After reading “The Feejee Mermaid Hoax” and its accompanying article “The Mermaid” in the Penguin Book of Mermaids, it is kind of intriguing how people are led to believe that mermaids actually exist. Although this section of the Penguin Book talks about Phineas Taylor Barnum exhibiting a mummified mermaid to the public, the article does talk about the mermaid in question, but only in the first paragraph.

In the article, Barnum writes that a young artist saw the Feejee mermaid and sent Barnum and his team a drawing of it. The artist assured them that the drawing was accurate to how he saw it, with its hair being the exception, which “he has taken the liberty to make a little longer than the original would warrant.” (241)

Here is how the Feejee mermaid was depicted:

Eugh.
Yes, I did take the liberty to search for that image on the web. To think that all mermaids were supposed to be beautiful, this grotesque human-fish monstrosity basically takes that and throws it out the window. If this is how mermaids actually looked like if they existed in our world, it would change how we view them quite drastically. However, this is just one depiction; others may vary.

Anyway, the article. It argues that mermaids have been considered by many as a “fabulous animal,” but naturalists think there’s too much evidence of the existence of them to be considered mere fantasy (241). Barnum then presents us with various sightings of mermaids, with their appearances and personalities varying every time. The authenticity of these sightings are disputed; we don’t know if they’re real or fabricated. However, there are two examples that caught my attention, and they are both found in page 243 of the Penguin Book:

The 1758 St. Germaine’s mermaid: “…about two feet long … fed with bread and small fish … female, with ugly negro features. The skin was harsh, the ears very large, and the back parts and tail were covered with scales.“
The 1775 London mermaid: “Its face is like that of a young female–its eyes a fine light blue–its nose small and handsome–its mouth small–its lips thin, and the edges of them round like that of the codfish–its teeth are small, regular and white–its chin well shaped, and its neck full.

Yikes. If you read them closely, you can practically see the racism permeating from these descriptions alone. While the London mermaid was described as a very beautiful female, the St. Germaine mermaid, despite her agility and delight, is described as ugly because her skin looks black, hence the word “negro.” The use of the word “negro” coupled with the word “ugly” in the 1758 example implies that even mermaid sightings were rooted in racism. Keep in mind that these alleged sightings were reported while the transatlantic slave trade was taking place, when dark-skinned African people were forcefully taken overseas to work for their masters.

That being said, I think it’s crazy to include the last two examples in the article because it shows that not even mermaids were safe from racism. Sure, these creatures may vary per sighting, but these examples side-by-side reveal how Europeans (mostly White people by the way!) always found a reason to promote their idea of white supremacy during the mid-late 18th century.