on someone else’s breast for nourishment?!?!
yes dana its not a question of whether or not she had plenty of milk. But history tells us that she may not have been allowed to give the majority of her milk to her own kid. Thats the problem we have with this. Black women who were required to do this often had to place the white child ahead of her own. If you spend the majority of the day breast feeding another kid when are you gonna breast feed your own? Its most likely her baby was not thought of as important.
After a reading most of the comments & long hard thinking, it dnt seem Wright to me, specially formulated milk shld be for who it was ment for, unless you dnt have a choice,
I can see how we can quickly assume certain things. I can see how some see it as beauty and others not so much. I read all the comments and weighed the arguments. My conclusion is that I’ve never saw an affluent white female being photographed and exposed with a child tethered to them. I’ve seen a lot of naked photos of blacks/africans. So, even that this photo was not taken in the US, it is safe to assume this photo was taken to brag about and exploit. Not to catch a happy moment in time. How many of you mothers who breastfeed have been photographed exposed in this nature? Would you see yourself as beautiful? Do you consider your time breastfeeding private? When I look at the photo, it appears to degrade the person in it. I can’t find the good. So all the people who are defending this photo, please find a picture of an affluent person with a child tethered to her breast exposed and all in this particular time period. I’ll be waiting!
We are the sum total of our history,life experiences and our reactions to both.
Where do you stand?
What you are missing is the fact that this picture was taken and placed on a postcard to sell. The picture was a curiosity. Most people had never seen such full breast. The child just happened to be in the picture. This was early 20th century pornogophy a posed shot.
A mother never would hold her child like that ,from the picture u can see it’s not her child ,she was most likely told to smile ,as a mother who breast fed my four children I can tell u she’s not comfortable and no woman takes out her two beasts at one time ,most likely she was a slave feeding her master child, they may have used her just like livestock to provide norishment for their children. How sad !
Maria, your comment is so wrong on so many levels. I have held my children like that while breast-feeding. One knee higher than the other, especially when they were a bit bigger and could grab my breast themselves. And i have breast fed naked, with both my breasts out. And as for “you can tell she it’s not her child… i am dark-skinned, dark haired with a child with strawberry blond hair and fair-skin. Or is it the way she is holding the child that makes you think she is not her mother? As if she doesn’t care about the child? The road to hell is paved with good intentions- i have found comments like your used against me. It doesn’t matter if you are talking about the picture or what my family looks like, think about how you use your words, what you are saying about mothers and motherhood.
I see the mother of every nation feeding a child…. black women will always be the provider of NATIONS we were here first and will be here last… We are one with mother nature, the provider, the lover and have one of the strongest bonds with the UNIVERSE!!!! I see LIFE! We have been the nurturer of all since the beginning of TIME!!!!!
Genesis 1 27-29
No matter what you look like on the outside MJN; you and I are related inside; we are one. When the World stops overlooking that verse in the Bible and really comes to terms with the meaning of it; maybe, just maybe some of their eyes will be opened. Stop looking backwards as you are walking forward; you cannot tend to what is in front of you; stop teaching your children hatred for the color of someone’s skin; with words they hear in the home as they are growing up; that is where their first learning to hate started; start teaching them to treat all people the way they want to be treated; teach them not to judge others according to their skin. God and Education is all that will save us.
I agree,with Marykay Bond not that I have any useful opinion on breastfeeding but I certainly agree we should be teaching equality to children. I think it stinks that after all this time we ARE still concerned with skin color. Shame!Shame Shame! We all bleed red!!!or Do we still need to check? Oh come on for GOODNESS’ sake!
A,
See here (http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/12/31/shifting-discourses-of-motherhood-the-victorian-breastfeeding-photo-fad/)
those pics are no where near the same as the one being discussed. the women in those photos have their nipples and the majority of their breast covered. not the same..try again..better yet post a pic of a white woman from that time period nursing a black child..then the playing field will be even…
Bottom line…this child will eventually be taught how to love ,hate,lie .etc..Is born innocent.He or she doesn’t care who nourishes them……Love regardless.
Well what I can say is that the woman in the pic with white child she looks at peace nice pic and we’ll I just don’t understand why there was the racist thing mmmm black people use to do everything for the white people and they trusted them with everything they children food etc etc we all need to think about this seriously.
don’t you find it ironic that “black people used to do everything for the white people and they trusted them” yet white people still considered blacks inferior in EVERY way. White folks could not do anything for themselves including feeding their own kids without black folk. But yet we were supposed to be less than human. Even your own statement implies whites being superior to blacks, but you cant see this pic as racist..really? Or maybe you think its just normal for blacks to serve white folk? unbelievable!!
THEY DIDN’T TRUST THEM THEY THREATEN THEM
thank you for so beautifully showing why assumptions are ignorant.
This epic photo depicts one thing, the blacks have always been symbols of trust. They have heart of goodness or how else can you explain entrusting someone you so must degrade, deliver this humane goodness to your child?
Blacks are not and have not been viewed as symbols of trust. Blacks were viewed as symbols of use. The white mindset towards Blacks was to avail themselves or apply their skills for their (whites) own benefit.
That is her own Mulatto baby…I know white people were lazy back then but I be damned if they would allow something like this.
well then you don’t know very much about history..which is indicative of the problem. People don’t truly know the horrific details of slavery. All they see are the watered down TV movies which implies that slaves were “cared for” by the masters. Not only did white women force black female slaves to breastfeed their infants, but many poorer women or domestic working black women were required to do it well into the 30’s 40’s and 50’s. And yes this could be this woman’s child but as others pointed out its highly unlikely given the posture and also the fact that the pic was taken in the first place.
No…that is not her baby. She doesn’t look rich and her clothing tell that story. One would have to be able to afford a photographer at that time. So the question is why would someone commission this photograph? Photography was considered a luxury item. Clearly it’s taken at the direction of the parent(s) of the child. It’s reasonable to assume that the child is the subject matter, not the Black woman. She was used to nurse and care for the baby.
It was probably commissioned by the postcard company that made money selling the image in France. Did you miss the origin of the pic? It was taken in Asia, showing examples of life in the Ottoman Empire. There is no mention of who the baby is or the woman nursing the child, their relationship or race.
The way I see it,
‘if your enemy hunger, give them something to eat. If they thirst, give them something to drink. For your heavenly father made the sun to shine on the good and the wicked.
Didn’t someone famous say that? 🙂
Subject matter aside, there was a time in the past where it was not uncommon for women to continue breastfeeding long after their own children had been weaned. In many instances it was a source of income for a family that may not have been able to survive otherwise. There are many documented reports of this. It is very possible for a woman to lactate and produce milk for years after giving birth.
There are so many assumptions about the picture itself and after glancing through the comments it is interesting to me that so many are focused on the race of the woman/child, or was she/was she not a slave, not on the fact that the child needed food, and the woman was able to provide it.`
In looking at the details of the photo, yes, it is obvious she is in a home of wealth. But she also appears to be very healthy and rested. Shes not starved, she looks proud, beautiful and serene, not fearful and sad. Without knowing her name and situation, we can not guess beyond what we see.
I breastfeed 2 people at the same time (twins) for over a year. It’s very possible to breastfeed 2 and give both more than adequate nutrition; so we do not need to jump to the assumption that her own biological child was being starved. What is sad is that we do not have an equally intimate, professional portrait of this woman feeding her own child.
Who would’t want their babies feed by a strong black woman? I dont have a prob with this image at all as a matter of fact i like what it shows, the hypocrisy in Europeans and how colonialism has not only effected the colonized psychologically but also the colonialist. It also shows how some European women are so detached from their new born and the need on many levels of that consistent nursing from the Black Woman. I would even go as far to say that this image should not offend blacks.
What proof is there that her own child had to go without?
M. there is absolutely no proof of anything that anyone here is talking about. Everyone is projecting their own needs onto this photograph, and most are ignoring the fact that this is not an enslaved person in the South, but a woman in early 20th century France.
However, it is easier to rant and rave than it is to educate oneself.
Here’s my take on the whole thing. Nobody knows, for sure, what the situation is. In my eyes, it conjures mixed feelings. In “The Help” Mae Mobley loves Aiblieen. Their relationship was created by an awful white man/woman by hiring Aibileen to work for them as their maid, nannie, etc. It doesn’t change the fact that there is still love between the innocent mind of the child and her care giver. In that aspect, this is a precious picture.
On the other hand, maybe she is a slave. Maybe she’s forced to feed the white baby. It’s awful. I feel for her. Unfortunately, there is nothing any of us can do about the slave-ridden past. Fortunately, though, we are now able to think on our own and care for our multi-cultural neighbors, no matter their skin color. For that, I am thankful. Some of my greatest friends bleed red, just as I do but sport a different color of skin. Beauty is only skin deep, as they say.
I say, true beauty is found within.
sigh. While I thank the author of this post for sharing this photo and the sensitivity with which she handled it, the comment section is nuts and further confirmation that feminism is for white women.. White women continually belittle and debate the black woman’s narrative. Because of course, white women are all knowing in regards to the experiences of black women. It doesn’t matter where this woman is from, the UK, the southern USA or a slave. Black people throughout the diaspora have historically and are currently oppressed and this affects every aspect of our lives, especially for black women the ways in which we are viewed as mothers and the ways in which we are able to mother.
Why is everyone ignoring the fact that this photo was take in Adana, Turkey (Ottoman Empire at the time of the photo)? That is in Asia, which means the child is most likely Asian. So many of these comments are about race, yet avoid the obvious. What gives?
Geographically and historically this is a fascinating area where Europe and Africa are so close to Asia. Where is the dialogue about that? Or what was going on there during the early 20th century?
Are you all sure it’s not her baby! My grandmother skin was as dark if not darker then that slave in the picture, but my father past for white. She hid him in a potatoe sack from KKK and other whites to keep him alive until she arrived in Kentucky. From Miss to Ky. Hmmmmmmm? My father got darker in his older age. He started looking Mexican. I heard of slaves breast feeding their master children before. But are we sure this is not her child? How do we know there is another child on the side not being fed? Is this a assumptions because if it’s not it is enough to make you angry!
I was just thinking the same thing, this could have been her child.I have witness black women giving birth to a white child,because the father was white.I could not believe my eyes,but it is happening.These women were very dark skinned, but had all of the fathers genes even blue eyes.The agency if the child was in care would let the child go to a white home in fostercare.There is a movie starr black female who had a white daughter and you would not believe this was her child.
Just a pointer to commenters to please note the update on the post:
“NOTE TO COMMENTERS: Welcome to bluemilk. In this thread, the same points are now being hashed and re-hashed in comments. Please read the entire post and thread before replying. In addition, please note that any comments downplaying slavery & racism may not be accepted. Some existing unacceptable comments may be left in place at the moderator’s discretion, especially if already replied to/called out.
Let’s move the conversation forward. Thankyou.”
Cheers.
I think if this picture as bittersweet. Bitter because of the role Africans/African Americans held/hold in society. Bitter because her breast which is not feeding the baby is hanging out, making the photograph somewhat sexual…the sex of black woman. Bitter because the woman photograph had somewhat of a smile making you wonder, does she realize the exploitation. Sweet because of the innocence of the baby being fed. Sweet because of the love the baby naturally holds for this woman based on the act of sustaining his life.
Great article.
Even if she was allowed to take care of her own , it’s still the mere fact that she is a slave…. wake up sleeping blind people!!!
Gee, were all white women not able to nurse or did they all die in childbirth? Think maybe vanity had something to do with it. Maybe they didn’t want their perky tits to get saggy…
The writer of this story needs more education and pls attend a HBCU to get this history correct! I have seen many of these photos and heard of stories from my late grandmother (age102) of how the owners would have the slaves, underpaid nannies breast feed there children while the slaves children were left unfeed. Get ur facts right and these photos were used as postcards! Happy black history month dear
The picture immediately made me sad, because of what I know of breastfeeding slave mothers. Sure, they could produce enough milk for multiple babies but because they were slaves they often weren’t afforded the time to feed their own infants. Regardless of who, where, etc… this picture is from, I can’t look at it without thinking of a little Black baby hungry for the emotional and physical benefits that can only come from his mother’s breast.
With all that is being said stop and take a look at her hands! I have never seen any slave anywhere who wears jewelry. This woman has on not one but two different rings on her fingers! I am black and this is something that just jumps out at me, I don’t think she was a slave. Take a look at her hands and than make your comments accordingly.
The camera has been in full use in America since 1816 , it was highly advanced by 1855 well before slavery ended ! Some racist fools will try anything !
I read the different opinion on this matter. I recall my Puerto Rican heritage by my African Taino grandmother who rase me up. My grandmother breastfeed her children, her nephew, her grandchildren, even several motherless children that the mother died giving birth. It was normal to wash cloths in the river and breastfeed a child or out in the field no matter if it was yours or not. Nannies were paid to feed rich Spaniard babies. I see in this photo my grandmother breastfeeding one of those country white skin babies she told me about out of motherly love…
Wonderful
This photo is very uncomfortable for me & it has nothing to do with her breast feeding. I see a healthy woman, a very tried woman sitting for a picture she didn’t request & told to smile as she feeds a greedy child, told to make available both breasts by the person documenting this. Doing a forced job in a home not her own. Did she want this photo taken I dare to say NO. Doing her assigned job and trying to survive those very hateful times.
Who is stay that this woman isn’t nursing her own child???
I thought maybe she was married since I see a ring on her ring finger and I thought the child was her own
kevin im black as well and that what popped out at me as well
A black woman who gave birth in New Mexico in the 1950’s told me that although she gave birth in a segregated hospital, nurses took her milk to babies on the “white side” of the hospital to feed babies whose moms were unable to breast feed. IT IS HISTORIC FACT THAT BLACK WOMEN SERVED AS WET NURSES DURING SLAVERY AND BEYOND. Even if we can not identify the status of the woman in the photo this discussion unearths a piece of history that should be known. Stop attempting to re-write history.
Not one post here mentions that most likely this woman didn’t even know the picture was being taken. I don’t see nor agree or can feel, just by looking at this’s true, that this woman had love for this child and vice versa, that she was a slave made to do this unwillingly, that her own child, if she had any, was being starved because she was breast feeding someone else’s child, that she lived in a rich persons home, that she was poor, that her background is African, that she’s in Asia, Europe or any other country mentioned here. I can go on and on with this…..my opinion is this: knowingly or not, this is an offensive picture, exploiting a woman! Not this woman with blue eyes, not that one with dark colored skin, not that woman who speaks another language or has blonde hair, brown eyes……etc,simply put: It ExPLOITS WOMEN!
With rings on both hands, I doubt she was a slave.
I can see what Minna is saying. But I have to say I felt the way you did. I was offended by the picture because I see her own child going hungry. In those days blacks and white couldn’t drink from the same place or fountain. So I’m figuring it would go for the breast. I don’t think she was allowed to have her own child suckle the same breast as the
white baby, therefore her own went hungry.
I wouldn’t trust anyone bodily fluids exposed to myself nor my love ones , unless it was a life or death situation ;forget about a newborn!! Just like it is today and I believe it was back then the majority of white women did this for status quo. Not giving a dam about anything else. Just totally vain and sad.
The fact is no one knows the facts behind the photo. Why go back and forth about it when at the end of the day, its all assumptions. No facts no logic. Let it go. Nothing any of us think will change the way the world is today because it’s not to far from that now.
This could very well be her half white baby since she has a smile on her face.
Whether or not the picture can be authenticated, the fact remains that we all can agree that this is exploitation for this woman having to breast feed a child that is not hers while her own child go without.
Breast feeding is something that should bond the mother with the child and the fact that black people were not even considered human in the eyes of their enslavers (and still to this day) but good enough to feed and nourish their enslavers children is one of the many horrible displays of slavery and exploitation.
Well, for the most part from the little bit I gathered from the little I comprehended, and what little I know, melanin is one of the key ingredients in all and everything that has life, from people to micro-organisms to atoms. Europeans lack the nutrients their infants and newborns needed to stay alive and fight off bacteria and other germs that would attack an infant or newborn baby of a European descent,causing a death related illness due to the nutrients that their birth mothers lacked because of their genetic makeup. So what’s the big fuss about?, did I miss something whatever bye enjoy
I think white people should see this, maybe they wouldn’t be so hateful toward black people, and see that we are loving human being just like them, we are not good enough for them but our black breast milk is good for their babies and our black Pu@@y is so good to the white man, Black History is not just for Black people, it for the whole world to know…bottom line…
I see this as a mother providing for another mother’s child. We don’t know the facts why or reason why this is being done. We can only draw conclusion from things we read in history. Take away skin color it’s a mother. Take away skin color it’s a child being feed. In my days of living I have seen Caucasian women as well as Black women breastfeeding children in low develop country and it was called nourishment and the human thing to do. Now think about this that child mother could have died at child birth and the father didn’t know what to do. So may I say it once more it a MOTHER doing what a Mother do.
While visiting Louisiana in 1990, my father pointed out a field that he used to cut “cane” in as a teenager. I was stunned as he described it as his summer job, but mentioned the other people who worked there as indentured servants. My father was born on 1942. Yes slavery was abolished in 1865 on paper.
I didn’t read the whole thing and I hope I’m not answering prematurely but paid wet nurse doesn’t necessarily mean “good”.
This lady didn’t look like a slave to me. She had on jewelry. Her hair was not like a slave’s. Her clothes were nicer. Her expression/appearance wasn’t as oppressed. In saying that, she wasn’t holding the child in an endearing manner either, which made it seem as if she had no feelings for the child. Also there was one baby and two breasts hanging out. I breastfed and it isn’t done like this photo. It isn’t natural. I find this photo contradictive and exploitive. As far as slavery is concerned, I feel like it was wrong for the white masters to make their black slave women breastfeed their children. Especially since they didn’t even consider them human. They could have gotten their own race to do it. I’m sure there were enough poor white people who would have been willing. That must have really afflicted the slave’s mind. It would have hurt me to be forced to share my baby’s milk with the baby of an enemy, just because the enemy/slave owner didn’t want to breastfeed. I am a black Hebrew Israelite who is as compassionate as any mother of any race. However, what slavery imposed on my people was horrifying and shouldn’t be downplayed. EVER.
…if the kid is hungry, feed it! Color or not….
Who’s says she’s unhappy. I actually see a smile. And who says she didn’t get to feed her baby? Did she say that? She must have been pretty special to feed that baby; when white people didn’t even want to sit on the same toilet as blacks. When you breastfeed more than one baby you produce more milk. There are different cultures to this day where women are feeding children that aren’t there’s. While everybody’s jumping to conclusions, why not say his mom died and she fed him out of the goodness of her heart. Slavery was wrong but let’s not concoct outown horror stories about what’s probation going on in a picture. Nobodies talkin. Plus, it’s my own understanding that these nannies loves the white babies like their own.
Black slave women clearly had to breastfeed the mistresses baby at the expense of her own. This is a great picture to put up during black history month it brings the journey blacks have traveled to light. Can you imagine Black’s weren’t good enough to be call a full black person segregated and degradated but they allowed their children to drink the milk from their breast. As if they were cattle.
You should just slap yourself. If you’ve been dragging a 100 lbs block of concrete all day, you’d smile too if someone took 40 lbs off of your load. Doesn’t mean your happy to still be dragging the other 60… This day just happened to not be the worst in her lifetime. Beats being beaten, raped or sold… so by comparison, worth a grin. Not exactly Kingdom come… Don’t pretend you’re empathetic… it doesn’t carry over well.
You can’t be serious you obviously don’t know the history of the African American slave trade. The nannies didn’t have a choice and they didn’t produce enough milk to feed both babies independently black babies died
Loretta, I am not defending slavery for one second, I find it a repulsive and shameful blight on american history, but a mother is capable of producing enough breast milk for more than one child. there are mothers with triples who breast feed all three successfully. As long as she was given time in her day to do so, her infant would have been fed as well.
This pictures just states what my grand told me a long time ago, ” slaves were forced to breast feed white pols babies.” So all this other crap about being paid to do that is bs to me. They should have let them feed them goat milk. They act like animals anyway. But they hate us so much, still and all we are good hearted ppl. God gave us gifts they would never understand. GN
The woman’s eyes tell the story, that, and the fact that the scene is posed and that both breasts are unecessarily exposed. This does not look like a willing act to me. It looks like exploitation on two levels: first, (likely) feeding someone else’s child without consent, and second of being forced to be photographed partially nude, especially at that time.
true
Thank you… This is some BS right here…
I agree. I thought the same thing about both breasts being exposed. They had to find some way to degrade her. People are saying that she’s smiling, perhaps she is, but smiles can be forced. You would smile too if it meant you weren’t beaten or worse.
What does the photo say about a mother who would dare let another woman breast feed her child? Would not a loving mother take pride in giving the milk of life to her child? How can a mother place her child on the breast of another? This photo make me grieve for all the babies whose mother’s didn’t care enough to feed them. How can those whose sucked the nipple of a black woman grow up to despise her instead of love her?
Wet nurses are not an uncommon thing and most likely if this mother was using one, she couldn’t breastfeed herself. I have 3 children and could not breastfeed any of them. Granted I did not, and would not allow another woman to breastfeed for me, but they didn’t have “formula” and things of that nature back then so using a wet nurse was really the only option. The child has no recollection of being nursed and will do what their parents teach them to do. But, who is to say that this child grew up to hate anyone?? I’ve seen so many presumptuous comments regarding this photograph. I mean, most likely the child did grow up with that mentality but no one could possibly know that for certain.
I’m glad everyone else said it for me… As i was reading, all i was thinking was, “who the h#@% is writing this crap under this picture?”.. Thanks for clarifying my thoughts.. I don’t see ANYTHING WILLINGLY in that picture..
UR COMPANY IS RACIST THAT IS WHY U DO NT WANT THESE COMMENTS.. MY FAMILY MEMBR WORKED 4 U ONCE ND GOT FIRED B’CAUSE AS A BLACK MAN HE DIDNT CLEAN UR TOLIETS RIGHT DID U HIRE ANOTHER SLAVE IN HIS PLACE???
I have an 86 years of age cousin whose older sister nurses her because her mother had to breast feed a white baby. I am told that my cousin’s mother breast feeds the white baby many times a day, leaving no milk for her own child. I tells this story because there are many African American women alive today whose mother had no milk for them after breast feeding a white baby
ten or more times a day. My 86 years old cousin is alive and well, which means many whites who swallow the milk from a black woman’s breast are still alive as well. It is possible that this photo gives us better understanding of the contributions of African American women to our nation.
Breast feeding was and is the way of survival for a child, breast feeding is a bonding process between a mother and her child. No one really knows the process or reason behind this woman having to or wanting ? to feed this child. I suspect that she was a slave/wet nurse and perhaps had no choice but to feed this child her mother’s milk. Who knows if her own child was alive or seperated from her in her slavery many Black children were denied their parents by being sold or traded. There is beauty and pain in this picture. A White child gets fed the nutrition of a Black woman’s milk and the child will thrive, but in her eyes there is something vacant yet longing, what she had do.
If you take into consideration the situation of her life and slavery if everything was as it should have been perhaps it would have been goat or cow milk the child was nursing?
She could very well have been a slave, dressed up for the taking of the picture. Photographs were luxury items for the rich. Nevertheless, I’m quite certain this woman was smart enough to smile and do what she was told to do. That is the way it was for Black woman at that time, slave or not. Also, that Black woman was with that baby almost all day while that child was nursing. If you have nursed a baby for any length of time over a week or two; you know that her job was to feed that baby and keep him/her from crying. She may have been a slave who was hired out by the owner and that is why a postcard was made.
For those of you who think this woman is displaying a slight smile you are not looking at her eyes, the windows to her soul she is enduring an impossible situation with as much dignity as she can under the circumstances considering the time in which she lived..
How can you not see that?
What a lot of people fail to realize is that during slavery a slave was unable to show any emotion other than the happy smiling blacks, anything less could result in a beating or death……
The difficulties with viewing segments from the past, is that the modern interpreter is unaware of the situations in the first person, and therefore must rely upon often false information. The role of wet nurse was long an established and honorable vocation for women right through the World War II era and the mass availability of refrigeration to the
citizenry.
It is a noticeable distraction that the other
breast is exposed to Victorian/Edwardian
social sensibilities. The period of furnishings
head dress and background places this photo well past the slavery era, and the child is dressed in rather ordinary garments. No inkling of great, nor middle class wealth depicted. A very attractive woman of color with clear skin, she may have been paid to pose for the photo, which with her Mona Lisa smile might fall into the “naughty nellie” category of posed wardrobe malfunction, soft porn photography popular at the time before Edison’s moving ppictures.
Would you post the Harpers article for the date. I didn’t see it posted.
This clean cut lady is not really poor. One clue being that she has a right hand ring on.
There is a common experience among Black people who’s ancestors went through slavery that has been passed down. Through that shared history, many of us know that the picture doesn’t tell the whole story. At that time, Blacks were referred to as colored or worse. Colored folks didn’t have vocations or jobs. No such thing! They had work to do…which is what they were told to do or allowed to do. They didn’t have the luxury of choice. It doesn’t matter what time period, Edwardian, Victorian. They didn’t have freedom to choose anything unless it was the will of their master or mistress. And by the way, slavery ended on a certain date but it took time to get the word out across the country. And even still, white folks and Black people had to overcome the slavery mindset. That took Jim Crow, civil rights, Dr. King, Malcolm, Hip hop and we still have a way to go. That Black woman in that picture was dealing with those factors.
Oh yeah and that ring is made of what? not gold, it could be tin or string for all we know. Jewelry doesn’t indicate wealth, not in this case.
Could be her child. Look at the knees on the baby.
Really looking passed the picture you can clearly see she was doing what she had to do in order to survive. I’m sure in that time she had no option but in this time we do. It’s our history told through his story. What was her option die or that she about life!!!
I think she’d rather have her freedom. The baby looks like it may have enough years behind it to make it without breast milk. This feels coerced to me because even if she is not a slave, which is doubtful, the differences in income is probably so significant, and her source of income so limited, that she is obliged to provide an important part of herself to keep things going.
I see no happiness in her face. Children and mothers bond at this time. What is going on inside this child now if its own mother is not there.
We assume its mother survived childbirth, and we assume the woman in the photo has a new child. So much missing.
Slavery determines most of my assumptions. It dominates like nothing else in the U.S. in the 1800’s. It made the country as rich as it was/is, and as wrong.
The first thing that got my attention is both her breasts being totally exposed, unnecessarily. Then, I noticed that unlike when I nursed my babies, this woman was not cradling the baby, nestled to her bosom. Unlike others of you, I do not see a ‘smile’ on her face; I see weariness and sadness and most of all, powerlessness in her face and body language.
I am curious as to why African American women, who were not well-nourished and did not have the best diet, were chosen to breast feed the infants of the elite class and slaves owners. As opposed to today’s breast fed infants, this baby seems a bit on the slim side. (I also see a bruise on the baby’s left leg).
This photo is very poignant and I am so glad to have seen it, especially during Black History Month.
Thank you.
[…] reluctance to breastfeed. Throughout the duration of the American slave trade, black women often nursed their slave masters’ children. The practice even continued in the decades after Reconstruction. When baby formula first hit the […]
[…] reluctance to breastfeed. Throughout the duration of the American slave trade, black women often nursed their slave masters’ children. The practice even continued in the decades after Reconstruction. When baby formula first hit the […]
[…] wet-nursing — a practice made popular during the antebellum era when enslaved black women would nurse their master’s newborn children — may be a key reason that black women are reluctant to […]
[…] Seorang perempuan budak kulit hitam, terpaksa menyusui anak-anak tuannya. Karena si Tuan dan si Nyonya tak mau payudara ‘rusak’ karena si Nyonya mesti tetap tampil sintal dan menggairahkan di hadapan si Tuan. Di dalam hati perempuan budak kulit hitam itu tak sudi air susunya dihisap oleh anak penindasnya. Tetapi mata, tangan dan kaki mungil itu tidak perduli itu susu siapa, ia tak membenci dan menindas sejak kelahirannya. […]