Mark Twain's Pudd'nhead Wilson and Charles Chesnutt's The House Behind the Cedars both problematize the concept of race by demonstrating to the reader that adherence to stereotypes is justified by the skin. the colors are ambiguous and therefore not at all as concrete, nor as correct as one comfortably believes. The two authors dramatize the destruction of the socially constructed binary system of black and white by presenting the reader with the racially ambiguous character: the mulatto. While Chesnutt gives us Rena and John, Twain gives us Roxy and “Tom.” The two authors, through their representations of these characters, illustrate the constructed and in no way biological foundation from which racism arises; thus, deconstructing the cultural binaries of what black and white presumably mean. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In the antebellum South, a person's perceived identity was based primarily, neither on merit nor on achievement, but rather on lineage, on race. The racial composition of an individual's blood was believed to determine their social worth and, therefore, their overall worth. This is demonstrated by Twain's Roxy and Chambers. Both appear white and have very little black blood, but are treated as subhuman and are slaves. "For all intents and purposes, Roxy was white like everyone else, but the sixteenth of her that was black outvoted the other fifteen parts and made her a Negro. She was a slave and salable as such. His child was thirty-one shares white, and he too was a slave and, by a fiction of law and custom, a Negro lays the groundwork for his critique as he illustrates the illogical labeling of race here. shows how artificial and cunning the idea of ​​racial superiority is And later, through Roxy's act of deception, it demonstrates how easily interchangeable the two races are: Chambers becomes Tom and Tom becomes Chambers. single act elegantly dramatizes the idea that racial difference is just a societal fabrication that attempts to categorize people by making distinctions that have no palpable or real justification And yet here a potential problem emerges. The idea of ​​interchangeability and subsequent equality is insidiously undermined by the "natural wickedness" of the "black" Tom. “Tom” is abusive, dishonest, and cowardly, implying that his character is the result of deep-rooted “blackness.” And it's not just white people who subscribe to this ideology, Roxy does too. She attributes "Tom's" unpleasantness to his biology. But it is important to remember that she is not a reliable commentator on issues of race, but that she too has been infected by the racist paradigm. She was conditioned and thus internalized the negative stereotypes attributed to black people. She sincerely believes that white people can do nothing wrong. The narrator argues the opposite, because even though Roxy has indeed robbed the real Tom of his freedom, he remains loyal to her. And even if it is claimed that this is due to the kindness inherent in his "whiteness", an alternative, more accurate claim would be that his kindness is the result of a very divergent upbringing. It is because “Tom” was spoiled as a child that he is the way he is – the opposite can be said for “Chambers”. Additionally, the conclusion of the novel speaks to the notion of individuality. Dramatized through the use of fingerprints, Twain reveals to the reader that just like their owners, all fingerprints are different. Indicating, once again, that even biology cannot, 2000.