HPIA
Hofstra Papers in Anthropology
Volume 7, Article #1, 2012
Why They Belong and How They were Limited:
A Study of Race and Occupation in
Setauket, New York, 1850--1930
by Emma Lagan
Introduction:
Setauket is a small African-American community in Suffolk County, New York. Within its boundaries lies a community is considered to be "historic," and many of its current residents are descendants of those who established the village and still own the original property today. Because of this, many of those residents have watched as various changes affected the landscape of the town. Today, the community is in danger, and the residents feel as if the already small boundaries are closing in on them even farther.
Over the course of the past several years, a variety of laws and tax increases have been introduced to the township, making it increasingly difficult for the African-American residents to continue to afford living there. Already, many residents -- family members and close friends of the community -- have left, leaving empty houses behind in their wake. One of the current residents, Robert Lewis, described two of the laws established in 1997/98 from the Town of Brookhaven Statutes which he believes are, in part, responsible for the exodus. The first requires that anyone who wishes to sublet their homes to pay a $250 fee per year to have the space certified as an authorized rental property. The second, regarding division of property, requires each piece of land to be a minimum of 3/4 of an acre. Many families had, until this point, divided their land and passed on a piece of it to the next generation. By limiting the minimum size of a plot, this new law meant they would be unable to continue this practice. Both of these laws serve to limit the number -- and, to some degree, type -- of people who can enter the community.
This event is not unique. On the contrary, Long Island is notorious for practices such as these. Author Andrew Wiese (2010) notes that events on Long Island, "illustrate1 the role of urban renewal in reshaping suburban landscapes. White Long Islanders sought not only to exclude African-Americans, but to displace many who were already there" (p104). Wiese further shows how housing codes and government funds were used to essentially evict African-Americans from their homes near or in white communities.
Already, work is being done in the historic district of Setauket to bring awareness of the community and its history. Currently, this is being achieved through a cultural study of the community in the form of oral histories and an archaeological excavation. Two organizations -- the Center for Public Archaeology at Hofstra University, and the Higher Ground Inter-Cultural and Heritage Association, Inc. -- have come together to bring the project known as "A Long Time Coming," to life (Matthews 2011). As a part of this project, we (a team of four researches, including the author) have been asked by archaeologist Dr. Christopher Matthews, of the Center for Public Archaeology, to examine the history of work, wealth, and race in the town of Brookhaven from 1850-1930. Specifically, we addressed four separate but interlocking topics: the status and percentage of homeownership and property value through time; the mobility of individuals and families through time; the occupational opportunities for members of the community and how those changed over time; and the analysis of oral histories of members from the Setauket community. By investigation these issues, we will be able highlight the historical significance of the community, their economic contribution to the village, and the long-term impact of racism that continues to account for a wealth gap. This, in turn, will allow our client, to make policy recommendations on behalf of the community in an effort to remedy the current-day economic situations they face, specifically the loss of their property.
In this paper, I will focus on the occupational history of this community. Using federal census reports, I will examine the trends with regard to occupation for African-Americans from 1850-1930. My research demonstrates that blacks were denied many occupational availabilities that were offered to whites. Oral histories conducted with members of the black community in the historical section of Setauket will offer closer, more in-depth date that sheds light on these macro-level trends.
Although research has been conducted on the economic history of black labor in the rural south, little research has been done examining black labor in the rural north before the Great Migration. This would be appropriate if the south and north had similar industries, economics, policies, etc., but they don't. This project will show how slavery affected the north, how black labor in the north evolved differently from the south, and how the occupational opportunities available to blacks changed over time.
Literature Review:
It can be argued that the effects of slavery are still felt by African-American families across America. Emancipation, while a revolutionary event that changed the legal basis of social relations, did little to change the "core" of these social relations. Freed slaves entered society with very little, if any, means of financial support. Although legally they could no longer be subjugated, as they were free citizens, the prejudices remained, and they were still looked down upon as the lowest class (Smith 1992). Employers continued to find ways of enforcing a form of slavery. Paul D. Mureno (2008) notes that, "while employers could no longer physically compel workers to provide labor, they retained effective coercive power by being able to deny them the means of making a living" (p.12). Co-workers displayed similar behavior. Many emancipated workers were forced to deal with hostile forms of racism amongst white co-workers who felt threatened by black labor, believing that their own opportunities would suffer.
The Black Codes in 1865 initiated a series of laws that further crippled the social mobility of freed black families. The extent and execution of these Codes varied on a state-by-state basis, although the basic concept remained the same throughout. Mureno notes that these codes generally limited black rights to own land, travel, and hold specific occupations. A year later, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed, declaring all freedmen American citizens and emphasizing their right as free laborers and to retain any earnings form said labor. Despite this, discriminatory practices continued.
Graham Russel Hodges' (1997) case study Monmouth County, New Jersey, reveals how discrimination functioned at a local level. Hodges notes that state legislators, once emancipation began, liked to pretend that slavery had never existed in their state. According to Hodges, "this political impassivity also made it harder for free blacks to establish a viable economic base" (p.172). White employers, such as farmers, made it even more difficult, as they refused to fight for greater rights for their cheap labor source. Greater rights for freed blacks would mean the employers would be forced to pay them with higher wages. If white employers had been more accepting of African-American rights and had fought on their behalf, it is possible that free blacks would have gotten a foothold into a greater number and variety of occupations, or at the very least, appropriate wages. In the city, where work was more abundant in the transportation sector, blacks were still unable to get their foot in the door because of segregation (Hodges 1999). For freed slaves, emancipation had become a contradiction. It was characterized by "strong progress but significant limitations" (Hodges 1992 p.16).
On Long Island, black workers labored on docks and farms, as artisans, and attended the rich. David Gellman (2008) also commented that Long Island was reported to have a "flexible" labor system focusing on agriculture, craft and maritime activity. This would be compared to other locations which would have had only one or two specific occupational areas which would not have provided as many options and opportunities as on Long Island. Also, with the absence of cash crops, Gellman states that Long Island slave owners did not drive their slaves as aggressively or treat them as harshly as in other slave-owning communities. Further, freed workers on Long Island worked side by side with individuals still held by the bonds of slavery (Marcus 1988). By 1810, three-quarters of the slaves in Suffolk County, where Setauket is located, were freed. By 1845, the African-American population had declined from 2,236 in 1790 to 1,907. This can most likely be attributed to the exodus of African-Americans as they gained their freedom and decided to leave the island to find a new life somewhere else.
Author Grania Bolton Marcus (1988) reports that many freedmen on Long Island took to the maritime industry for jobs such as whaling and fishing, some others joined new industries (eg. brickmaking), but most remained in the agricultural. In many cases, they continued to work for their former owner. Women also worked in agriculture, but more often spent their time working as a washing/ironing/sewing/cleaning woman. Marcus also notes that "white racism continued to make it difficult for African-American citizens to emerge from their status as low-wage workers. African-Americans (and whites) who could not support themselves became town charges, supported by the town overseers of the poor" (p.164). In his work "Institutionalized Racism: an Analytic Approach," Robert E. Klitgaard (1972) notes that it is fears such as these -- having to provide for the poor -- that shut African-Americans out of housing markets and job opportunities. Even if an individual is sympathetic to a black worker/tenant, "economically rational irrational racism" takes control, and the individual will deny the black worker/tenant based on the anticipated negative reaction of the overall community (Klitgaard 1972). Because the community is afraid of having to pay for the poor, individuals will turn away African-Americans solely based on the premise of what might happen. Thus, the labor system continued to limit the blacks -- by limiting the jobs available, wages were limited. Limited wages, in result, meant a limited income, which in turn meant less money to provide for oneself and ones family. All of this restricted the potential upward social and occupational mobility of African-Americans.
Author Emma D. Amuti (1997) conducted a study of the economic opportunities available to blacks in Wilmington Delaware, focusing on labor and occupational mobility from 1850-1910. During this time period, the most significant industries in Wilmington's economy were shipbuilding, railroad car construction, foundry work, leather tanning and carriage making. A marine- and industrial-based city on the east coast, Wilmington, offers a good comparative study to Setauket. According to Amuti, the fact that many blacks were barred from unions was another major influence on their social and economic status. By being barred or forced from unions -- which were the most direct route to obtaining industrial employment -- blacks were forced to settle for whatever other jobs were available. This, she notes, effectively limited black occupational mobility to the point that by 1940 most black workers were employed in two sectors: the professionals ( doctors and clergymen who catered primarily to the black population) and domestic and personal service (laborers and servants).
Amuti tracks the occupation of blacks through the years, especially in comparison to European immigrants, and comes to a series of conclusions. Firstly, despite the increase in black workers over the years, their distribution across the sectors remained the same. The only major gain she noticed was in 1880, when a series of occupations were added to the list of the personal services sector. Amuti also notes that immigrants were able to achieve social status and mobility at a faster rate than blacks. Finally, despite the fact that African-American literacy and education increased, and even exceeded immigrant literacy and education rates, occupational choices did not improve (Amuti 1997).
Some economic progress was made by African-Americans toward the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. By 1910, blacks had acquired 15 million acres of land across America, but this number soon fell by one-third in 1930 as their economic growth slowed and inequality in the workplace increased further with the widespread use of unions (Mureno 2008). Contemporaneously with these events was the start of the Great Migration, which saw the movement of approximately 400,000 blacks from the south to the north, as they sought jobs and economic opportunities barred from them in the south (Marks 1985). Despite this, however, African-American workers were still unable to move very far beyond the two sectors that Amuti documented. In a study of the northern city of Hartford, Connecticut, authors Peter Tuckel, Kurt Shlichting, and Richard Maisel (2007) came to the conclusion that in 1920, "blacks as a group occupy lower rungs on the occupational ladder than whites" (p.718). Further, for the same 1920 study, a higher proportion of black than white men are listed as laborers (18.9% vs. 6.1%). Among women, a higher proportion of black than white are listed as servants (39.6% vs. 7.4%).
This was a common trend -- the inability of African-Americans to obtain a job outside of unskilled labor. Author Elizabeth Ross Haynes (1923), who lived on with some of these events, reported that in 1900 there were in the United States 1,317,859 African-Americans ten years of age and over employed in domestic and personal service: 681,926 females and 635,933 males. In 1910 the number of females had increased to 861,497 and the males had decreased to 496,100 (p.387). Ross notes that in the years 1914, among 104 black workers in St. Louis, the most frequent length of employment was three to six months. This was likely a result of the desire to obtain a satisfactory job. Until such a job was found, African-Americans moved from location to location for brief periods of time, moving on after some aspect of the job -- the wage, the boss, etc. -- no longer suited them. Factors that played into their likelihood of finding a job included age and marital status. Ross even comments that "a butler or chambermaid-waitress who is tall and comely may have access to a larger number and to better places than one who is short" (1923 p.428).
Limited training was available to them compared to whites. This was reflected in efficiency polls that employers filled out on their workers. These polls asked questions such as "Is she honest? Is she temperate? Is she neat? What of her disposition? Does she thoroughly understand her work?" as well as asking the employer to comment on the efficiency of work on a rating of "efficient, inefficient, and poor". Untrained workers were most always reported as
"inefficient". These reports would have been reported back to an employment agency with which the worker was associated and would go on that individual's record, which would be used as their personal reference for future employment. While this could potentially keep them at a lower rank, it is also a strong comment on lack of training available.
Examining wages of black workers, Ross notes that for women, cooks were the highest paying job in 1890 at $3.72 a week, where general servants were the lowest at $2.91 a week, and a washerwoman would earn 82 cents a day. By 1920, women could be paid up to $21.00 for being a cook, but under $9.00 for being a general houseworker. Men, in 1890 could earn as much as $7.84 a week for being a coachman, or as low as 87 cents a day for being a general chore man. In 1920, men could earn as much as $38.50 a week for being a doorman, but still be earning less than $10.00 a week if they were a waiter (Ross 1923). By this point in time, there was a much greater variety of jobs available to the African-American worker. Still, as Amuti noted, these jobs are only more diverse along the unskilled labor line -- upward mobility was rare.
Today, continued discrimination can be seen in the black-white wealth gap. In 1994, the wealth gap was such that black households on average had $43,000 total wealth, compared to the $220,000 for white households (Charles and Hurst 2002). Multiple explanations have been suggested for this gap, including the "head start" or "historical legacy thesis," and the "contemporary dynamics" theory. Head start theory takes into account that historically, whites were able to save and invest their money during their lifespan, and then pass it on to future generations after their death, thereby providing a basis for wealth for future generations. The introduction of Social Security in 1935 further served whites by allowing them to save the money they had accumulated over their years of working and have the government assistance once they were retired. Domestic workers, however, were barred from social security, and had to provide for themselves on money they had set aside from their earnings. This then meant that they were unable to pass those earnings on.
Contemporary dynamics theory holds institutional racism in the housing and credit markets responsible (Conley 2001). Both of these theories contribute to the wealth gap still seen today. Further, the second theory applies to discrimination in America's modern housing markets. Black owners are found to be less likely to own their own home and less likely to make the transition from renting to ownership. They are less likely to apply for a mortgage, as they are less likely to be able to afford the down payment on a house (Charles and Hurst 2002). Further, they are more likely to live in segregated neighborhoods in houses that are of lower quality than whites, especially in urban areas (Rosenbaum 1996). This segregation has been shown to occur even if the residents have a high-income job, although a majority of the time it is a result of poor employment options (Dickerson 2007).
These trends are similar to those of Tuckel (2007) who examined race, housing ownership, occupation, and wealth. These authors noted that "compared to whites, blacks were far more likely to have a lower occupational status, be renters, and live in crowded dwellings" (Tuckel et.al 1997 p.731). Similarly, for the Setauket community Matthews (2011) notes that these problems, combined with the specific tax and other legal problems the community faces, have subsequently forced "otherwise economically stable heirs of the historic properties" to sell their homes and abandon their communities (p.47). By addressing these issues, we hope to show the rest of the Setauket community that the members of the historical district are a viable and contributing part of the community who deserve to remain such.
Research Design and Methods:
The U.S. Federal Census was a major source in tracking the occupational history of the African-American community. The following censuses were accessed through Ancestry.com: 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930. Unfortunately, due to a fire, the census records from 1890 were destroyed. Because of the way in which the census information was recorded, it was not possible to separate out the community of Setauket every year. Most years recorded data by district number, but did not list the corresponding village. Because Setauket is an incorporated village within the town of Brookhaven, the entirety of the Brookhaven census was used in collecting information for this report. While this data extends beyond the Setauket community we are researching, it also gives us a larger survey area to form a more complete picture. From the census, the following data was recorded (where possible): Name, race, age, relation to head of household, occupation, literacy, and whether the home was owned or rented. Any individual not listed as white was recorded (black, mulatto, Indian, Chinese, etc.). The first five censuses (1850-1900) already had this information transcribed by previous students of Dr. Matthews. The remainder of the censuses were transcribed for this project by our group. At the point of time in which this report was written, the final census, 1930, had not been fully transcribed. The data was used with the knowledge that it only represented a part of the overall population. As a result, the numbers of workers in each type of job, as well as job variability, might appear to be lower than in actuality. If a noticeable difference is seen in a data, this must be assumed to be a potential cause.
A chart was created to list the types of occupations and the number of individuals employed in each occupation each year. According to the study conducted by Amuti (1997) in Wilmington, black labor was restricted to two spheres -- professional and domestic/private, with a particular emphasis on the latter. African-Americans were mostly excluded from the agricultural, manufacturing, trade and transportation, which were occupied by whites and other ethnic minorities. Myra. B Young Armstead (1999) provided a separate list containing eight spheres to categorize labor. These spheres were: professional, proprietary, managerial sales/clerical, skilled/semiskilled, unskilled/service, agricultural, maritime, and military. Each of these spheres was broken down into a thorough list of occupations included. I used this list to code the occupations seen in the town of Brookhaven from 1850-1930 (see Appendix A). I further added another category, student/scholar, based on what I had seen in the census material. A separate chart was then made using the total number of workers per year for each sphere in order to observe any trends.
Finally, this data was once again broken down into three categories -- general skilled, general unskilled and general/other -- loosely following the model of Amuti's breakdown into professional and personal/private. In this instance, "general skilled" included the professional, proprietary, managerial sales/clerical, and skilled/semiskilled positions; "general unskilled" included unskilled/service, agricultural, and maritime; and "general/other" included student/scholar, military, and illegible occupations. In order to make the data comparable between the census years, the categories were calculated as percentages of the working population.
In order to gather information about the historical community of Setauket, specifically, it was our original intention to conduct interviews with current residents of the community. These interviews would have been with a minimum of four of the elder members of the community who would recount for us stories of their work, housing, and home life, as well as similar stories of their parents and neighbors. By doing this, we would be able to ask specifically targeted questions that would benefit each of the four separate sections of the project equally. Initial interviews were set up, but these were canceled at the discretion of Robert Lewis, one of the co-directors the "A Long Time Coming" project. Lewis was unwilling to provide access to community members without further examining the interview contract and questions. He was uncomfortable with the immediate focus, and wanted to make sure that his community would be represented in the manner he saw most fit. Fortunately, interviews had been conducted in the 1980s among members of the Setauket community, including several key members who have since died. The transcriptions of some of these interviews were made available to us through the archives at the Three Villages Historical Society in Setauket. Other interviews that had been conducted had not yet been fully transcribed from the original tapes, and these were not available to us. Overall, we were able to collect approximately ten interview transcriptions.
Using interviews that were not undertaken with our specific goals and questions in mind meant that our questions might not be addressed. Fortunately, the original interviewers had aimed to get a large-scale picture of what the interviewee's life was like growing up in Setauket. This typically included information such as what their family was like, what their school/education was like, the jobs they held, the jobs their parents held, why their family came to Setauket, why any family members left Setauket, and how they felt or experienced racial prejudice. Because of this breadth of information, each of the four team members was still able to utilize the interviews in a way that was applicable to their focus. These interviews provided a small sample of the types of occupations held by the African-American residents of Setauket. In many cases interviewees described the title of the occupation, as well as the work that was involved, how they were treated, and at what age they started working. Further, many were able to provide similar information regarding the jobs that their parents held, as well as how their parents' jobs affected their childhood/lifestyle growing up. This information, combined with the statistical information from the federal censuses, was utilized to paint a general picture of what life was like for the Setauket community in terms of work and occupational mobility.
Data and Data Analysis:
Initial data was derived from the transcriptions of the U.S. Federal Census years noted earlier. Every individual who was not listed as "white" under the race section of the census was recorded into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for the corresponding year. Table 1 shows the approximate total number of residents per census year, the total number of residents listed not listed as white and the percentage of the district that they made up. The approximate number of total residents was calculated by multiplying the number of pages per census year by 50, as there were 50 maximum entries per page. This data shows that the population of non-white residents did not exceed 5% of the population except for the year 1850. Marcus (1988) stated that by 1810, three quarters of the slave population on Long Island was free, and by 1845 the African-American population had declined by 15%. We do not have the data from the 1840 census to use as a comparison. It is possible that this census would show a higher percentage of African-Americans, meaning that the 1850 census, although it has the highest percentage, would actually be showing a decline. This theory could be explained by the movement of freed slaves moving off the island. The following years of 1860 and 1870 support this idea as the population declines by at least 1.25% each decade. The 1870 and 1880 censuses vary only by .01% In 1900 there appears to be a slight increase as the total non-white population rises to 4.29%. This could be the result of a precursor to the Great Migration, or possibly just an increase in population because of births. It is important to keep these figures in mind through the rest of the report as they demonstrate how small the population that we are working with is.
Every occupation was recorded from the census transcriptions into a separate Excel spreadsheet. The number of individuals in a given occupation each year was recorded into their corresponding columns. Table 2 displays the total non-white population per year, the number of eligible workers, and the total number of individuals employed. Further, it shows how these individuals represented the overall non-white population by looking at the percent of individuals employed out of the total population, and then more specifically at the percent of individuals employed out of the total eligible population. The eligible population was recorded as any individual ten years of age and older. In a similar study conducted by Ross, she noted that this was the age that many children began working. The interviews revealed that several of the residents of the community began working at this age as well, verifying Ross' observation. Those individuals listed as having an occupation of "student" were not included in these numbers. By truncating the batch in this manner, the data set became more realistic and consistent, excluding individuals who would be unable to be employed (such as two year olds) and therefore keeping the results from being inappropriately skewed. This is evidenced in the differences between the percent total employed and the percent eligible employed in Table 2.
The average rate is 53.2% eligible individuals employed, and the median is 58.55%. From 1900 onward, the employment rate stays above the average rate. The 1850 to 1880 period is very inconsistent, with a rate of 72.50% eligible employed in 1860 which is then reduced to 27.63% in 1870. The 1860 census shows a relatively high non-white population at 4.49%, which dropped to 3.16% in 1870. The parallel drop in employment rates could be a result of the same factor that caused the drop in population, or it could have other causes. Robert Lewis made the remark that for a long time, members of the community did not have to work. According to Lewis, many community members were self sustaining -- they grew gardens and collected oysters for food. Jobs only became a necessity when conveniences became a desire and had to be paid for. These conveniences would have started with small appliances, such as the vacuum, iron, and sewing machine in the 1900-1920 range. Lewis states that these items would not have been immediately sought out by the community, however, as they would have been regarded as "evil" by the church. The church would have pushed simplistic values which focused on the family. New technologies were unnecessary and distracting. The church would have resisted the introduction to these technologies, and the community would have listened for a time. Still, this could be a possible factor for the increase in employment rates in 1900 from 46.40% in 1880 to 59.28%. Unfortunately, the data from 1890 is not available, which means we cannot see if the increase had a more gradual increase.
The diversification of labor is another possible cause to consider. By examining the occupations in each census year, I tracked the occupation titles that were listed, and when each type of job appears. In the beginning, the 1850 census only lists six occupations held by African-American individuals in Brookhaven: boatman, coachman, farmer, laborer, oysterman, and seaman. Some occupations are added between 1860 and 1880, but these are mostly generalized occupations such as day laborer, servant, merchant, sailor, etc. In 1900, however, there is a greater diversity of occupations available, which is correspondent with the increase in percent of eligible individuals employed. The diversification and specialization of labor continues through 1930. Table 3 shows the occupational titles added in each census year.
In her study of Wilmington, Delaware, Amuti (1997) similarly notes the diversity of occupational titles, although she cites this as occurring in 1910. This occurred as a result of the decision of the Census Bureau to reclassify titles. Amuti recognizes that while this time period (1910) saw an increase in the overall numbers of African-Americans employed, this mostly occurred within the unskilled/service spheres. Therefore, while there was more diversification horizontally in the type of job within their sphere that they were able to hold, there was still little vertical diversification in which spheres they were able to enter.
Using the categories provided in the study by Armstead (1999), I coded every job that appeared in the Brookhaven censuses (see Appendix A). After I coded the occupations, I created a table tracking the number of individuals in each occupational sphere per year (Table 4). By doing this, I was able to condense the information into a manageable data set which looked at ten general categories as opposed to the 102 specific job titles. This table, which looks at number of individuals employed as opposed to the percent of the eligible population employed, shows that a majority of the population is employed in an occupation listed as unskilled/service, agricultural or maritime. The year 1900, which is when the types of jobs began diversifying, does have a higher number of individuals recorded as skilled/semiskilled. At this point in time, 37 individuals are listed as having a skilled/semiskilled job. By 1910, this number decreases to 16, but it remains above ten for the next two census years. Compared to the census years recorded before 1900, where only one individual was listed as skilled/semi-skilled in 1880 as a cook, this suggests that at least some of the population was able to experience vertical diversity in occupations. A majority of the individuals listed as skilled are listed as cooks, although other occupations include nurse, mechanic, electrician and fireman.
Figure 1 breaks down the ten occupational spheres per census year by the percent of total employed individuals found in each sphere. This format allows a comparison to be made accurately across census years, and further demonstrates that unskilled/service jobs are the most prevalent sphere. Agriculture is the next most prevalent, and has a higher percentage of employees in the 1870 census, although agricultural work (which consisted of farm laborers and farmers) is generally considered as "unskilled" labor. Maritime workers are also visible, consisting of approximately 10% of the occupational group before 1900. This is consistent with reports of Long Island being a maritime community with ship yards and fisherman.
When these occupations are further grouped into "general skilled," "general skilled," and "general/other," the results are even more apparent. General skilled includes the spheres skilled/semiskilled, managerial/clerical, professional, and proprietary. General unskilled includes agricultural, maritime and unskilled/service. General/other includes military, student/scholar and those occupations which were illegible on the census. Figure 2 once again demonstrates that general unskilled labor dominates the working field, especially from 1850-1880. The years 1900, 1920 and 1930 show the most diversification of labor, although unskilled labor still remains over 60%. The only time skilled labor is above 10% is in 1910, when it reaches 11.05%. To put this in perspective, this demographic -- skilled black workers -- makes up less than 1% of the total population of Brookhaven in 1900.
While specific statistics and demographics have not been recorded regarding the white population of the Brookhaven Township during these years, a random sampling was taken by selecting a few occupations listed on the first few pages of each district. This was done in order to compare white versus non-white jobs in 1850 and then 1930. These two years were chosen as they show two extremes -- the first occurring before the diversification of labor. In 1850, many whites have their occupation listed as farmer or laborer with some sailors. Other, more specific and specialized occupations are also seen for white individuals where they are not seen for blacks. Some examples of these include: beautician, governess, carpenter, mason, apprentice, counselor at law, schoolteacher, shoemaker, blacksmith, shipbuilder, clergymen, etc. While some of these occupations, such as mason or blacksmith, are still only considered skilled or semiskilled and later employed the occasional African-American worker, the main focus is that they did not at that time. In 1850, the only occupations held by black workers were: boatman, laborer, oysterman, and seaman. Already, with only a few selected occupations held by white individuals, the difference between white employment and black employment is evident.
In 1930, some occupations held by whites include: plumber, butcher, mail carrier, manager, dressmaker, stenographer, clerk, pharmacist, painter, author, scenario writer, contractor, insurance, etc. Once again, this list does not cover the full range of occupations or provide specific numbers or percentages of individuals employed in order to offer a stronger comparison. What can be taken away from this, however, is two-fold. Firstly, the diversification of labor known to have begun in the 1900s can be seen here -- job titles that did not exist or were not prevalent in 1850 can be seen appearing here. Second, while some black individuals are able to acquire these jobs -- there is one African-American listed as a painter in the Brookhaven census -- it is still rare. An example of this comes in the form of the job title "plumber's helper," listed for a black individual in the census, where the white individual is listed as a "plumber." A more in-depth study of the white occupational history of the town of Brookhaven would provide a stronger comparison between white and black occupational opportunities. This preliminary study, however, does suggest that the results would continue along similar lines -- white individuals would demonstrate a greater present in professional and generally skilled jobs, although some of them would still be seen in unskilled fields as well.
The Setauket interviews further served to demonstrate the occupational options and typical lifestyle of the black working class, as well as highlight some differences between the black and white families. In the ten interviews from Setauket, the reports were typically mixed -- while many individuals discussed their jobs, or their parents' jobs, in unskilled/service works, some had times where their parents actually owned their own business. At the time of her interview in 1987, Hazel Mae Lewis, age 64, mentioned that her father owned his own trucking business. He owned this business, and ran it out of his own house, until 1955 when he began working for the LIRR. She is unable to remember exactly what the trucking business did, and what prompted her father to give up the business. Ida Mae Glass, age not provided at the time of the interview, mentions that, "Grandpa and nanny had a laundry business and they had trucks and several blacks in the area did their laundry and ironing for them, but for mostly the local rich white families in the area." These are the only two examples from the interviews of families who owned their own business for any length of time. Even in Ida Mae Glass' recollection, her grandfather, who owned his company, still catered primarily to the rich white families. This example suggests that even when the families were able to make enough money to own their own business, they still found themselves in service to and dependent on white families to make their living. Caroline Moore echoes this sentiment in her memory of working.
Caroline, who only attended school until eighth grade, worked for a family in Old Field. Discussing her decision to work, Caroline stated, "I didn't stay in school because I wanted to go to work anyhow -- great-grandfather went to sea and then the farmers used to have them work on the farm. A lot of wealthy people lived in Oldfield and they had lots of help." Old Field is thought to be one of the primary sources of employment for many African-American's in the Setauket community. Violent Thompson described it as "an incorporated village and it separates itself, because there's a lot of wealthy people there." According to Caroline, the work given would include gardening in the summer, cutting ice in the winter and farming in the summer. Violet added chauffeurs, butlers, horseman, grooms and "everything" to the mix. Lucy Keys, another member of the community, remembers a woman for whom she worked one day a week for forty-three years. Remembering her, Lucy commented, "And she always give me good, always took care of me. Because she didn't pay me by the day, she give me just what she thought I give me, sometimes four hours, sometimes three hours, but it was a day's pay." This theme was not uncommon. Caroline remarked that the elder white women from Old Field would give you little things whenever they thought you needed it, food, clothes, etc. In her opinion, however, "that was bad, because when the church sold their blueberry pie... they always come down and give you an extra twenty dollars. You see, you weren't self sufficient because you relied on them coming down and giving you these clothes -- giving you this -- giving you that -- and I don't like that."
While working for white people was common, and owning your own business occasional, there were also other employment options. Caroline Moore also cites the existence of the rubber factory and the piano factory in the nearby area. Ethel Mae Lewis discussed these two factories -- stating that "lots of black people worked there in the rubber factory. Sure did" -- as well as a garage, and a shipyard. Their comments on these occupations verify the data seen in the census. Nelly Edwards added that her grandfather worked as a stableman, Ethel Mae Lewis stated that her father was the minister, Violet Thompson's uncle taught violin, and she herself was a matron at a school. Once again, these accounts show some diversity in the occupations, including some rare upward mobility in occupation type, but most remain unskilled/semiskilled jobs. Women, specifically the mothers of the interviewees, were unanimously cited as doing most of their work in the house. Once the children were old enough, they began to take over the housework. At point, the mother was able to take on some other occupation that would provide more money for the household. Violet Thompson's mother, for instance, cooked dinner parties for the white families in Old Field in the 1950's. Her grandmother, her father's mother, was said to have "ordinary worked out service. You know they used to, in those days, did a lot of laundry for people." Indeed, in the census, many women are listed as being washerwoman, either in their own house or listed as "work out."
The census data can only show us the title of the occupation that an individual held, and the percentage of individuals that held a similar occupation. Census data is unable to tell us the type of work that was involved, the process behind the work, or any other sources of income or means of living that an individual on the sides. This form of information is only available in interviews. While we were fortunate to have past interviews from members of the Setauket community which began to give credence to the data seen in the story, as well as provide a more in depth look at what this data meant, it still only painted a portion of the whole picture.
Conclusion:
This paper addressed the issue of work and wealth in the African-American community of Setauket. The current residents are being displaced from their homes, despite a long history in the community. This displacement is a result of various laws, including an increase in taxes, restriction on dividing plots of land to less than 3/4 of an acre, and a fee for renting out a room within a house. The first aspect of legislation affected the African-American residents' abilities to continue to afford the taxes needed to remain in their home. The latter two pieces of legislation, found in the 1997/98 Brookhaven Statutes, affected their ability to utilize coping mechanisms which would have provided another means to divide and provide necessary payments. This project, alongside A Long Time Coming, aimed to raise awareness of the community and the issues it currently faces.
Specifically, this paper addressed the occupational history of the community as seen in census data and oral histories. Census results for the entirety of the town of Brookhaven demonstrated that over the course of eighty years, an average of 3.8% of the total population was of non-whites. A majority of these individuals were listed as black or mulatto, although occasional variation was seen, including Native American and Chinese. The occupations of every individual were recorded and categorized in order to locate any potential trends. The data showed that from the years 1850--1930, over 60% of the black labor force was consistently employed in unskilled occupations.
Black workers were effectively at the mercy of white employers. Discrimination kept African-Americans out of specialized and professional jobs that whites had access to. Unskilled labor was mostly performed for white individuals or companies and seldom provided opportunities to advance their position. These jobs paid lower wages, which meant that the families typically required more than one member to hold a job in order to maintain a healthy style of living. Children were often relied on to do chores and keep the house once they reached a certain age, so that their mother could utilize that time to hold a wage paying job. I suspect that this created a style of low income that left a majority of the black households unable to acquire and save enough money to own homes, or to stay in them when the taxes increased. This downward spiral would not have been done unknowningly to the white community, who wanted to keep black families out of their neighborhoods.
In a study of race and gender in the work place, Mignon Duffy (2007) demonstrated that the trend of black workers in unskilled positions continued through the late 1900s, suggesting that the pattern seen in Brookhaven would continue beyond the 1830 census. Several future studies would be useful to gathering new data and further analyzing current data. A more in-depth analysis of the census years, for instance, including a full transcription listing all of the individuals, would allow us to make a more informed comparison of black versus white labor and labor options. If results yielded a high percentage of white workers in unskilled labor, as opposed to the expected high percentage in skilled/semi-skilled/professional sectors, it would be interesting to compare that demographic to the unskilled black labor force studied in this paper. Particular attention would be paid to the housing types. Do white individuals in unskilled labor have different living situations than their black counterparts? Do they have a tendency to own homes where black families rent? Or is it the other way around? This would also require a deeper study into what occupations homeowners have compared to occupations held by renters. This was partially undertaken in a separate aspect of this study. Initial results demonstrated that African-American homeowners were mostly comprised of laborers and farmers.
Another beneficial area of study would be the examination of the factories that employed Setauket community member. These factories were mentioned in the interviews, and have been thought to employ many black individuals. Factories are of a particular interest because they provide a form of standardization which allows working class people, on a whole, to do better. Hours and wages are regulated, and there are occasional opportunities for upward mobility within the factory itself. This data could be obtained through research on the specific factories themselves, such as the rubber factory, as well as through targeted interview questions.
Interviews of the current members of the community, both black and white, should be pursued. Targeted questions would allow us to obtain the same occupational information from every individual consistently, as well as look for any patterning in words, phrases or thoughts. A draft of suggested interview questions is provided in Appendix B. Interviews of the white community members have the potential to show us how they viewed the black community in the past and currently. This data would be useful in demonstrating how the African-American community of Setauket specifically has suffered the racial discrimination that has been discussed on a broader scale for the rest of America. More so, we could use this data to examine how much of a role the white community has had in the exodus of the black community.
This paper was a first step in an overall study of the historic community of Setauket. It validated suspicions that black members of the community were mostly limited to unskilled employment positions. This data gives us a glimpse into how the African-American members of Setauket actively contributed to the overall community. Combined with the other portions of the project, as well as future studies, this information will help the current Setauket residents maintain their living comfortably, and not be forced from their homes.
Bibliography
Amuti, Emma D. (1997). Black Labor in Wilmington, Delaware: Black Occupational Mobility from 1850-1910. University of Delaware. (http://www.udel.edu/BlackHistory/blacklabor.html)
Ancestry.com. 1850 United States Federal Census. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2009. Images reproduced by FamilySearch. Online.
Ancestry.com. 1860 United States Federal Census. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2009. Images reproduced by FamilySearch. Online.
Ancestry.com. 1870 United States Federal Census. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2009. Images reproduced by FamilySearch. Online.
Ancestry.com and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 1880 United States Federal Census. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2010. Online.
Ancestry.com. 1900 United States Federal Census. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2004. Online.
Ancestry.com. 1910 United States Federal Census. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2006. Online
Ancestry.com. 1920 United States Federal Census. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2010. Images reproduced by FamilySearch. Online.
Ancestry.com. 1930 United States Federal Census. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2002. Online.
Armstead, Myra B Young. (1999) "Lord, Please Don't Take Me in August": African-Americans in Newport and Saratoga Springs, 1870-1930. University of Illinois Press, Chicago.
Conley, Dalton. (2001). Decomposing the Black-White Wealth Gap: The Role of Parental Resources, Inheritance, and Investment Dynamics. Sociological Inquiry 71(1):39-66. Winter.
Charles, Kerwin Kofi and Hurst, Erik. (2002). The Transition to Home Ownership and the Black-White Wealth Gap. The Review of Economics and Statistic. 84 (2):281-297. Available from: (www.jstor.org/stable/3211777). [Accessed 12 February 2012].
Dickerson, Niki T. (2007) Black Employment, Segregation, and the Social Organization of Metropolitan Labor Markets. Economic Geography 83(3):283-307 Clark University. http://www.clarku.edu/econgeography .
Duffy, Mignon. (2007) Doing the Dirty Work: Gender, Race, and Reproductive Labor in Historical Perspective. Gender and Society 21(3):313-336. Available from: (http://www.jstor.org/stable/27640972). [Accessed: 26 April 2012]
Edwards, Nelly. (1987) Interview. Transcript on file, Three Village Historical Society, Setauket, NY.
Gellman, David. (2008) Labor, Law and Resistance in the Eighteenth Century. Emancipating in New York: The Politics of Slavery and Freedom, 1777-1827, pp.15-25. LSU Press. Ebrary.
Glass, Ida Mae. (1987) Interview. Transcript on file, Three Village Historical Society, Setauket, NY.
Haynes, Elizabeth Ross. (1923) Negroes in Domestic Service in the United States: Introduction. The Journal of Negro History 8(4):384-442. Available from: (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2713693). [Accessed 26 April 2012]
Hodges, Graham Russel. (1992) African-Americans in Monmouth County, New Jersey 1784-1860. Monmouth County Park System, Lincraft, NJ.
Hodges, Graham Russel. (1997). The Creation of Freedom 1830-1865. Slavery and Freedom in the Rural North: African-Americans in Monmouth County, New Jersey, 1665-1865. Madison House Publishers, p. 171-210.
Hodges, Graham Russel. (1999) The Black Renaissance amidst White Racism. Root and Branch: African-Americans in New York and East Jersey, 1613-1863. The University of North Carolina Press. Pp.227-270.
Keyes, Lucy. (1987) Interview. Transcript on file, Three Village Historical Society, Setauket, NY.
Kiltgaard, Robert E. (1972). Institutionalized Racism: An Analytical Approach. Journal of Peace Research 9(1):41-49. Available from: (http://ww.jstor.org/stable/422971). [Accessed 26 February 2012]
Lewis, Ethel Mae. (1987) Interview. Transcript on file, Three Village Historical Society, Setauket, NY.
Lewis, Hazel Mae. (1987) Interview. Transcript on file, Three Village Historical Society, Setauket, NY.
Marcus, Grania Bolton. (1998). Discovering the African-American Experience in Suffolk County, 1920-1860. Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities. Mattituck, N.Y.
Marks, Carole. (1985) Black Workers and the Great Migration North. Phylon 46(2):48-161. Available from: (www.jstor.org/stable/274413). [Accessed 26 February 2012]
Matthews, Christopher N. (2011) Lonely Islands: Culture, Community, and Poverty in Archaeological Perspective. Historical Archaeology 45(3):41-54.
Moore, Caroline. (1987) Transcript on file. Three Village Historical Society, Setauket, NY.
Moreno, Paul D. (2008). Black Americans and Organized Labor: A New History. LSU Press, Baton Rouge. Ebrary.
Rosenbaum, Emily. (1996) Racial/Ethnic Differences in Home Ownership and Housing Quality, 1991. Social Problems 43(4):403-426. University of California Press. Available from: (http://www.jstor.com/stable/3096952). [Accessed 4 February 2012].
Smith, Raymond T. (1992) Race, Class, and Gender in the Transition to Freedom. In: Ed. McGlynn, Frank and Drescher, Seymour, The Meaning of Freedom. Economics, Politics and Culture after Slavery, 257-290. University of Pittsburgh Press: Pittsburgh.
Tuckel, Peter and Schlichting, Kurt and Maisel, Richard. (2007) Social, Economic, and Residential Diversity within Hartford's African-American Community at the Beginning of the Great Migration. Journal of Black Studies. 37(5):710-736. Available from: (http://www.jstor.org/stable/40034362). [Accessed 26 February 2012]
Thompson, Violet. (1987) Interview. Transcript on file, Three Village Historical Society, Setauket, NY.
Wiese, Andrew. (2010). "Forbidden Neighbors": White Racism and Black Suburbanites, 1940 -- 1960. Places of their Own: African-American Suburbanization in the Twentieth Century, 94-109. University of Chicago Press. Ebrary
Appendix A: Coded Occupations
| At Home N/A At School N/A Attendant U/S Boarding House M/C Boatman MA Book keeper M/C Brickmaker U/S Butler U/S Caretaker U/S Chauffer U/S Chef S/S Chopper U/S Clergymen PF Coachman U/S Coal Yard U/S Common Laborer U/S Cook S/S Day Laborer U/S Delivery U/S Dialer U/S Dishwasher U/S Domestic U/S Domestic Servant U/S Driver U/S Duck Farmer U/S Electrician S/S Elevator Man U/S Errand Boy U/S Expressman PP Farm Laborer AG Farmer AG Fireman S/S Fisherman MA Foreman M/C |
Fish Dealer U/S Gardener U/S Gas Serviceman U/S General Housework U/S Groom U/S Hand Maid U/S Helper U/S Home maker U/S House assistant U/S Housekeeper U/S House wife U/S Housework U/S House servant U/S Horse Trainer S/S Horseman S/S Horsler/Hostter (?) S/S Janitor U/S Keeper U/S Keeping house U/S Kitchen helper (hotel) U/S Laborer U/S Labor farm AG Laundry U/S LIRR U/S Livery U/S Maid U/S Mason S/S Mate MA Mechanic S/S Merchant PP Minister PF Nurse S/S Odd Jobs U/S Overseer of Highway M/C Oysterman MA |
Painter S/S Piano Player PR Partner (R.R) PP Plumber Helper U/S Porter U/S Preacher PF Proprietor PP Public (train) U/S Public Roads U/S Pupil N/A Road Construction S/S RR Conductor M/C Sailor MA Salesman PP Scholar N/A Seaman MA Servant U/S Service Station U/S Shiphitter (shipyard) U/S Shipyard U/S Soldier MI Stable (hand) U/S Stage Driver U/S Teacher PF Teamster U/S Truck Driver U/S Wagon driver U/S Waiter/Waitress U/S Washing U/S Watchman U/S Woodcutter U/S Yarddresser U/S |
Key to Appendix A
AG: Agricultural
M/C: Managerial
MA: Maritime
MI: Military
N/A: Not applicable
PF: Professional
PP: Proprietary
S/C sales/clerical
S/S: Skilled/semiskilled
U/S: Unskilled/service
Appendix B: Interview Questions
(drafted March 2012 by Gabriel Abanante, Rachel Iacangelo, Tess Jay and Emma Lagan)
How long have you lived in Setauket? When did you/family move to Setauket?
Have you ever left/moved out? If so, when? When did your family/family members move out? Who lives there now?
Where in Setauket do you live? Why this house? What brought you to Setauket?
What kind of house did you live in? Can you describe the surrounding area? (was it farmland, urban, etc.?)
Did your family own or rent the house?
What did you do for fun as a kid? What did your friends do?
Do you remember owning a radio, TV, washing machine, bike? If yes, do you remember the day you got these things? Were they a big deal? Why? Did any of your friends or anyone you know in the neighborhood have these items? If so, who?
Did you have any supplementary sources of income or livelihood strategies that saved money when you were growing up? (Babysitting, canning fruit, making clothing, etc) If so, did a lot of people do this?
Did anyone in your family have a car? If yes, was this an important moment in your life? Did you know anyone who owned a car?
What was a typical meal in your home? What did you eat at other peoples' houses? What kinds of food would you have eaten on special occasions (birthdays, holidays, etc.)?
Did your family entertain (have people over)? What other families in the neighborhood entertained? How often did this happen?
Describe the neighborhood.
Who lived where? How did others view certain people in the community? Where were the boundaries?
Where have you lived since your childhood house? Did you own or rent houses that you've lived in? What about other people from the area?
What did your parents do for money? What did other families in the community do for money? Did they own any businesses?
What jobs have you had? How many would you say you've had over the years? Can you remember anything about your first job? Describe it for me:
At what age did you start working? What were your tasks? What was your pay like? Do you think this was fair? Did you do any work or help out around the house before you started working officially?
Would you say it was difficult for you to enter the working world? Did you find your options were limited?
Did you attend high school or any form of higher education in hopes of getting a higher status job?
Did you ever move higher in any particular field?
Can you remember any stories of your parents or grandparents working? Can you share a story?
Do you remember your parents or grandparents ever discussing racist practices or sentiments in the workplace, community or in regards to any income they earned? If so, would you please share?
Is this something you yourself ever experienced?
Were there any periods of unemployment you remember during your lifetime or through the stories of your family members? How did your family make it through these times?
Who in the community would you have considered "rich"? Why?
Did you or anyone you know ever work for and/or live with white families? Can you describe what this was like? Work, pay, etc.
Were there any introductions of any local industries that you can remember?
Did you work in Setauket or did you leave to find work?
Can you remember any routines growing up? Such as specific shopping days of the week or locations for grocery shopping? Did any of these routines change?
What other ways did you and your family participate in society? Churches, clubs, organizations, etc.