Horse

Racism takes on different forms and tones in each of the historical periods depicted in Horse, revealing itself in both insidious and overt presentations. Each era evokes for the reader the common iterations of racism in various settings.

19th-century America was characterized by the Civil War, in which, among other things, abolitionists in the North battled enslavers in the South. Of the 19th-century characters, three white men fancy themselves above the Southern enslavers they associate with, and yet demonstrate the willingness to exercise their privilege in exploitative ways. The sincerest among them is Cassius, Mary Barr’s father, who emancipated and employed the formerly enslaved people he inherited. Cassius risks his safety and that of his daughter to ensure Jarret’s safety after Jarret escapes with Lexington in Chapters 17 and 18. Despite this, there are aspects of his conduct that hint that he is not without prejudice. He drunkenly, aggressively interrogates Jarret when he finds Jarret and Mary Barr alone, and later asks Mary Barr if Jarret made advances toward her. He does not pursue the issue, but the fact that these are his initial conclusions indicates a lingering bias. Cassius also upbraids Jarret for speaking to him as he would to an enslaver, because Cassius does not believe that Jarret should be required to act with such deference to white men. However, he fails to understand that Jarret behaves in such a way to avoid harmful and potentially lethal retaliation. Even Mary Barr displays similar behavior; she risks her own safety to help Jarret, but in Chapter 12, she thoughtlessly comments, “My father calls himself an emancipator, but he makes my mother the most complete slave I know” (81). This irritates Jarret, who is still enslaved at the time.

Scott believes in abolition, although unlike Cassius he will not espouse these views publicly, for fear that he might lose the commissions that constitute a significant part of his livelihood. Early in the novel, he admits in his diary that he would purchase Jarret if he could, reasoning that Jarret is an exceptional assistant. Scott acknowledges that it would make him a hypocrite to do so, but would be too great a temptation if he had the money. Scott also makes comments to Jarret which seem, from Scott’s perspective, to be rooted in an attempt to empathize with enslaved people, but which instead strike Jarret as presumptuous, ignorant, and selfish.

Ten Broeck presents himself as more egalitarian than his enslaver peers, granting Jarret autonomy and authority not held by other young, enslaved men. But when he relegates Lexington to stud, he reminds Jarret that as his enslaver he could seize all of Jarret’s personal property, including the money Jarret has earned, and acts magnanimous for not doing so. He needles Jarret with the idea that Jarret might have found himself emancipated if he had been more loyal to Ten Broeck. Conversely, white men like Patrick, who, as one of the most experienced jockeys in the sport, works closely with Black horsemen, compliments Jarret, collaborates with him, and sides with Jarret against Ten Broeck to protect Lexington.

In the 1950s, Martha, white and affluent, assumes that Annie’s painting will be of little value because Annie is Black, comes from poverty, and is from rural Ohio. Martha catches herself and tries to school her features because she realizes she might “appear snobbish,” but does not consider that she may in fact be snobbish. Martha concedes that she will have to buy the painting out of pity when Annie will not accept a donation to her brother’s education; though this is a kind gesture, it places Martha in the role of the white savior. There are contradictions in Martha’s prejudice; she wants to ensure she is paying Annie a fair wage and offers her a higher salary, while at the same time expressing disbelief when Annie shares that she regularly stops to look at the paintings in Martha’s gallery. It never occurred to Martha that Annie might have the sophistication to appreciate fine art. While these forms of racism are less overt than those of the 19th century, they are proof of deeply ingrained prejudices that exist even within well-meaning white people.

In 2019, Theo braces himself against the hostility of the world around him, making sacrifices of the things he loves and making a conscious effort to maintain peace of mind. He has learned to steel himself against aggressive and hostile behavior; when he first meets Jess and she immediately assumes he is stealing her bike, he demonstrates significant practice in thwarting reactions like hers. Jess is deeply ashamed of her own biased conclusions, assuming herself to be better than that, but Theo’s reaction proves that such prejudiced assumptions are commonplace for him. He felt ousted by the polo world; like Jarret’s 19th-century Thoroughbred racing community, the horse world remains elite and prejudiced, a culture where skill cannot always overcome status. Catherine, oblivious to the racism Theo endured while she was watching him as a polo fan, doesn’t understand Theo’s frustration when she makes comments like “not everything has to be about race” (277). Her ignorance is further exemplified when, after Theo leaves, she says, “Hard to say the right thing, these days”—the exact sort of comment Theo thought she would make (277).

While he is running in Georgetown, Theo takes care to wear his Hoyas shirt to identify himself as part of the academic community in hopes of avoiding racial profiling. In the 19th century, Jarret and Harry’s clothing distinguishes them as men of substance and social power in the lower rungs of the racial hierarchy. A crucial plot point in Horse is Theo’s decision to wear his black hooded jacket instead of his Hoyas shirt while going on his final run. After he is shot, the detective investigating the shooting asks Jess if he always runs in a black hoodie, as though his choice in clothing could possibly be responsible for his senseless murder.