Nubia to Frederick Douglass, December 14, 1854
FROM OUR SAN FRANCISCO CORRESPONDENT.
SAN FRANCISCO, DEC. 14, 1854.
MR. FREDERICK DOUGLASS: SIR:—I see that some of your correspondents are discussing the cause or causes of the (so called) prejudice against color. This discission [illegible]—out of one between C. L Remond and W. W. Brown. The first affirming it to be color, the latter condition. With all deference to the opinion of Mr. Remond, and others who think with him, it is my impression there never was such a thing as prejudice against color. In the United States, color indicates inferiority of condition, simply because the lowest and most degraded condition is found among persons of color. If the prejudice is against color, why is there no prejudice against a black horse, or a black dog, or any other black quadruped? I will answer, because their color is no indication of their condition; but if their color indicated their condition, the prejudice—either in favor of, or against them—would be directed to their condition, the color simply showing what that condition was. Color, then, being a mark of degradation in the U.S., it is easy to account for the seeming prejudice against it. This reasoning brings me to the conclusion, that if the condition of the whites and blacks were reversed in this country, the same prejudice would be directed against the whites. Color, then, is the peculiarity indicitive of a certain condition against which a great portion of the people not possessing that peculiarity are prejudiced. Let us suppose a black standard of excellence in this country, as is the case with the whites, (I speak n a general sense,) does any one suppose that a person wearing that color would be refused admittance in any of the public conveyances or places of amusement? Certainly not. On the contrary, their color would facilitate their admission. This accounts, to some extent, for the disgusting prejudice which is found among the colored people against themselves. They, knowing the superiority of the whites, (I mean in the aggregate,) regard every approximation in color as possessing proportionately the same excellence.
Your correspondent, W. W., asks, (with the view of proving that prejudice is directed against color,) "If the abolition of slavery would obliterate prejudice?" Certainly not. For would not the condition of the emancipated slaves still be low and degraded, compared with their recent oppressors? If the act of abolition would elevate in all respects to an equality with the whites, the cause of prejudice would be removed, and the effect would cease to exist. The same correspondent says, with great surprise, in reply to some statements of Mr. Beriah Green, to the effect that color was the index of slavery. What! color of no account, and yet the index of slavery? Why, the
index of a book is of great importance to the reader. There can be no good comparison instituted between the two indexes; the index of a book is simply a table of its contents, and is intended rather as a convenience to the reader, than as a complete expression of the character of the book. On the contrary, color is positive evidence in this country of low origin, and a degraded condition; but do not understand me to mean that color determines the individual condition of its possessor; but it certainly determines (in the sense I have understood it) his low origin and his identity with a low condition. He also says, "If it was not for color, the Fugitive Slave Law would be rendered nugatory." It might be said, with equal good sense, that were it not for the condition (slave) the law would not have existed.
These are my simple views. I do not flatter myself that they hold good against those of your intelligent correspondent; but as we differ upon the same subject, it is but right that I should express my difference of opinion. I have been thus explicit in order to preclude the possibility of a misconstruction.
Yours as ever,
NUBIA.