The ‘victim’ approach to the study of white women in the slave formation, therefore, has severe limitations… while white males were the predominant owners of slaves in the plantation sector, the same cannot be said for the urban sector. White women were generally the owners of small properties, rather than large estates, but their small properties were more proportionately stocked with slaves than the large, male owned properties.
In 1815, white women owned about 24 percent of the slaves in St Lucia; 12 per cent of the slaves on properties of more than 50 slaves, and 48 per cent of the properties with less than 10 slaves. In Barbados in 1817, less than five of the holdings of 50 slaves or more were owned by white women, but they owned 40 percent of the properties with less than 10 slaves…
White women also owned more female slaves than male slaves. The extensive female ownership of slaves in the towns was matched by the unusually high proportion of females in the slave population; female slave owners owned more female slaves than male slave owners….
From these data the image that emerges of the white female slaveowner is that she was generally urban, in possession of less than ten slaves, the majority of whom were female. That female slaveowners generally owned female slaves, indicates the nature of enterprises, and hence labour regimes, managed and owned by white women. It is reasonable, then, to argue that any conceptualization of urban slavery, especially with reference to the experiences of enslaved black women, should proceed with an explicit articulation of white women are principal slaveowners.
excerpt from Centering Woman: Gender Discourses in Caribbean Slave Society by Hilary McD Beckles (via daniellemertina)
White feminists tend to conveniently forget this and pretend that they don’t benefit from white supremacy like white men (via thisisnotjapan)
this is some boston harbor level spilt tea