Mark Twain's Budd'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 consequently not as concrete, nor as correct, as is commonly believed. Both authors dramatize the destruction of the socially constructed binary system of black and white by introducing the reader to the ambiguously racialized character: the mulatto. While Chesnutt gives us Rena and John, Twain gives us Roxy and “Tom.” Both authors, through the depiction of these characters, illustrate the constructed and not at all biological foundation from which racism germinates; thus, deconstructing the cultural binaries of what black and white supposedly mean. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In the antebellum South, a person's perceived identity was based primarily not on merit or achievement, but rather on lineage, on race. It was believed that the racial composition of an individual's blood determined their social value and, consequently, their overall value. This is highlighted 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 a white like anyone else, but one-sixteenth of her being black outvoted the other fifteen parts and made her a negro. She was a slave and marketable as such. Her son was thirty-one parts white, and he too was a slave, and by a fiction of law and custom a negro." Twain sets the stage for his critique as, here, he illustrates the illogical labeling of race. It shows how artificial and how much of a ruse the idea of ​​racial superiority is. And later, through Roxy's act of deception, she demonstrates how easily interchangeable both races are: Chambers becomes Tom, and Tom becomes Chambers. This single act elegantly dramatizes the idea that racial difference is merely a social fabrication that attempts to categorize people by making distinctions that have no palpable, or real, warrant behind them. Yet, a potential problem emerges here. The idea of ​​interchangeability and consequent equality is insidiously undermined by the "natural evil" of the "black" Tom. “Tom” is abusive, dishonest, and cowardly, implying that his character is the result of a deeply ingrained “darkness.” And it's not just white people who subscribe to this ideology, Roxy does too. She blames "Tom's" unpleasant temper on his biology. But it is important to remember that she is not a reliable commentator on racial issues, indeed, she too has been infected by the racist paradigm. She has been conditioned and therefore internalized the negative stereotypes attributed to blacks. He sincerely believes that white people can do no wrong. The narrator argues otherwise, because even though Roxy has indeed deprived the real Tom of his freedom, he remains faithful to her. And while it is argued that this is due to the benevolence inherent in his “whiteness,” an alternative, more accurate claim would be that his kindness is the result of a widely divergent upbringing. It is because "Tom" was spoiled as a child that he is the way he is: for "Chambers" the opposite can be said. Furthermore, 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 be grouped into categories: everyone is unique. As Twain explores the construction of race and effect, 2000.