Talk:Blackface

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blackface is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Blackface appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 26, 2005.

Archives
December 2002 – December 2005

Contents 1 Thanks 2 Intro: 'racist' vs. 'racial' 3 "Laundry list" 4 "Quotation marks" as opposed to italics 5 NPOV doesn't mean "be mealy-mouthed" 6 Is blackface ever okay? 7 Merge with Minstrel show 8 African American culture 9 Original Research? 10 Capitalization of "bell hooks" 11 Deeceevoice monopoly at expense of readers 12 Repetition of "darky, coon" 13 Use of "affect" and "countenance" 13.1 Sock puppetry 14 Add the Blues Brothers as a modern survival of blackface? 15 word use 16 Note to self 17 Tagging 18 Blackface minstrelsy and world popular culture 19 Toothpaste 20 "Blackface" Indian 21 Any suggestions on how we should proceed? 22 The Lost World (Arthur Conan Doyle)? 23 Theatrical makeup vs. cartoon caricature 24 Kate Moss 25 Stating the obvious 26 Actually... 27 SPLC 28 "Jewface"

[edit] Thanks

Deecee: Thanks for fixing that. You can't say, however, that it made "no sense" I did explain it in the edit summary. I apologize for not having the skills to fix it the way you did, that was the only way I knew how, but saying it amde "no sense".....that makes no sense. AGF. Thanks though.Gator (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW: if you see a formatting problem, it's usually best not to try to solve it by changing content. Bring it up on the talk page or as an assistance request at WP:VP. Someone will almost always be able to solve the formatting problem as a formatting problem. Anyway, glad this got sorted out. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro: 'racist' vs. 'racial'

I made a change to the introduction, which initially described the blackface makeup as a "racist archetype". I changed the word to "racial" for a couple of reasons. Although blackface is considered racist today, it was not always considered so as the article indicates. Plus there are numerous examples of actors wearing black face make-up in either innocence or in tribute without racist intent - an example being Eleanor Powell in Honolulu (1939 film) in which she wore the make-up in tribute to Bill Robinson (Bojangles). I also felt the use of the word in the introduction was a bit too POV for that placement. 23skidoo 02:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the change. Even if the actors who wore the blackface makeup did not have malicious intent, they were still part of the general culture of the time, which was intrinsically racist. The wording has stood for many, many months without problem. Just a prediction, but I imagine someone will revert it very soon . . . . — BrianSmithson 04:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess no one else is monitoring this article, or people are in agreement? The subject is a complex one. Lott and Cockrell both argue that early blackface was about class more than racism. It was a fool's mask used by dancers and singers to mock the failings of a changing society. However, as Cockrell states, "Dialect blackface had become [by the mid-1840s] more a form of gross mockery — of blacks, of women, of the powerful too, to be sure — but a mockery that circumscribed . . ." (147). I don't have Lott's book, but he also talks about the racism of minstrelsy. See Talk:Blackface/Lott for Jmabel's notes from Love and Theft. Bacially, we've got 15-20 years of blackface as a class thing, followed by 150 years of blackface as a racist thing. The fact that Eleanor Powell dressed up in blackface in tribute to Bill Robinson is beside the point; that she was able to do so without public outcry says someting about the racism of the culture at large. So I advocate a change back to "racist". — BrianSmithson 17:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Brian, I'm monitoring, but I'm lagging by several days on my watchlist. I think "racist" is basically correct. (BTW, I haven't seen the film 23skidoo is alluding to, but I'll guess that the blackface in that film was not the full, exaggerated racial caricature of the 19th century and early 20th century minstrel show. My guess could be wrong, though. 23skidoo, could you weigh in on that?) Even in the early years where racism was perhaps not the central focus of blackface, it was based on racist stereotypes: the lazy and/or happy slave, the black dandy with airs beyond his station, the mammy, the sexually loose young negress. This racism was probably often unconscious, but it was racism. And it's not only in retrospect that the racist aspects are visible (although I believe that the actual word "racism" didn't yet exist). Frederick Douglass was writing about this in the 1840s. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I do sign on to Wikipedia from time to time and monitor the piece. Of course, I am in complete agreement with the terms "racism" and "racist." (I wrote the language). By the time I got around to checking the piece, the passage already had been reverted to the proper terminology. (Thanks.) I think "racial" is merely a mealy-mouthed cop-out and is an inadequate (and virtually meaningless) characterization. The fact is racism was always racism, and blackface was most certainly racist. deeceevoice 16:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Laundry list"

On two occasions I've added Bing Crosby to the short list of performers who have performed in blackface, and both times it has been removed with an admonition that it's not a "laundry list." I agree that the list, in that context, shouldn't attempt to be a complete list of performers who worked in blackface, but I think Bing Crosby should be added for a specific reason: not out of any animus towards Crosby (I like him just fine), but because of the inclusion of the comedy blackface number in the film "Holiday Inn."

"Holiday Inn" is still quite a popular film, frequently shown on Turner Classic Movies, especially around Christmas time (it includes the song "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas") -- which means that for a significant number of people, this blackface performance may be one of the few they ever actually see. Since the performance is integral to the plot of the film as made, it cannot be shown without the blackface number, so as long as it continues to be aired, people will continue to see blackface only in this context. (I'm not suggesting that the film, which is very entertaining and quite good, not be shown, but I do cringe when the blackface number comes up.)

For me, the question is not whether Bing Crosby should be included in the list, but on what grounds he should be excluded, given the probable fact that a sizable number of people will intimately associate him with blackface because of "Holiday Inn."

Thanks for considering this argument.

unfutz 07:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Crosby is mentioned in List of entertainers known to have performed in blackface, and not only for Holiday Inn. I don't have a strong opinion either way on mentioning him here, though one look at List of entertainers known to have performed in blackface will show you why I fear a laundry list. - Jmabel | Talk 09:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the list, which I was aware of. As I said, I'm in agreement about the "laundry list" problem, but some criteria must have been used to select the three performers referenced (Al Jolson, Eddie Cantor, and Bob Hope), and while I see the point of the first two, I'm not sure, given the influence of "Holiday Inn," why Bob Hope is a better choice for inclusion than Bing Crosby -- who was, before the Beatles, the recording artist who had the most Top Ten hits in history. Crosby and Hope were roughly contemporaries, although Hope lived longer, and they performed together frequently as a team (with Hope as the junior partner, since Bing was the more popular of the two), one would seem to be equally as powerful a choice as the other, except for "Holiday Inn."

Yes, it could be that I an overstating the influence of that film, but I don't think so.

(Correction to my original comment, not relevant to the point under discussion -- the Christmas song in "Holiday Inn" was "White Christmas." "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas" is from "Meet Me In St. Louis.") unfutz 09:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with removing Hope and adding Crosby. My main objective has been to keep the list to no more than three entries; as Jmabel points out above, there is a real problem here in allowing everyone to add their favorite or most hated blackface performer to the list. But, like I said, you make a good case for Crosby. Unless someone can make a stronger one for Hope, I say go ahead and swap the names. — BrianSmithson 14:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, given how closely Hope and Crosby were associated with one another in the public mind of their generation, if they both did blackface we should probably mention both. - Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Quotation marks" as opposed to italics

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've gleamed from the Manual of Style, quotation marks are only to be used around quotations, not around emphasised words. For example, the sentence in the first paragraph is:

Blackface is a style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States and was used to affect the countenance of an iconic, racist archetype, that of the "darky" or "coon".

Since the words darky and coon are not direct quotes, should they not be italicised? If so, this article is full of non-quotes in quotation marks. --DarrenBaker 05:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Darren. The problem is that many quoted sections in the article are direct quotes, song titles, or scare quotes, hence my revert. You're right, though, that certain terms that are currently quoted probably shouldn't be, particularly those that discuss "words as words" (as the Manual of Style puts it). I'd reckon that the following may need to be converted to italics, as you suggest: pattin' Juba, corking up, blacking up, melodrama, Conguito. One instance of coon should be in italics: "The term coon has been appropriated . . . ." Potentially, all uses of "darky" and "coon" should as well. But it's my guess that these pejorative terms are supposed to be in scare quotes.

Names of people, even made-up ones or stage names, should probably not be in quotes or itallics: Jim Crow, Daddy Jim Crow, Toby, Golly x 2, Black Peter, Zwarte Pieten, Aukland City Dukes, Shirley Q. Liquor, The Tramps, Zulus, Amos n' Andy, Dooley. — BrianSmithson 12:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you make a good point. Thanks for the help! --DarrenBaker 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV doesn't mean "be mealy-mouthed"

I recently turned the incoherent "the genre it thought to have played a role in shaping perceptions" to "the genre played a role…". I'm guessing that the person meant to write "the genre is thought to have played a role" but I find the qualification of this absurd. Of course it played a role. One can argue whether it was the predominant role, but I cannot imagine a good faith argument that the period's major theatrical representation of African Americans played no role in shaping perceptions of African Americans. - Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, I am restoring the phrase "blatantly racist" to the description of the kind of material to which we contrast Stephen Foster's work. This doesn't say that everyone in this genre wrote "blatantly racist" material: it says that some did, and that Foster's work stands as a contrast to that.

I have made several other similar restorations of material cut in the last two months; I won't comment here on them one by one. This seems to have been a pattern in the recent course of the article.

I will say one thing that makes me doubt that this has simply been the result of good-faith editing: at the same time this kind of thing was being qualified all to hell, the description of the actions of some white students as "presumably innocent" was turned into simply "innocent".

- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I concur with deeceevoice's subsequent addition of "American" in the lead, I hadn't noticed that removal or I would have done the same. - Jmabel | Talk 15:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm under the gun w/deadlines right now, so I haven't reviewed the reverts/changes by Jmabel, but I have complete confidence that they are accurate and on point. And I agree. The edits, which I at one time reverted -- and then they were changed back -- were mealy mouthed and downright suspicious. I'll continue to keep a watch on this page. deeceevoice 18:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is blackface ever okay?

My son is white and has chosen Tupac Shakur as his subject for the 7th grade wax museum. He researched Tupac and wrote a short report about him. He is supposed to dress as Tupac for the museum and his teacher suggested he darken his skin for that purpose (with face paint). I am opposed to this as I feel it is insensitive to blacks. Am I over reacting? (Posted by someone using IP 71.120.129.96).

Yes. Stop being so oversensitive. Skinmeister 22:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, so these types of questions generally do not belong here. That said, do not blacken your son's face. Regardless of whether it is "okay" or not, someone will be offended. — BrianSmithson 02:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think only you can answer your question, 71.120.129.96. Personally I am too baffled by the term "7th grade wax museum" to know whether the context is appropriate. DavidFarmbrough 07:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My first reaction is tell him, "Don't do it!" But, on second thought, it is for a "wax museum," and some kid with pale skin wouldn't begin to look like Tupac. I'd say it depends on what your son is planning to use to darken his skin and whether it can look realistic or just nasty/tacky/silly. If he does decide to darken his skin, make sure it's a fairly uniform shade of brown (not black and not streaky or smeared) that approximates Tupac's skin tone, that his lips, neck and hands are also darkened. Streaky or black pigment and naturally pink lips will ensure that your son's Tupac drag will be interpreted as blackface -- and there'll likely be hell to pay. Blackface is about a stylistic portrayal of black people. After all, back in the day, comedienne Lily Tomlin pulled off darkening her skin as a hip, afro-wearing preacher. Her drag was so authentic, it raised nary an eyebrow.

If you son does decide to go with darkening his skin, make sure he reads this article first. He has a right to understand what he may be getting himself into. One more caution: tell him NOT to attempt AAVE while in character. Few white folks can carry it off, and it may sound like parody/ridicule.

Yep. No doubt this is sensitive territory. If you have any doubts about your son's personal discipline/understanding of the nuances involved and his ability to pull this off, I'd advise him to go paleface. Otherwise, your next best bet is to make sure he's accompanied by a couple of big, burly bodyguards and can fight like hell. deeceevoice 11:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Because blacks are so violent and easily offended that they will go so far as to cause bodily injury to an entertainer (when blacks make fun of whites, in speech and demeanor, you see entire cities of white folks slaughtering blacks, obviously), right? Anyone with enough practice can pull off ebonics as well, it's no divine skill. Racism is awesome, dcv, keep it up! MOD 21:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(yawn). Try to find a more interesting and productive use of your time on the site, Mod, than stalking me around the site and sniping. deeceevoice 00:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto yawn back at you. I don't stalk, I research your other victims. MOD 00:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Victims"? And how is this kid's dad a "victim"? You'd do well to back off the accusatory and hostile language. The civility police are watching. deeceevoice 06:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Victim of your bias, no less. It's rather uncanny how you so readily agree with him that he'll need to be prepared to defend himself from the outraged black people who might not like his performance. Would a bad blackface act necessitate a lynch mob? I doubt it. Oh and you'd do well not to bring 5-0 in here, what you do elsewhere is exponentially more disrespectful. MOD 11:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I haven't heard from him that he feels like a "victim," as far as I'm concerned, your opinion in the matter has no weight whatsoever. Just a caution. You'd do well to bear it in mind. deeceevoice 11:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. He hasn't said he's a victim because you didn't do much to him except suggest he bring a couple of burly bodyguards to his performance. His say in the matter has no weight on your advice. Your advice was ill-conceived and whether or not he's a victim (which was my vehicle to get you to notice your own absurdity (see how well that worked out?)) doesn't matter. The message here is think before you write. And don't reply feeling haughty, arrogant, or superior. This isn't a contest. MOD 11:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say: "Opinions are like a**holes; overbody everybody has one." You should be happy now. You've registered yours on mine -- for what it's worth. :p deeceevoice 12:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You'd correct a**sholes, but not "overbody" [sic]. Regardless, thanks for failing to defend yourself properly and sidestepping absolutely every single point of mine. We're done here. MOD 16:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally. You got the hint. :p deeceevoice 17:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"it may sound like parody/ridicule" This would presumably acceptable if one is parodying Tupac himself, but not a larger group of people. In a school setting it would be nigh on impossible to prevent satirical use of AAVE by pupils of any skin colour DavidFarmbrough 09:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I hate to have to be the one to do this but: Can we terminate this discussion now? It has nothing to do with the blackface article, and is thus off topic for Wikipedia. May I suggest taking it to your talk pages? — BrianSmithson 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

(Chuckling) Actually, I think it was done. deeceevoice 03:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Minstrel show

I think this page should be merged with Minstrel show. Zargulon 20:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree. Both articles cover different aspects of the phenomenon and are of substantial length and merit on their own. The subject of the international impact of blackface is significant enough to warrant an article separate and apart from minstrel show. Further, contrary to your edit and accompanying edit note, blackface and blackface minstrelsy would never have existed without African Americans and African American culture. deeceevoice 01:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree* Minstrel shows needn't even have black (or blacked) faces in them, and there are plenty of examples of blackface which have no direct connection with minstrels. DavidFarmbrough 07:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Keep this page by itself. Enlightening is the last few paragraphs regarding eminem and madonna. Don't forget lou reed, and pink floyd (lou reed might have been being ironic, but pink floyd wasn't for sure). [unsigned entry]

• Of course there are instances of blackface w/o minstrels, but this article treats the blackface tradition arising out of blackface minstrelsy -- and its subsequent permutations, which, it is already acknowledged, go far beyond the minstrel circuit. This is a featured article. Its value is established. The material it covers is not covered in the article on the minstrel show, which deals more with the specific history of the performance tradition, its structure and characters. They legitimately are two, separate articles -- and likely will remain so. You're, of course, certainly entitled to formally petition for a merger of the two, but the likelihood of such a move succeeding is, IMO, slim to none. deeceevoice 06:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African American culture

Minstrelsy was an industry entirely conceived by whites and entirely aimed at whites. It was an elaboration of various grotesque stereotypes which whites had about blacks, and mockery of black dialect. Some African Americans participated later on as composers and performers but that isn't really relevant. It has absolutely nothing to do with black culture. Contrary what Deeceevoice says, no-one is claiming that it would have existed without African Americans. But it was not inspired by African American culture and it is certainly not part of African American culture. It had zero impact on the African American community other than insulting them. This is widely acknowledged. Please stop reverting me. Zargulon 06:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the negro spirituals? Didn't they inspire the music? DavidFarmbrough 07:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, they didn't.. it's a popular misconception. Zargulon 08:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

But there are definite similarities in the music, (e.g. the harmonies, the gaiety of the performance) also, minstrel shows often perform spirituals as part of their act. Oh Dem Golden Slippers was featured in both the Black and White Minstrel Show and Roots, which indicates an undeniable link. DavidFarmbrough 10:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean about similarities in the harmonies, care to elaborate? Minstrel show songs draw mainly on European musical motifs, and the later ones from the (white American) parlor ballad. Every genre of popular music from every nation has elements which are performed with gaiety, that doesnt mean they derive from each other. I don't think spirituals are universally or even mainly performed with gaiety.. ever heard of Nobody knows the trouble I see? (There are lots like that). Black and White Minstrel show is hardly classic minstrelsy.. Minstrel shows had already made way for Vaudeville almost 40 years earlier. B&W was looking through rose-tinted glasses. It's true that later in the 20th century, some showbiz people tried to rehabilitate the Minstrel show in a way that they hoped would be more acceptable to modern sentiments by introducing real African-American music, and no doubt it was entertaining just as some original minstrelsy may have been.. but there is no cultural relationship. Zargulon 11:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Black and White Minstrel Show hardly classic minstrelsy? I beg to differ. Twenty million viewers and the buyers of the two long running number one albums would appear to support me. DavidFarmbrough 12:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

When I said "not classic" I didn't mean "not popular", I meant "not authentic". Sorry for the ambiguity.Zargulon 13:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The question of authenticity is always a difficult one, but I would suggest that it is always subjective. Having said that, the George Mitchell Minstrels weren't the first minstrel show to use the song in question, and I understand it was very popular in American minstrel shows at the time of its release in sheet music form. DavidFarmbrough 14:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so. Further, the various sources used in this article state otherwise, and it has survived months of editing pretty much intact and, as well, has been given featured article status. The African-American influence on minstrel songs of the period is clear -- down to the use of the banjo, which is an African-American musical instrument. And there's no way you can tell me "pattin' juba" and the cakewalking and buck dancing, etc., weren't African/African-American in origin. Further, Sterling Stuckey in his work Slave Culture: Nationalist Theory and the Foundations of Black America makes a compelling argument w/regard to the pervasiveness of African/African-American influence in the fiddle music of the day, which I've long intended to include in the article, but haven't yet gotten around to it. And then there's the ersatz AAVE dialect. There's no way anyone reasonably can make the claim, as you did in your edit note, that, "Minstrel shows had almost nothing to do with African american culture." The very idea is absurd. If you have sources to back up your, IMO, utterly groundless contentions, then produce them so that they may be considered. However, what you may "think" has no weight here. Wikipedia articles are not a venue for the expressions of what people believe to be the case. Unless and until you produce scholarly corroboration, the article returns to its previous version. Please stop reverting widely accepted scholarship because of what appear to be utterly unfounded, and certainly unsubstantiated, opinions on your part. deeceevoice 11:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Again you are putting words in my mouth. No-one is making the straw-man claims you hyperbolically state, re the origin of the banjo, cakewalking, buckdancing, fiddle music or dialect, and it is silly of you to demand that I provide sources to refute these things when I basically agree with them. The point is, blackface shows around the world, including American minstrel shows, were overwhelmingly produced and written by whites for a white audience. That a small number of blacks were also involved doesn't change it. This is what I mean by they have nothing to do with African American culture. And whatever you may think of the phrasing of my edit note, the topic for discussion is whether or not blackface should be categorized as African American culture, a point you seem reluctant to address.. I hope that, before you summarily and unjustifiably revert, you will condescend to actually consider the question you are reverting. African American culture means what African Americans did and passed on to their kids, not what whites did to portray them. It does not include blackface by the furthest stretch of the imagination. Zargulon 12:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Zargulon, I agree with you that something should be passed on within the African American community to count as African American culture. It's not enough that something be borrowed or appropriated from a culture for the resulting hodge-podge to still be considered a part of the culture of origin. However, blackface does indeed meet this definition. Blackface minstrelsy was popular with both whites and blacks for quite a long period of time. In short, it was the primary form of public entertainment for urban blacks, and it was the primary outlet for urban black performers. You seem to believe that the numbers of blacks involved in minstrelsy were small, but they really weren't. Black minstrelsy replaced white minstrelsy as the most popular form by the late 19th century. Read Minstrel show#Black minstrelsy for a more detailed synopsis. Furthermore, the tropes and stereotypes invented in blackface minstrelsy altered the path that black entertainment would take. For a long time afterward, the blackface Jim Crows and Zip Coons were still taking the stage (and screen), often by black performers without the blackface makeup. Check out our articles on Stepin Fetchit and Butterbeans and Susie for some examples. I'm not as familiar with Fetchit, but Butterbeans and Susie played for predominantly black audiences. Like it or not, blackface was and is a part of African American culture (though, arguably, we should place it in both Category:African American culture and Category:American culture). — BrianSmithson 13:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, a sensible reply. I disagree somewhat about the level of involvement by blacks (I think 'replaced' is an overstatement) but this is not something I can prove immediately. We agree that the African American Culture category doesn't do justice to the fact that whites were the originators, or that the consumers of the entertainment were basically white right up until minstrelsy went out of fashion at the beginning of the 20th century (we can disagree about the proportion of composers and performers but I don't think it matters) or that the genre was at best a mockery of African American culture and drew on it only very superficially. Can we find a creative solution... Zargulon 14:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That's just it: I don't think we have a problem that requires a creative solution. Minstrelsy was the primary form of entertainment for urban blacks in the United States through much of the 19th century, and the form they most preferred was the form presented by other African Americans. The amount of "authentic" African American music and dance in minstrelsy is still debated, but the consensus seems to be that the dance was more black than the music until the addition of spirituals in the late 19th century; these are almost universally considered "authentically" black. Like I said, the article fits in both categories, so maybe we should just add it to both and leave it at that. — BrianSmithson 15:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think blacks participated in the audience, at least not until the very late 19th century, before which the vast majority of blacks lived in the countryside anyway. But I defer on that issue for now. I would also like to suggest that, given that this article is about blackface rather than specifically minstrelsy, we might agree that outside of minstrelsy there isn't even a question of blackface in general being African American culture. Given the opinions expressed here, the solution of putting it in both categories seems reasonable.. but there is a problem, which is that African American Culture is a subcat of American Culture and technically articles shouldn't be in both a cat and its subcat. And yet the blackface of most of the 19th century definitely belongs in a cultural cat that is not African-American. You seem to be more experienced in WP than I am.. is there a way of getting round this? Please let me know what you think. Zargulon 15:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC). Just by the way, isn't it generally accepted that (white) Vaudeville is a descendant of the minstrel show, whereas Jazz, the main form of black musical expression from the same era, does not draw on the minstrel show at all? I feel that underlines the case that the minstrel show naturally fits more comfortably into the white cultural timeline than the black one. Zargulon 15:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point about double categorization violating the categorization rules. In this case, there's a strong case to include both, so I'd apply WP:IAR and just go with double categorization, as I see you have done. — BrianSmithson 18:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If it gets reverted by a bot, we'll have to find that creative solution. Zargulon 19:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Brian Smithson is correct on all counts. (And I actually do remember Stepin Fetchit from old movies on TV -- before it was frowned upon to air them.) If you read the article, blackface minstrelsy was the primary outlet for black singers, dancers, actors and musicians for a very long time -- and the songs and dances they performed, as well as their humor, were authentic expressions of African-American culture. I don't know where you got the notion that minstrel music was so thoroughly European in origin or that African-Americans participated only marginally in the minstrel tradition. The article certainly does not state that, and there is ample information in the literature about black participation in the form. Finally, I didn't put words in your mouth; I quoted you directly. Your assertions are, quite simply, incorrect. deeceevoice 13:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. We've moved on. See above. Zargulon 14:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Whatever"? (chuckling) That's your response? Just as I thought. Clearly, you've absolutely nothing to back up your assertions. deeceevoice 11:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, deecee, right or wrong, I'm glad you have a sense of humour about it. Zargulon 12:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. It's the only way I can take this place. deeceevoice 13:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just read your, IMO, faulty reasoning. Blackface minstrelsy had virtually everything to do with African American culture. And when I said Smithson was correct, I was referring to his commentary about black participation in the form. It has nothing to do with whether the blackface performanc etradtion was "passed on" within the African-American community (which it, indeed, was). Your contention with which I took issue was that blackface minstrelsy had nothing to do with African-American culture -- which is absurd. Blackface minstrelsy was a blatant rip-off of AA culture and clearly derivative. That's like saying white rock has absolutely nothing to do with black music. The contention is ridiculous on its face. They are both rooted in AA cultural expression. deeceevoice 14:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is correct depending on what era we're talking about. The earliest stuff ("Jump Jim Crow" and stuff by Joel Sweeney) seems to be deliberately based on black musical traditions at least in part. When you introduce George Washington Dixon, Dan Emmett, and Stephen Foster into the mix, they are basically writing or singing songs in the Celtic-English tradition, only played on instruments taken from black folk traditions. However, fast-forward a few years, and we introduce jubilee/spirituals, and we're back to being mostly authentic again. The degree of authenticity in the music of minstrelsy is debated to this day, but this is the current consensus I've been able to gather. — BrianSmithson 16:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You're focusing solely on music. Even there, however, the banjo, an African-American instrument, was used throughout. Minstrel shows were more than music. They were humor, banter (in fake dialect or true AAVE), African American dance, and pattin' Juba; and the skits purported to mirror plantation/black life. There is no doubt that African American culture was at the heart of blackface minstrelsy. And to contend that it "had absolutely nothing to do with black culture" and "was not inspired by African American culture" is absurd on its face. The very fact that the song and dance "Jump Jim Crow" are African-American in origin and that the music is syncopated are clear testaments to the seminal influence of African American culture on the form from the very beginning. Finally, the contention that it has "zero impact on the African community other than insulting them" is another erroneous contention. As the article so clearly states, the minstrel show circuit gave birth to generations of black performers who they, themselves, or their successors went on to other performance traditions. And, as the article also states, the groundbreaking acceptance, appropriation and assimilation of AA culture that occurred with blackface minstrelsy is with us today on a far more amplified scale, and has shaped not only African American culture, but world popular culture. deeceevoice 08:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm agreeing with you. I'm just trying to clarify that it wasn't solely a ripoff of black culture, as there was at least an equal mix of Anglo-Celtic tradition in there. As for the question at hand, I think we're all agreed that its best to place the article in both the general American culture category and the African American culture category. — BrianSmithson 11:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You're discussing something that isn't even an issue here, though I would take issue with the assertion that it was "an equal mix." The article itself speaks of cross-cultural collaborations/input. I've addressed the absurdly off-the-mark contentions that blackface minstrelsy had nothing to do with black culture and that it was a wholly external phenomenon. deeceevoice 13:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that BrianSmithson and deeceevoice are both on the mark here, and that any disagreement between the two is a difference of emphasis. - Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research?

The introduction of this article features quite a claim:

"Blackface minstrelsy's groundbreaking appropriation, exploitation, and assimilation of African-American culture—as well as the inter-ethnic artistic collaborations that stemmed from it—were but a prologue to the lucrative packaging, marketing, and dissemination of African-American cultural expression and its myriad derivative forms in today's world popular culture."

To say that blackface can be traced as the root of the current view of Blacks in pop culture is to make a bold statement.

Can it be sourced? Or is it original research? --Pac 17:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not an original claim. However, a footnoted reference would be a good idea. (By the way, don't forget to sign your comments by typing ~~~~ where you want your signature to be.) — BrianSmithson 12:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't what the cited statement says -- nor is it what the article says. It says the appropriation of AA culture that occurred with blackface was a prologue ("an introductory or preceding event or development" - Merriam-Webster) to the later widespread, aggressive cultural appropriation of subsequent years. The article makes no specific claim whatsoever about the impact of blackface on "the current view of Blacks in pop culture." Rather, it speaks to the contribution of blackface to a stable of black archetypes/stereotypes and an iconography which remain today part of the American psyche and which endure worldwide, and of the precedent of aggressive appropriation/assimilation of elements of African American culture that shaped, and continues to shape, American and world popular culture. deeceevoice 08:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of "bell hooks"

This is silly. User: Skinmeister has provided no credible rational for his serial reverts. Hooks does not capitalize her name. It is not capitalized in articles about her, nor is it capitalized in the article bearing her name on this website. It should not be capitalized here. deeceevoice 08:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no comment on this issue, but I would like to ask Skinmeister to please discuss this issue and not revert again. Both Skinmeister and Deeceevoice are at three reverts; if the page is reverted again, it will be a violation of the 3 Revert Rule. Skinmeister, the onus is on you now to come here and participate in the dialogue that Deeceevoice has opened. — BrianSmithson 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No one having spoken up: she does not capitalize her name. It is no more appropriate to capitalize it than it Is to Write like This. - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deeceevoice monopoly at expense of readers

Deeceevoice has monopolized this page, especially the confusing use of "affect." The sentence needs to be changed or a different word needs to be used in order to make the article much easier to read and understand. Deeceevoice is being ridiculous at the expense of a majority of readers. In past discussions he has been one of the few in favor of keeping the word, yet because of his persistence change has been unable to take place. A new sentence or word can be used, a compromise, not necessarily "effect" but "simulate" or "imitate," words that Deeceevoice points out are synonyms of his favorite word! Theabsman 17:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh. £50 says she posts a five paragraph reply to this, where she dismisses you as being a racist misogynist for not only assuming she's a man, but for daring to disagree with her. Skinmeister 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing that will forever harm Wikipedia... It will be of much greater use if people can actually understand such an important part of the article. Theabsman 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the verb "affect" used in this way? Powers 00:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Of all the hits this article receives, there are apparently from time to time one or two people who have a problem with the use of "affect." And, no. The word is perfectly appropriate. There's nothing wrong with literate use of the language. The next thing you know people will be carping about the use of "countenance". Not everything must be dumbed down to "Dick and Jane" language in order to be acceptable. And, no. There is no comprehension problem here -- merely the misguided notion on the part of some that they're making a correction, when there is none to be made. And when they are corrected, they get snippy. Skinmeister is a perfect example. It's not even worth debating. The language is appropriate. The passage is perfectly comprehensible. As with most possibly unfamiliar uses of vocabulary, the context imparts sufficient meaning so as not to hinder understanding. And if people need to pull out a dictionary once in a while to learn a new usage for a familiar word, or pause and consider what they've read, then all the better. As Toni Morrison says, "That, my dear, is reading." deeceevoice 00:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Skinmeister's most recent edit: I'm open to a compromise, but "imitate the appearance" doesn't make sense. You can "imitate" something or "affect the appearance" of something, but "imitate the appearance"? Powers 13:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, the new wording preferred by Skinmeister is apparently "create the appearance". As Deeceevoice pointed out in an edit summary, this doesn't parse well either. "Affect" is a much clearer word, I feel, and "imitate" and "create" really aren't true synonyms. I'm writing this in hopes that Skinmeister will choose to discuss this here instead of continuing to revert. Powers 14:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

While some may think otherwise, I didn't simply revert Skinmeister's (and others') language out of some sense of ownership. I've read each suggested change several times and carefully considered each one, even leaving it alone and coming back to it later to make sure my judgments have not been hasty -- just as I carefully considered and revised my original language before settling upon the disputed wording. Nothing so far is an improvement. Unless and until someone comes up with something as accurate, I think people need to get over their insistence on "see Spot run" language and leave it be. Yes, people have become less and less literate, but that's no reason to dumb down Wikipedia to certain levels of ignorance. No publication worth its salt does that. Besides, as I pointed out, while there may be a slight cognitive trip for some, the context makes the meaning quite clear. The problem is not one of comprehension, but of some who think there needs to be a correction made when, in fact, the syntax is solid. And it's written that way because it works; it says what it needs to say. But, again, if someone can offer improved language, I'm open to it. After all, nothing's perfect. deeceevoice 07:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm firmly in favour of the "affect" wording - everything else that I've seen suggested reads very poorly. Just because a few people find a word difficult doesn't mean we should stop using it; rather those who find it difficult should (gasp!) look it up. 82.163.58.66 15:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Further, Powers, I would argue that even "affect the appearance" isn't quite on the mark. Affectation in this sense is tantamount to taking on a persona, wearing it. One doesn't wear an appearance of something; one assumes that identity, as one takes on/wears a countenance, a face. One can affect an accent, but not the sound of an accent. One can affect (or feign) a limp, but not the appearance of a limp. So, one does not "affect the appearance" of something or someone; affectation is more direct; it is a kind of appropriation; it is becoming or assuming that something or someone. One does not "affect the appearance of ... a darky"; however, one can "affect a countenance of" -- in effect, "assume the identity of." deeceevoice 10:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the characterization here of deeceevoice "owning" the article is little more than an ad hominem attack. Several of us (certainly myself and, I would venture to say, BrianSmithson) have been in consensus with her on every significant matter (and most insignificant matters). (I'd also venture to say that we are among the few people working on the page who have actually read multiple books on the topic, etc.) She happens to look in on this page more often than we do, so she generally responds first. It doesn't mean we are particularly deferring to her, it means we generally agree with her and don't usually bother chiming in "me too, me toooo" after each thing she says. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repetition of "darky, coon"

I can understand the article citing this information once in the intro; WP is not censored when there is valid and notable information to convey. However, what is the purpose of repeating these references frequently later in the article, when the general term "archetypes" or "stereotypes" could be used and be understood to include them? No information content would be lost, and the article would probably attract less vandalism. Kasreyn 00:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And what would be the purpose of avoiding the term? If you find the term offensive, good! But one cannot write an article treating a subject without mentioning it by name. I used the word where I thought it appropriate. Perhaps you should give an example or two of what you mean. Further, the article actually has not been a target of vandalism. The recent series of reverts was begun by User:Skinmeister, an "editor" who seemsm to follow me around the site, engaging in edit warring, repeatedly making silly, argumentative edits without any real justification (like repeatedly uppercasing bell hooks' name in two, separate articles, even after it has been explained that the author does not capitalize it), and engaging in personal attacks and making snide comments, like the one above. That's not vandalism, per se -- more like cyberstalking. deeceevoice 07:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, we could save a few bytes of size. I'm simply saying that the concept of stereotypes of black people are named above. I understand their intended use and believe they were added in good faith; I'm not sure another editor would. It's probably not too important.

P.S. Having looked over this situation, I have to say that the Skinmeister revert war is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen at WP. I'm going on a break from Wikipedia for a week or two, but when I get back, if he's still around, I'll help out. Kasreyn 08:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The darky archetype/stereotype is a very specific one, which is why I refer to it by name. I'm certain there are lots of places a few bytes could be saved, but I'm frankly not certain this article's use of "darky" is the place to start. :p It's survived essentially intact for several months because it is so tightly, so precisely written. And, again, without specific examples, I'm afraid I don't see your point. (But I'm open.)

Yeah. Skinmeister apparently has a problem with me, and he acts out by engaging in the kind of puerile shenanigans referred to above. Speaking of saving a few bytes of space, what a waste! Thanks for your offer of assistance. I doubt he's going anywhere. deeceevoice 08:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's 'survived essentially intact for several months' because you revert any edits that are made by anyone else, not because it's well written. Skinmeister 09:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I suppose that's how it got featured article status? U r so funny, you're sad. deeceevoice 09:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

O RLY? Skinmeister 14:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "affect" and "countenance"

Note to deecee: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." It's obvious that the use of "affect" is particularly confusing in this context. It doesn't matter if it may be correct because there are other options that are much easier to understand for readers. It needs to be revised, and the revision war needs to end. Deecee, please stop acting like this is your article: it's not, and you cannot continue to put your words in when everyone else wants something different. Applesnsauce 14:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to be instructed about the Wiki process. I've said repeatedly I'm open to different verbiage. However, no one has come up with anything that works. And others seemingly agree. Do you have a suggestion that works? If not, then feel free to move on and disappear as suddenly as you (what a surprse) appeared.  :) deeceevoice 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No one has come up with "anything that works" IN YOUR OPINION. Many changes have been made or suggested, however, that are better than yours. Instead of allowing discussion to take place you simply revert back to your wording. Applesnsauce 17:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to "imitate the visage"; please explain your issue with this (I'm sure you have one, as anything different than "affect the countenance of" has caused issues with you in the past). Applesnsauce 17:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So... "visage" is a less obscure word than "affect"? Ridiculous. Kasreyn 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the use of "affect" employed here that is obscure, not the word itself. And "visage" is less obscure than "countenance." Applesnsauce 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds stilted to me. That phrasing makes it sound like we're contorting just to avoid saying the word "countenance". Dictionary.com defines "visage" (in part) as "countenance", but "countenance" is defined completely, without reference to "visage". That implies, to me, that "countenance" is the more commonly used word. Powers 01:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Both "countenance" and "visage" can be found as synonyms of a much more widely used word, "face"; Merriam-Webster does indeed define "countenace" with "visage." Visage brings up 21,300,000 hits on google; countenance brings up 7,910,000. 72.197.29.42 04:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Standing alone, "visage," I think, is actually preferable to "countenance," but I still don't like "simulate." It's inferior to "affect", and I think it's wrong to substitute an imperfect word simply because some people may not be literate enough to immediately grasp the use. Again, the meaning is clear in context. I made the change just to see it there for a while and see if it grows on me at all. But after reading the commentary here, I like it less and less. Still, for me, "affect the countenance" is the phrase that works. "Affect the visage" somehow does not. And, gee. Doesn't anyone find it the least bit strange that no one -- absolutely no one -- has objected to the second use of "affect" in the very same paragrah? It can't be that confusing, if no one has even noticed it. Again, this is merely about a few people wanting to quibble about perfectly appropriate syntax that reads just fine if you're reasonably literate with a decent vocabulary. deeceevoice 08:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Endless amounts of people complaind about "affect"; a ton of people came in and changed it to "effect." People didn't notice the later use simply because they didn't read on after being so annoyed. The previous discussion points were about "visage" and not "simulate." Also, the original word I wanted was IMITATE, not simulate; you changed it to simulate. Applesnsauce 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm genuinely shocked by this attitude... "Imitate" isn't bad, but there's simply nothing wrong with "affect". 82.163.58.66 15:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The people who changed it to "effect" were clearly doing so out of a misunderstanding of the two words. It's obvious to you, I presume, that "effect" is certainly not an accurate word to use in that sense, right? That numerous people changed the word to "effect" simply tells me that they were unfamiliar with the uses of both words, not that they were complaining about proper use of "affect". Powers 19:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite. There will always be people who don't understand any given word, so trying to remove anything that might possibly be misunderstood is pointless. 82.163.58.66 08:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding my remark above, I guess it is sometimes necessary for me to say explicitly that I agree with deeceevoice. I am also firmly in favor of affect the countenance as the best phrase that has been proposed here. - Jmabel | Talk 19:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppetry

Well, I have my own take on what's going on here. Check the edit history of Applesnsauce and the edits on an article treating UCal. I have a history of being stalked by an editor who's a student at that institution, and I'd bet cash $ he's a sockpuppet. I agree. "Affect the countenance" remains the best verbiage so far. Still waiting for an improvement, yet nothing so far.... deeceevoice 16:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Note the user page of User:Rennix and Skinmeister -- and the latter's "bombdarfur.org" line at the top of his page in an apparent response to the savedarfur.org line at the top of my user and talk pages. It wouldn't surprise me one bit of ANS were simply another. deeceevoice 10:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

w00t! I think it's time for another checkuser! Skinmeister 10:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add the Blues Brothers as a modern survival of blackface?

I've always thought that the Blues Brothers--and I'm thinking specifically of the first movie--were a latter-day version of minstrel-show endmen: Jake and Elwood Blues as Mr. Tambo and Mr. Bones. If I'm not wrong (and please correct me if I am), don't their faces show up somewhat tinted in the movie? In the episode set in a black church, where James Brown is preaching and the black gospel choir is swaying and emoting, Belushi "gets da beat," so to speak; his burlesquing contortions are vividly reminiscent of the old Virginia Minstrels posters and the "good fun" that Eric Lott speaks about white men having when aping black cultural expression. The matching sunglasses and suits serve as a latter-day version of minstrel or "darky" rags, of the sort that Thomas Dartmouth Rice is reputed to have borrowed from the lame older African American man from whom he appropriated the "Jump Jim Crow."

Don't have time to work this all through now, but one (or more) of the many smart people here might want to. KudzuRunner —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.74.158.137 (talk • contribs) .

If it's true -- and I'm admittedly skeptical -- it'd be original research in the biggest way. Powers 01:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember much about the specifics of certain scenes in the film, but this reads like an über intellectualization of two white bwois into black music. There was nothing buffonish about the BBs; if anything, they were camp-serious -- two guys ("on a mission from God"). Further, the shades are an imitation of black cool (what Thompson refers to as "the mask of the cool," which is an African tradition, filtered through the African-American experience, commonly used by black jazzmen) and have nothing whatsoever to do with minstrelsy. Finally, if the BBs did appear with darkened faces, it is not the same as blackface, which -- again -- is a particular style of makeup. The BBs are no more blackface than the (now deleted) reference to a Japanese band who darken their faces and play R&B music, or the Border Morris. deeceevoice 08:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement "There was nothing buffo[o]nish about the BBs" is remarkable. When did you last screen the movie? The scene set in the African American church w/JB presiding represents Belushi, in particular, as the epitome of buffoonishness, the very incarnation of the term. Do "black folks have rhythm"? the scene implicitly asks. Well then, when white folks get da beat (as Savion would put it) it, they flip, jerk, do endless handsprings, mock what they crave, engage in helpless love and craven theft, burlesquing all the while. Your phrase "camp-serious" aptly describes one of the various modes through which contemporary blackface burlesque performs itself. The shades may, as you say, derive from black cool-pose, but here, too, you're off track, I think. The Ackroyd character, with his white (Canadian!) politesse and crisp uptight pronunciations, is the epitome of un-cool; Ras the Destroyer or Mezz he is not. In this he's a great foil to Belushi, who is somewhat more in the freethinking Mezz vein. The Blues Brothers are intriguing because they burlesque "black rhythm" AND "white uptightness." Yet even this claim is tricky, since Belushi himself holds down both poles of the dialectic. Nothing could be LESS in keeping with what Chernoff, RFT, and others tell us about African-sourced cool than Belushi's Jake Blues so overpowered with Da Beat and JB's preaching that he turns endless inane handsprings. Rent the movie again. You might find yourself agreeing with me. KudzuRunner 15:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it certainly seems as if you've given this a great deal (perhaps inordinately so) of thought. And, no. It's been a very long time since I've seen the movie, and, as I wrote earlier, I don't remember much about specific scenes. I could write a number of things about your commentary, but I think, again, you're overintellectualizing a funny enough movie with a silly premise. I mean "... Belushi holds down both poles of the dialectic"? lol And, no. I won't rent the movie once, if you please. Whatever you may think I wrote about the duo, and whatever you think about the film, while interesting, I suppose, if you're really into the film, really isn't important. As another editor pointed out, it's strictly your opinion, hence, original research. And, unless you can find some scholarly reference to corroborate your personal musings on the matter, on Wikipedia, that's a no-no. deeceevoice 04:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised at you, Deecee. Judging from your comments elsewhere on this talk page--not to mention your initial authorship (if I'm not wrong) of this article, I assumed that you relished intelligent debate. Yet when a "reasonably literate [person] with a decent vocabulary" asks you to actually look at the evidence, you refuse to. As I'm sure you're aware, many people in this big bad world think that blackface and minstrelsy are simply "funny" and "silly," and would dismiss most of what we're doing here as pointless overintellectualization. So let's put that aside and get back to business that we both agree is important. You're certainly right that my own personal musings are irrelevant here without scholarly corroboration. I'm not sure I can give you a citation for an article in PMLA, Popular Music Studies, or Semiotexte, but I've found four citations, all slightly-to-moderately sub-scholarly, but all making more or less the point I made. Here there, starting with the least sub-scholarly:

1. Greil Marcus, an essay entitled “Unchained Melodies: Real Life Rock” (http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/2660/unchained.html)

   "Worst of all, the Blues Brothers are continuing their domination of beth AM and FM, and never let it be said that because an audience is enthusiastic it isn't passive. Incessant airplay has long since drained the Blues Brothers' humor of its dubious charms, and turned their music into an oppressive, moneyed parody of the parody they started out with. The result is the same old American black-face minstrel show. When I saw Bo Diddley recently, his best lick was greeted with the cry, "Play it, Elwood!" Way back when, we would have called such a response racist, but we're all beyond that now."

2. Daryl Alston, review of To Wake the Nations: Race in the Making of American Literature, by Eric Sundquist (http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/enam312/enam712/712alst.html)

   "The Blues Brothers, for example, are modern day white men in black clothes that sing mostly black songs for laughs. Based on their style of entertainment, it is not a far stretch to compare them with minstrelsy.

3. Owen Gleiberman, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/review/movie/0,6115,282020_1%7C17628%7C%7C0_0_,00.html

   "By now, though, there's something more than a little disquieting about the way the film wheels out its roots-music pantheon (Junior Wells, Wilson Pickett, Eddie Floyd, etc.) as if they were noble exhibits in some African-American wax museum. Blues Brothers 2000 parades its reverence for black music in an unctuous, self-congratulatory way -- it's an act of retro fetishism, an aging-yuppie minstrel show. The joke of the movie, of course, is that Elwood, in style and attitude, is really the whitest man in history. He just can't help himself -- he loves those blues. The joke, though, makes sense only in a universe where black music and white audiences exist on friendly but distant planets. That universe is long gone now (something we can all be thankful for), and it would be nice if this routine had died with it. "

4. [blog] http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6188

   "As far back as the 1830s lower-class white men (mostly Irish at the time) began to stage minstrel shows that featured plantation songs and dancing and rascist comedy routines that played off stereotypes. Of course the performers all "blacked-up" for the performance. Critics evaluated these shows based on how closely they mimicked actual African-Americans. Minstrelsy becomes the most poular form of American entertainment. Later after the Civil War, when Black performers joined some of these shows they also had to black up so they would look like the white performers.....Minstrelsy is always in the background of American popular music and culture. The first talking movie The Jazz Singer featured Al Jolson in blackface. Watch the Blues Brothers the next time they are on TBS. Akroyd and Belushi know that blackface is totally off limits so thay make everything but their faces black. Shoes, socks, pants, jacket, tie, fedora and sunglasses. The Blues Brothers are classic color-line crossers."

I don't know if any individual reference here meets the Wikipedia standard, or whether the combined buzz of all four does; I'm a relative newbie and will take your word on this. But there is indeed an interesting conversation to be had about The BB's and blackface. Peace. KudzuRunner 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be appropriate to say something to the effect that many reviewers including Greil Marcus (I'd single him out as probably the best known of these) compared their performances to blackface and/or minstrelsy, then cite all of these (except maybe the last one). It certainly should be mentioned in the article on the Blues Brothers, possibly at greater length. It sits weirdly between blackface and minstrel show as to which article it more belongs in, because, while it is clearly cultural appropriation, it isn't literally blackface (no blacking up) and the form wasn't literally a minstrel show (though R&B revues certainly have minstrel show influences, and they exaggerated those). I certainly wouldn't object to a sentence or two here and/or in minstrel show, given that you have the citations to back it. - Jmabel | Talk 21:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line, there's no reliable reference that's been presented that makes the slightest reference to the Blues Brothers darkening their faces. This article is about blackface, using some form of makeup (cork, bootblack, greasepaint, etc.) in a very particular style; it is not about blackface minstrelsy, per se. The observations and debate about the Blues Brothers and blackface minstrelsy more properly belong in minstrel show, because, clearly, unless and until someone can document where the BBs appeared in blackface, this discussion has no place in the article. deeceevoice 10:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] word use

Entry Word: feign Function: verb Text: to present a false appearance of Synonyms affect, assume, counterfeit, fake, pretend, profess, put on, sham, simulate Related Words act, dissemble, impersonate, masquerade; forge, imitate; camouflage, conceal, disguise, mask; bluff, feint; malinger Applesnsauce 17:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite get the point of this. Frankly, "feign" isn't a good or accurate starting point at all. I've changed it to "manifest," because an archetype is conceptual, rather than actual/material. I suppose one also could write "make manifest" -- which actually may be a better choice. I also changed (and, hopefully, improved) the wording later in the paragraph. deeceevoice 21:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The visage of an archetype IS actual/material. The later changes are good.Applesnsauce 23:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The current phrasing (as of this comment) is "assume the visage". It just doesn't sound right to me. It's not an assumption, it's an affectation, and none of the proposed synonyms really have the same connotation. Maybe we could reword it so the sentence can use the noun "affectation" (an unambiguous word) instead of the verb "affect"? Powers 00:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the inadequacy of "assume." One doesn't "assume" a visage. It is entirely inappropriate to use an inferior, less accurate (and, frankly, in this context, incorrect) word simply because some people may be unfamiliar with the usage of the more accurate term. "Affect" should stay unless and until someone comes up with something better. And, as the string of synonyms for "feign" clearly states, the use of "affect" is completely correct -- which is where this discussion all started in the first place. So, are we to avoid using correct grammar/syntax in favor of a vaguely, kinda-sorta relevant term to pander to ignorance? No. Given that "affect" doesn't have so many other weird or off-point, possible connotations as "feign" or "assume," it remains the better choice.deeceevoice 08:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, countenance affects YOU!! Skinmeister 21:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note to self

You keep forgetting to include: African-American influence on fiddle music -- a high number of captured Africans were already proficient "fiddle" players. (Lou Gossett's character "Fiddler" in Roots/"Roots") deeceevoice 08:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly true. Africans in America had their own style of fiddle playing, more percussive than the European style. The early minstrels mimicked it (or learned it form the Africans), which was a large part of their early appeal. Later minstrels returned to a more Europeanized style. -- BrianSmithson 13:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Fiddler on the Roots, wasn't that set in the shtetls of the Missitevka Delta…? - Jmabel | Talk 21:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging

Skinmeister, drive-by tagging is frowned up, and especially on a featured article. Please say which part of the article exactly you find confusing. I don't find any of it confusing, but if I've missed something, I'd appreciate you pointing it out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

SM (and possibly a sockpuppet or two) has targeted this article because I'm associated with it. He has a habit of following me around the website making silly, unsubstantiated changes to articles just for the hell of it and then habitually reverting changes. (E.g., repeatedly upper casing "bell hooks" in two, separate articles elsewhere, and silly, groundless objections sources provided here.) Two or three entities have weighed in against the original wording of "affect the countenance" with various alternative phrases -- not because the original verbiage is inaccurate, but because they are unfamiliar with the use of "affect." They maintain it is confusing, which it is not. The only confusion is among those who think it is grammatically incorrect, when the syntax is perfectly sound. All subsequent suggestions (so far) of alternative verbiage have been considered, and there has been no agreement reached about any of them. I've reverted the language back to the original version -- because its meaning is precise and the syntax is accurate -- unless and until someone comes up with something better that raises no objections w/regard to accuracy/meaning. deeceevoice 01:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I also don't see anything wrong or confusing with "affect the countenance." Skinmeister, it would be appreciated if you would explain your objections on the talk page rather than changing or tagging the text. This is a featured article and so it has to stay tidy looking. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Absent any discussion on SM's part, and in light of other comments, I've reverted the text and removed the tag. deeceevoice 05:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Skinmeister, please don't remove "affect the countenance" again without explaining what is wrong with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You keep removing this without explanation. It's starting to look as though you don't have a reason, but are just trying to be provocative. Please stop the reverting and come here to explain instead; if you have a good reason, people will listen to your argument. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at the archived discussion--'affect the countenance' has confused an immense number of readers--also look at the edit history where you will find a number of revisions based on the obscure use of "affect" and in particular the confusing combo of "affect the countenance." You have not done your homework SlimVirgin: don't be biased here. Just because it may not confuse you does not mean it doesn't confuse others. 61.10.12.61 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an "obscure" use of the word "affect." It's a standard use of a standard word. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The language is sound and, importantly, more on-point/accurate than anything anyone else has offered to date. Skinmeister's edits here make about as much sense as his shenanigans elsewhere. Frankly, it's quite clear that Skinmeister has not been acting in good faith here (or elsewhere). His pattern of stalking me around Wikipedia, of abusive language, personal attacks and of generally disruptive behavior are in plain sight. Looks to me like he's been begging for an RfC/RfA for quite a while now. deeceevoice 22:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think he is acting in good faith; I believe he truly thinks "affect the countenance" is unacceptable language. However, it is obvious he isn't interested in discussing it, either. Maybe that's what is meant by bad faith. An RfC may be in order, especially considering he's just been blocked a second time for 3RR violation (on a different article). Powers 13:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blackface minstrelsy and world popular culture

Is it just me, or is Blackface#Blackface minstrelsy and world popular culture chock full of very biased writing? It appears to be giving credit for all kinds of things to "African-American culture", often with no obvious tie-in to blackface. Certainly it's true (and well documented, I think) the tremendous influence that black americans had on jazz, blues, rock and roll, etc, but I thought this article was about Blackface, not African-American culture in general, and the language borders on hagiographic. Example sentences to illustrate the problem I'm talking about include Virtually every major, new genre of popular music in the United States from the twilight of the 19th century to the dawn of the 21st century—from the tight harmonies of barbershop quartets to ragtime, to blues, to jazz and swing, to rhythm and blues and rock and roll, to funk and classic rock, to hip hop and neo soul— is a product or byproduct of African-American innovation. and also For more than a century, when white performers have wanted to appear sexy, (like Elvis); or streetwise, (like Eminem); or hip, (like Mezz Mezzrow); or cool, (like actor John Travolta's Chili Palmer, Johnny Cash, and ZZ Top); or urbane, (like Frank Sinatra), they often have turned to African-American performance styles, stage presence and personas. Some of this probably needs to be simply removed, some of it may be arguable in a different article, but I'm struggling to understand what it's doing here. Friday (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The first quotation is amply sourced. Have you even bothered to click the links? Further, that the performers listed adopted elements of black performance isn't in question, either. So, just what precisely is your objection? The point is simply that they are further examples of the ongoing appropriation/assimilation of African American culture as part of American pop culture -- a phenomenon that started with blackface minstrelsy. Again, what precisely is your objection? deeceevoice 14:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, for example, Chili Palmer- he's acting like an Italian loan shark. How does this equate to acting Black? The "stereotypical Italian" of that ilk would be prejudice against Blacks, not trying to emulate them. But, let's not replace the original research in the article with my own- is there a source for Chili Palmer acting Black? I don't see it in the article. The closest source to that was talking about Madonna. Friday (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is -- the text of a "Today Show" interview w/Travolta. He was asked very pointedly by Bryant Gumbel, "Do you know how black that [Chili Palmer's persona] is?" to which Travolta admits he probably picked up the character's demeanor from the cool of black guys in his hometown high school. And, no. That isn't sourced. (At the time, I had intentions of obtaining a transcript of the intvu, but decided it wasn't important enough to me to go through the hassle.) If you like, we can simply replace Travolta with another actor. That's done easily enough, when I (or others) have some time. I'm assuming you've checked the links and your first objection is withdrawn. Anything else specific? deeceevoice 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Friday does have a point regarding the presence of that data in this article. It seems extraneous to this particular article, unless perhaps it can be tied in a bit better with the main topic. It does touch on it here and there, but a lot of it seems tangential. I have a feeling you're going to ask for specifics, though, so here's a few:

• The sentence that begins "Virtually every major, new genre of popular music in the United States" seems out of place. I'm not questioning its accuracy, but what does the black influence on those musical genres have to do with blackface? If the intent is to draw a parallel between the white affectation of a black countenance in blackface and the white affectation of black musical styles a la rock and roll and R&B, I think that's significant original research and really really needs to be sourced.
• The paragraph that starts "Country music and humor, too, were deeply influenced by blackface minstrelsy" seems out of place, since the article is not about minstrel shows. We have a different article about that. Obviously the two concepts (Minstrel shows and blackface) are nearly inseparable, but "country music and humor" have much less to do with a particular style of makeup than they do with the musical and dramatic format of the minstrelsy.
• "The precedent set by blackface, of aggressive white exploitation and appropriation of black culture, is alive today in, for example, the anointed, white, so-called "royalty" of essentially African-American music forms:" This sentence seems astoundingly biased to me, especially so without references. "So-called 'royalty'"? "Aggressive white exploitation"? This sentence badly needs to be re-written for NPOV and referenced.
• "Pop culture referencing and cultural appropriation of African-American performance and stylistic traditions—often resulting in tremendous profit—is a tradition with origins in blackface minstrelsy." Again, this needs a reference, along with editing for POV (why the snide remark about profit, unless one is trying to make a point about white exploitation of blacks?).

There are some to start. This section is so rife with POV and unsourced statements I'm tempted to start a discussion on withdrawing the FA status of this article. Powers 22:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You raise a lot of issues, which I think -- forgive me -- strike me as essentially without merit. The article on minstrelsy addresses the format and content of the theatrical form of minstrel shows, which had pretty much died out by the first decade of the 20th century. This article examines blackface as a theatrical device and cultural phenomenon with far-reaching and enduring influence on American and world culture. The article addresses the issues of cultural appropriation, because it is part and parcel of blackface itself. Blackface is an appropriation -- of a "black" identity. As such, it was also a vehicle of cultural appropriation (and collaboration, which is also mentioned in the article). And what may seem like POV or bias are merely facts of history. If you simply google "black music white exploitation" or something similar, you'll get thousands and thousands of hits. (If memory serves, this point was addressed and resolved on the discussion page quite a while back. I believe I, in fact, provided links. I won't hunt up others, but such information is easily enough come by on the WWW with minimal effort.) And the fact that the exploitation was about tremendous profit is also another, salient fact. That was, after all, the whole point! It's simply part of the nation's cultural history. Not to equate the two in terms of their impact or callousness/depravity, but I wonder if you would you object to an article on slavery and a mention of the huge profits reaped from the trans-Atlantic slave trade as "snide" for the same reasons? Do you have some objection to stating objective fact? Precisely what is wrong or "POV" with "[making] a point about [or simply stating the obvious and incontestible fact of] white exploitation of blacks"? I don't get it, but perhaps you can explain.

I'm crunching some major deadlines this week and don't expect to be around for much of the next, but I'll be happy to address your concerns upon my return. In the interim, there may be other contributors to the framing of the article -- and other editors, as well -- who'd like to comment. deeceevoice 12:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that's just it, deeceevoice. The article can't say that white exploitation of blacks is obvious and incontestible without referencing some sort of source. And telling me to go Google it is pointless because the question is not whether I believe it or not, it's whether the article's points are verifiable with reliable sources. And right now, the reader of that section of the article has no way to verify that claim, nor the claim that blackface is at all related. Powers 14:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I (and others) am likely guilty of assuming too much when it comes to knowledge on the part of the reader and, as a consequence, not putting in sufficent references. But, uh, excuse me. Don't twist my meaning. I mentioned googling the point, because you seemed to think it "astoundingly biased" and "POV," or somehow trumped up. What you also wrote was that it "need[ed] editing for POV (why the snide remark about profit, unless one is trying to make a point about white exploitation of blacks?)." I assume you're dropping that particular objection -- that mention of the fact is somehow gratuitous/superfluous -- and the mischaracterization of the information as "snide"? deeceevoice 16:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The section I called "astoundingly biased" referred to "white exploitation and appropriation of black culture". What's biased about it is a) the assertion that it's "aggressive"; b) the assertion that it's "alive today"; c) the implied assertion that swing, jazz, rock-and-roll, and blues are "essentially African-American" (I'll concede the last but not the first three); d) the description of particular white performers of said music forms as "anointed" (by whom?) and "so-called 'royalty'"; and e) the assertion that blackface, as a performance style, influenced this later appropriation. They're biased because the language is needlessly antagonistic and the opposing views -- that white people contributed equally to the development of rock-and-roll, as one example -- are not even mentioned, while the views that are mentioned aren't referenced. The aside about profit is biased because it implies that profit was the main motivation behind the appropriation without providing a reference or an alternative. Powers 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the particular language you're referring to, and I admittedly tend to view these as African-American genres, because they are innovations of African American artistic genius. I suppose the language can be tweaked to characterize them in that way. And "so-called 'royalty'" only because they aren't actual royalty; it's strictly a naming convention. Further, I don't know that it's necessary to say by whom, whether by agents, fans, critics, or (as in the case of Paul Whiteman) self-referentially. I didn't add attributions, because I didn't deem it important and, further, such information isn't always clear. And, while some may argue that white people have contributed equally to rock 'n' roll, the trendsetters and innovators in all the named forms overwhelmingly have been African American, as these forms are indigenous, if often somewhat syncretic, expressions of African American culture. And of course profit was certainly a, if not the, motivating factor -- in blackface minstrelsy itself, as well as the often outright ruthless exploitation of black musical genius. It's got nothing to do with bias. Songs being "covered" by white artists, with artistically inferior versions promoted over the originals; white musicians in front-row seats in jazz clubs, transcribing jam sessions and riffs of African-American musicians -- music that later would show up on recordings that garnered huge profits for industry moguls; the one-sided recording contracts made with composers and performers. Again, it's all a well-known, well-documented fact of American music history. And, yes. When I have time, I'll provide a couple of brief citations. But, no. To include the information is neither "snide" nor "POV"/"biased." It's merely factual.

This likely will be my last response for the next couple of weeks. I've got some real work to do. deeceevoice 18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I need to think about this a bit more. At a minimum I'd like to get some more outside comments. Powers 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, thinking is good.  :) deeceevoice 04:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It also may be helpful to you to review the discussion history. Virtually all of what you raise has been discussed and debated -- before this piece became a featured article. deeceevoice 08:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. I'd forgotten, but I'd already tweaked the language to reflect that these musical forms were African American "innovation[s]." deeceevoice 05:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, this discussion will not change the fact that the article lacks sources. DCV, are you going to provide the sources LtPowers and Friday asked for anytime soon? CoYep 06:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that we take seriously deeceevoice's statement that she will be mostly away for a week or so. I'm sure she'll be back. Certainly nothing here is sufficiently problematic not to wait a few days. (I happen to think it is all pretty much correct, but could — like about 90% of Wikipedia — use more citation. But I've never loved this effort to extirpate all opinion, even clearly well-informed opinion.) - Jmabel | Talk 21:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know that DCV is away, thanks for the information, I'm glad to learn that she is not slipping back into old habits [1] [2]. If you have a chance to contact her, you might want make sure that her account wasn't hacked and that the person which is editing with her user name is doing so with her permission. I'm sure a couple of days more or less are not a problem. But you stated that you have been in consensus with her on every significant matter (and most insignificant matters), so couldn't you address the open questions meanwhile? CoYep 15:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toothpaste

Rather than reverting Deeceevoice again, I'm bringing the discussion here. Darlie, in its former incarnation as "Darkie Toothpaste" seems about as obvious an example of "darky" iconography as any other linked in the article. Deeceevoice says it's not, though, but has no explanation of why. I feel it's a good example and should be included. Thoughts? Powers ^T 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I had to cancel my trip. (Bummer.) I thought I explained this sufficiently in my edit notes. This isn't the first time someone has entered Darky Toothpaste in error as an example of darky iconography or as relevant to blackface. The article you consulted on Wikipedia was incorrect (no surprise there). I am a collector of what is loosely termed "black americana" and am in possession of a tube of Darkie Toothpaste. I'm familiar with its history. It is not a depiction of a white man in blackface; it is a depiction of a black man. (See the corrections I've made to the article.) Furthermore, the depiction of the black man is not done in the darky iconographical style; it isn't even stereotypical, so it does not apply here. deeceevoice 15:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a white man in blackface. An IP editor has added references to the Darlie article that certainly indicate that the iconography was seen as 'darkie' or 'blackface', if not molding to the exact definitions. Powers ^T 15:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You made a reference to the Wikipedia article, and it erroneously said the box was the image of a white man in blackface -- which was later contradicted in the same article. ("The package showed a smiling image of a man in blackface who looked like Al Jolson.") Thanks for calling my attention to it, because I've corrected the misinformation.

And I have a box of the older toothpaste. Blackface is blackface. Either the image has artificially enlarged big, white (pink or red lips) lips and artificially blackened skin and abnormally large, round eyes or it doesn't. The image of the black man on the box is a realistic one -- and not darky iconography. It doesn't belong in the article. In fact, if the toothpaste were named "Shine Toothpaste," we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's not blackface; it is not darky iconography. And this is not an article about the term "darky" -- where such a reference would be more appropriate. If you have any further questions or objections, I'd appreciate a continuation of the discussion here, rather than another, inappropriate revert. deeceevoice 05:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The only one making repeated reversions is you, Deeceevoice. I reverted you once and then brought the discussion here. Anyway, as I'm sure you're aware, black people can wear blackface as well as white people can; that the man on the box "looked like Al Jolson" doesn't necessarily mean it was supposed to be a white man in blackface. The image on the Darkie box, as far as I can see, does indeed have large, round eyes (not abnormally so, as in the illustrated examples, but it is on a scale with the real-life blackface performers pictured elsewhere in the article). The abnormally large, light-colored lips are indeed missing, but the box is trying to highlight the teeth; light-colored lips would have gotten in the way, and the bright white teeth are enough to trigger the same associations in the mind. Of course, this reasoning is original research of the highest order on my part, but I've found a few reliable sources to back up the claim that Darkie's logo was "blackface" -- Blackface, White Noise by Michael Rogin, Global Busniess by Michael R Czinkota and Ilkka A Ronkainen. Powers ^T 13:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The man on the box is doing a "Satchmo" -- the wide grin, the wide eyes. It's not a caricature. It's not stereotypical. It's nowhere near darky iconography. In fact, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that that is what it is. The first article merely states the logo was conceived after someone saw a performance by Al Jolson. The association must have been that of the "darky" (all too often in those days, an off-hand and commonly accepted slur for black people) -- not blackface, per se -- because that early image is clearly that of a black man, not a white man in blackface. It is a common association. Toothpaste makes one's teeth as white as those of a darky. Gold Dust Twins detergent gets things that are soiled black as their skin white and clean. Nowhere does the first article state that the first depiction is that of Al Jolsen in blackface, because it clearly isn't.

The second source states the product is "packaged in a box that features a likeness of Al Jolson in blackface." There appears to be no substantiation for this claim -- merely an assumption, based on the earlier contention that the first image was Jolson-inspired. Further, it makes no sense. The purpose of the use of a Louis Armstrong look-alike on the first box is the clear implication that, as is mentioned in the mockumentary CSA, "Darkie toothpaste will make your teeth as white as a jigaboo's." (It was a common, tasteless joke/slur directed at black people at night to "smile, boy, so we can see you," or, "so we can see where we're goin'."

And at least one source, the website of the Museum of Public Relations, flat-out contradicts the Al Jolson look-alike claim [3] and appears to have been the basis for the information presented in the Wikipedia article. As the article states -- and stated before I came to it -- the clearly black image was changed to one of a less stereotypical-looking black person -- but not to an image of Al Jolson, which -- again -- would make no sense. If they were going to use Al Jolson, they would have done so with the first logo. But, again, the advertising message directed at people was if they wanted their smiles "jigaboo (or "darky") white," to use Darkie Toothpaste. The new image was toned down and made more contemporary, following the general trend of other products, like Aunt Jemima -- an image which has changed startlingly over the decades.

Given the conflicts in information on the record about the history and nature of this image -- with the distinct likelihood that it has absolutely nothing all all to do with blackface -- and the fact that it is not at all critical to the article (we don't need a laundry list of examples, after all), I'd say leave it out. It's unnecessary, simply causes undue controversy/conflict and, most importantly, possibly introduces misinformation. We can do without it. deeceevoice 16:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it's not strictly necessary, although "undue controversy/conflict" seems an odd justification, considering you're the only one who's objected to it so far. Anyway, I simply cannot accept that it has absolutely nothing at all do with "blackface", simply because nearly every reference I've found has described it as a blackface image. Obviously, it's not Al Jolson himself; that'd be a copyright violation. But it was apparently inspired by Al Jolson, or a similar blackface performer, and its similarities to darky iconography of the day is unmistakeable to this layman (especially when compared to the updated logo, which still depicts a black man but without the characterstics deemed objectionable from the old one). Still, all that said, you're right that we ought to go with definite examples moreso than ones to which a reasonable objection can be raised. Powers ^T 19:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The second source states the product is "packaged in a box that features a likeness of Al Jolson in blackface." There appears to be no substantiation for this claim.... As long as the source meets WP:RS standards (and there is some doubt), then wiki doesn't require further substantiation. It's like a newspaper article -- we include them all the time without demanding that the newspaper provide footnotes. With a (racist) name liked "darkie" I'm not sure why this is so controversial to say the picture on the package represents something "darky". Justforasecond 21:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This should all be beside the point: it's not important to this article, there is apparently at least some reasonable dispute over the matter, why on earth put it in? - Jmabel | Talk 00:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Powers, the image of the black man is just that -- an image of a black man. If the same image had appeared on a Louis Armstrong album (it looks a good deal like the man), no one would have winced. Armstrong had bulgy eyes when he opened them wide and grinned broadly; it was part of his shtick. For my money, the image was that of Louis Armstrong. So, you're saying any black man with dark skin and prominent eyes looks like a darky icon? I don't think so. The depiction is that of a perfectly normal-looking black man, but one depicted in a somewhat unflattering and stereotypical (the cheesin' grinnin & skinnin' black) manner. Thanks for your interest in the article, though. And I appreciate your understanding that the allusion should simply not be included in the article. deeceevoice 14:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JFAS, the point in calling attention to the apparent lack of substantiation for the claim is that there is no verification of the source of the inspiration. Too, the Jolson account is also contradicted by at least one other written report -- that of a website purporting to specialize in public relations/PR/advertising-related matters. Furthermore, it is quite clear -- and I've said as much -- that the image on the package is that of a blackman -- a "darky/darkie" in the racist parlance of the times. But, again, the name of the product is not the issue here. The issue is whether it is of a man in blackface. There's no indication the first black man is in blackface. In fact, it makes no sense that he would be -- as I've explained above. And the later image, that of a lighter-skinned black man is clearly not blackface. And even if one accepts the specious and completely counterintuitive misapprehension that the second image is of Al Jolson, he also very clearly is not in blackface. So, what's the relevance to the article?

Given the fact that whether or not Darkie Toothpaste is mentioned in the article is pretty irrelevant to the coherence and quality of the piece, and that accuracy of information is important, it is best to leave the disputed matter of the image completely out of the article. Again, there is absolutely no need to do a laundry list of products that utilized darky iconography (and this one clearly doesn't). If, however, the other editors feel there is a compelling need to include one more product in the article as an example, I will happily take a look at my collection for an incontestible example and insert it. But I, frankly, do not believe it is necessary. Again, the article is perfectly fine without it.

IMO, clearly, a few of the same old actors have descended upon the article intent upon screwing with it. And that's fine. I couldn't care less. But make sure your proposed changes are accurate and that they are improvements. deeceevoice 14:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Blackface" Indian

That passage has been deleted. Again, blackface is a very specific style of makeup. Read the introductory description. This is not about people darkening their skin simply to play a dark-skinned character -- be it Othello, or an East Indian, or any other person. deeceevoice 05:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any suggestions on how we should proceed?

Powers provided a couple of reliable sources [4] to back up the claim that Darkie's logo was "blackface" -- Blackface, White Noise by Michael Rogin, Global Busniess by Michael R Czinkota and Ilkka A Ronkainen.

KudzuRunner provided a couple of reliable sources [5] to back up the claim that the Blues Brothers are somehow connected to blackface. [6] [7] [8]

I myself did only a halfheartedly search but came up with a number of reliable sources which support the claim that Othello and blackface are indeed connected [9], and the book "Othello: New Critical Essays (Shakespeare Criticism) " even dedicates a whole chapter to Othello performers in blackface. [10][11]

Yet all 3 informations are repeatedly removed from the article.

On the other side, so far nobody fulfilled the request by Friday [12] to provide reliable sources to support the claims that Elvis; Eminem, John Travolta or ZZ Top have somekind of connection to blackface. Likewise, LtPowers request for reliable sources to back up several claims in the article (see [13] ) was ignored as well.

Any suggestions on how we should proceed? CoYep 00:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This article devotes itself, by virtue of the description in the opening paragraphs, to the specific phenomenon of blackface as a very specific style of racial caricature, that of the darky, or coon. This article does not treat the various and sundry techniques used by thespians and others over time to darken their skins to portray a particular character. The fact that other authors have chosen to do so for a particular book, essay or other work has nothing to do with the structure and content of this particular article, the focus of which is clearly a very specific tradition with its origins in the U.S.

If you wish to deal with the phenomenon of skin darkening, generally, as a technique of theatrical makeup, then I suggest another article and/or a mention of the matter, as with Ganguro, in the "Compare" section. (Frankly, I don't see the point, but it's on you. To follow your thinking, one could include in the "blackface" article something on white folks spray tanning, or tanorexia here -- which is absurd.) This piece is already very lengthy and, again, very specific in nature. Inclusion of extraneous, unrelated forms of skin darkening would only detract from the article.

Finally, the list of performers mentioned was a collaborative process. And their "some kind of connection to blackface" is stated in the first paragraph. If you wish to question the inclusion of specific people in that list, then do so here, and those of us who contributed to the article will respond. deeceevoice 07:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added citations for some examples provided. Elvis is easy. I'll do him later and may change out a couple more. (As I indicated I probably would, I've replaced Travolta with more documented cases of white actors bringing black cool to the silver screen.) More to come -- but no more time at the moment. deeceevoice 09:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

For my comments on the Blues Brothers, see the relevant subsection above. deeceevoice 10:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It almost sounds like you're trying to have it both ways, Deeceevoice. You dismiss the Blues Brothers references because there are no "reliable reference that's been presented that makes the slightest reference to the Blues Brothers darkening their faces." Yet you want to include the references to Goodman, Elvis, and the like despite the complete and utter absence of blackface makeup. This seems like a double standard to me. Powers ^T 14:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Powers. Not so. The section treating those people is all about how blackface was a precedent-setting phenomenon of appropriation/collaboration. The people mentioned are artists along that continuum. The Blues Brothers aren't serious artists in the traditional sense of the term and not sufficiently illustrative of the depth and breadth of the phenomenon in terms of fame or virtuosity/artistry. They're an SNL act that got extended into a movie with a one- or two-joke premise (like most of the movies that are spinoffs from SNL). If anything, they're a parody of the phenomenon, rather than the phenomenon itself. As I said earlier, it's been ages since I've seen the movie, and, while it was amusing enough, I've no real desire to subject my senses to it again to try to see it in another light. Again, the allusions to blackface minstrelsy vis-a-vis the Blues Brothers are purely about the shtick, the running gag of two, lame white-bwois doing black music -- not about them blackening their faces, not about serious, prominent artists who have appropriated (or, if you prefer, "borrowed" or "adopted", or "assimilated") black performance and stylistic innovations into their work. Therefore, they do not merit inclusion here. However -- again -- if one wished to include mention of them in the article on minstrel show, then that might make sense, given the interesting (though still irrelevant to this article) citations provided here in the discussion. deeceevoice 14:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that your stated objection to the Blues Brothers mention was that they never used blackface makeup. Under that metric, the entire "Blackface minstrelsy and world popular culture" section needs to go. Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily the direction we need to go with it, but that's what your words implied. If you intend that section to be about the results of the blackface precedent of appropriation and collaboration, then the section really needs to be rewritten to discuss that, rather than its current tone of focusing mainly on minstrelsy's legacy, and generic appropriation of black style (as opposed to specifically that of minstrelsy or blackface). Powers ^T 18:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. As I've already clearly stated, I have two objections to the inclusion of the Blues Brothers in the article. One, they do not wear blackface, so they don't fit the article on that count. Two, they are not an example of legitimate musicians who have appropriated black performance style. They don't merit mention here. deeceevoice 05:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your lengthy Argumentum verbosium and Anecdotal evidence might be an interesting read, but the basis of Wiki articles and definitions are reliable sources and not truthiness. So far, not one of the sources support your narrow definition of blackface. The statement that you simply choose to ignore reliable sources, and your insistence that this article should be based on your own subjective definition only is a clear violation of wikipedia rules and regulations.

About Darkie: The sources clearly define the original Darkie toothpaste logo as "blackface" and clearly offer a "verification of the source of the inspiration", namely Al Jolson.

In 1985 when Colgate-Palmolive bought Darkie Toothpaste from Hong Kong's Hazel & Hawley Chemical Co., the new owner inherited not only a leading brand but also a racist name and logo featuring a grinning caricature in blackface and a top hat.[14]

The Darkie brand's Al Jolson-inspired logo, a grinning caricature in blackface and a top hat, was as offensive as its name. [15]

Colgate-Palmolive Co. has announced that it will rename Darkie, a popular toothpaste that it sells in Asia, and redesign its logo, a ministrel in blackface. The Darkie name and logo were conceived in the 1920's after Hawley and Hazel's chief executive visited the United States and saw the singer Al Jolson. [16]

Darkie toothpaste has been sold in Thailand, Hang Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and Taiwan, packaged in a box that features a likeness of Al Jolson in Blackface.[17]

In Japan, "Darkie" toothpaste with its image of a wide eyed, big lipped African-American male on the box was sold as late as the 1980's. Finally complaints by Westerners resulted in a name change and the packaging being altered to reflect a contemporary African American male. [18]

The connection between the Blues Brothers, Othello and Blackface is backed up by a number of reliable sources as well, yet you insist on the exclusion of this information based on some subjective and self-contradictory reasoning only. Furthermore, not even one source you added to the article draws a connection between ZZ Top/Elvis/Eminem/etc. and the blackface tradition. Cultural appropriation? Yes. Blackface? Nope. Unless you can provide a source which clearly states that cultural appropriation per se has it's origin in blackface, these passages need to be removed and moved to the cultural appropriation article.

I more and more come to the conclusion that this article is in need of a meticulous review. CoYep 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

CoYep, you've presented absolutely no new information. The image may be stereotypical, but it is still not darky iconography; it doesn't merit inclusion. And mention of the Blues Brothers is more suited to the article on minstrel shows, rather than here for the reasons previously articulated. deeceevoice 22:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, folks. I haven't been able to follow this debate thoroughly, but I would like to pipe in on the notion of blackface precursors. Dale Cockrell in his Demons of Disorder does spend a good deal of time investigating roots of blackface in Othello, mumming, border Morris, and other blackened-face traditions. Hans Nathan does some of this in his Dan Emmett and the Rise of Early Negro Minstrelsy as well. Deeceevoice has a good point in that these earlier blackened-face traditions are not so much about ridicule as the later blackface is, but it might be worth at least a cursory mention of them as being possible precursors. The Cockrell book is currently somewhere in the Pacific Ocean on its way to me, so I unfortunately cannot provide more specific information at this time. — BrianSmithson 00:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, all this was discussed earlier in the evolution of the article. All of these face-darkening traditions you've mentioned are Western/European in origin. What about in India? Indonesia? China? Elsewhere? Wikipedia is international in scope, so including information about Western cultural traditions unrelated to blackface but merely similar (as those already mentioned in the "Compare" section, Ganguro and Border Morris among them) would demand mention of an ever-growing list of those from other cultural tradtions, as well. And because none of that information is essential to the article and is clearly defined out of it by the lead paragraph, it was decided to simply not deal with them at all in an already lengthy article. You want an ever-growing list of this and that practice in which people darken/have darkened their faces as part of cultural traditions that are completely unrelated to blackface? Fine. This article is already 42 kb long, over the recommended average by 10 kb. Such added information, is wholly unnecessary and, IMO, unwise. deeceevoice 09:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That's just it: Cockrell, Nathan, and presumably others have argued that Morris dancing, mumming, and Othello are related to blackface. No one to my knowledge has argued the same about ganguro and the like. In the end, though, I'm only saying that a line about this relationship might satisfy all parties. I'll propose something when the book arrives. — BrianSmithson 10:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why ganguro isn't under "See also," but compare -- as a form of skin darkening, but one which isn't related to blackface as a cultural phenomenon. If the connection can be proven, then obviously I would have no objection, but based on what has been presented, I'd say they don't belong. deeceevoice 22:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Lost World (Arthur Conan Doyle)?

I've skimmed the discussion, but don't see this anywhere. And I've skimmed the article, too -- admittedly, both quickly, so I could have missed something. But does anyone know why this is included in the "See also" section? deeceevoice 22:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theatrical makeup vs. cartoon caricature

Personally I think the cartoon caricature warrants its own article, since it's a distinct (albeit related) phenomena from the theatrical makeup. Also, I think it's interesting that the caricature is often not considered as extreme outside US as in the US itself. 惑乱 分からん 15:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The cartoon caricature warrants mention, because it's blackface-inspired darky iconography animated. There are separate articles on subjects like Mr. Popo and Coal Black and the Seven Dwarfs, but not, as far as I know, a separate article dealing with darky iconography in animation. "Darky iconography" redirects here. deeceevoice 03:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be. I could upload some images of a German plumbing company(?) with a logo of a darky in strapped pants and cap cleaning up an elephant's trunk, and another from the Franco-Belgian comic book series Marsupilami from the 90's, with a darky character in the fictional South African country Palombia, if anyone's interested. In the comic book series, it's just considered another way of caricature, just like most of the white people have enormous noses, so do most black people have enormous lips, basically. 惑乱 分からん 06:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Most black people do not "have enormous lips, basically." I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people I've seen who even begin to approximate the extremeness of the darky caricature. "Most black folks" have full, voluptuous, sexy, sensuous lips -- in comparison to many white folks and others who have relatively thin or virtually nonexistent lips (like lots of white males, who tend to lose their top lips over the age of 60). We have the kind of lips people pay cash money to get. They do ridiculous crap beyond topical "limp plumping" nostrums, like getting fat implants and collagen injections. (Ouch!)

Further, the article makes that point -- that darky iconography is considered simply another form of caricature in lots of other countries. The cultural sensibilities regarding race and racism are completely different from those of people in the U.S.

Finally, there is a section in the article on Sambo (ethnic slur) that deals with what it calls "sambo imagery." Someone has inserted one of those merge tags, suggesting that the information be incorporated here. I haven't read the discussion on the matter and don't have an opinion one way or the other on it at the moment. It may be that there should be a separate article on "darky iconography" in which the information from various articles/sources could be merged. However, at this point, I think it is more useful to include a discussion of the phenomenon in its historical and cultural context, which this article on blackface, which treats the subject as a cultural phenomenon.

Photos are great, but we resisted the urge to clutter the article with a bunch of images. There is such a thing as a photo gallery, though, where a series of images can be presented. However, given the sensitive nature of this subject, I think it best to keep the images to an instructive minimum. I don't think it wise that dealing with the subject be made an opportunity/excuse for the wholesale dumping of racist, offensive images, possibly by entities with questionable agendas in mind. Unless you have an image/images that is/are particularly or uniquely illustrative, I'm not certain additions of that sort would improve the article. Instead, they possibly could simply lead to criticism and unnecessary and heated conflict. deeceevoice 13:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Most black people do not 'have enormous lips, basically.'" That's not what Wakuran said. (Well, it is, but Wakuran said it in the context of Marsupilami, not real life.) Powers ^T 15:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Powers. The point is that it is (or possibly was) considered as a good-natured caricature, not an attempt to ridicule racial features. As a comparision, most white people in real life don't have noses and ears taking up half the face, like Gaston Lagaffe (another popular Franco-Belgian character created by André Franquin). It's an issue of different sensitivities, as was noted before. The merge tag was added by me, by the way, because the matter of the section was basically the same, just giving it another name. 惑乱 分からん 19:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

But in the end does it really have any bearing on the article? I don't think so. The fact that in some cultures (not in the U.S.) the caricature was not originally intended as offensive already has been mentioned. And, still, there are today virulently anti-black racist elements in Japanese society, and that fact does not mitigate the racist implications of the images the Japanese continue to produce, innocently or not. The genesis of darky iconography has not, and may would argue should not, escape the connectedness with its racist beginnings -- "lest we forget." deeceevoice 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I get the point, then. Regardless, I'd still feel that the section about darky iconography should be broken out into its own article, as a distinct phenomena. Also, the section about Japan should be merged into this article, where it's better suited. 惑乱 分からん 22:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any breaking out of darky iconography into its own article. Blackface is darky iconography is blackface. If it were broken out, there would be little reason to keep this article separate from minstrel show, and I rather like the way these two articles discuss related but different subject matter. The fact that something is a cartoon charicature makes little difference. The tropes in Scrub Me Mama with a Boogie Beat are direct descendants, even directly derived from, blackface minstrel traditions. You may have a point about making an article on darky iconography in Europe (like Tin Tin in the Congo and Marsupalami), but I don't see why that can't stay here for now. — BrianSmithson 22:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Related phenomena, albeit not the same.

As a sidenote, the difference between "Tintin in Congo" and "Marsupilami" could describe the differences between a perceived "racist caricature" and "racial caricature". In Tintin in Congo, except for the darky iconography, the african population is described with a lot of negative traits throughout the book, (childishness, stupidity, primitivity etc.) in "Marsupilami", the african character is darky, but otherwise not too negatively described. If you'd like, I guess his lack of any particular personality would be better described as a token character. 惑乱 分からん 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the same. One involves a white man dressing up as a black man. The other involves a white man drawing a black man. Aside from the medium of expression, what's the difference? The current article does a good job of covering darky iconography wherever it occurs, from theatre to print cartoons. I still fail to see a reason to separate things out. (I do bellieve that Wikipedia needs an article on racism in animation and racism in comics. Currently, all we've really got is an article on the Censored 11 and on a specific cartoon here and there.) — BrianSmithson 08:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Smithson (obviously). The purpose in framing this article the way it is was precisely to examine the phenomenon of blackface as a cultural force -- how it has enabled/driven cultural appropriation/assimilation/collaboration, how it has driven racist and racial stereotypes regarding people of African descent -- how we are perceived, interpreted, reinterpreted in the public eye (advertising, comics, artifacts, public performance, etc.). I think it would be a mistake to divorce darky iconography from its roots in blackface by excising that information from this piece and sticking it somewhere else out of its historical/cultural socio-political context. I'm with Brian. I like the way this article works with minstrel show, which devotes itself primarily to the theatrical phenomenon itself. Further, an article devoted to the topic of racism and ethnic stereotyping in cartoons and comics would be really interesting/useful. The added space of a separate article would allow for a cross-cultural examination of the topic, appropriate to a project such as Wikipedia. There's certainly ample information for a stand-alone piece. deeceevoice 10:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, opinions differ. Of course, I never meant that the possible new darky article would exclude references to its origins. 惑乱 分からん 16:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You might have an argument for moving the page to either darky iconography or blackface and darky iconography. I like the current title, mostly because it's more commonly known, though. By the way, a good book for anyone who wants to do racism in animation would be That's Enough Folks: Black Images in Animated Cartoons, 1900-1960 by Henry T. Sampson. He gives a good overview and then fills the rest of the pages with primary-source material, mostly in-theater advertising and promotional copy written by the studios to sell their shorts to theaters. — BrianSmithson 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ehmm, as I said, I think the page consists of two different, related topics. 惑乱 分からん 06:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"how it has enabled/driven cultural appropriation/assimilation/collaboration, how it has driven racist and racial stereotypes regarding people of African descent -- how we are perceived, interpreted, reinterpreted in the public eye" -- Have we found a secondary source for this yet? Powers ^T 00:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"We" is POV, obviously... =S. 惑乱 分からん 06:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, right now there is no article on darky iconography. I simply created that as a redirect in case someone went looking for info on the subject. What "we"? deeceevoice 10:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I was commenting on the sentence, "how we are perceived, interpreted, reinterpreted in the public eye", it seems(?) that "we" refers to black people, and of course it's POV to take for granted that the reader is black. 惑乱 分からん 13:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote isn't from the article, it's from Deeceevoice, who apparently is black. However, the indication that those things (minus the "we", obviously) were the purpose of framing this article (Blackface) the way it has been framed. The "we" can be replaced with "black people". Powers ^T 13:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I reread that comment. It seems that it's mainly his own words about what the article should look like. I don't know if there's a source needed for the comment that people are perceived and reinterpreted in the public eye, because that applies to everybody, once you think about it, (whoever the "public eye" might be). Also, I don't think an article should contain a section explaining what it's about. This is not a school essay. 惑乱 分からん 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm asking if we have a third-party source that indicates that blackface has "enabled/driven cultural appropriation/assimilation/collaboration" and "driven racist and racial stereotypes regarding people of African descent". Those exact words are not in the article, but as deeceevoice says, the article has been framed to present the data in that light. Deeceevoice has said it's obvious and beyond objection, but I've still not seen any third-party source for the information. Powers ^T 21:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I just considered that was deeceevoice's opinion about what the page was supposed to look like. I don't think there should be a source needed for a personal opinion. If you're referring to the sections in the beginning or at the end, they could need some editing. 惑乱 分からん 22:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Powers, thanks for serving as talk page interpreter. :p Just what passages are you referring to? If you'll tell me precisely what language you're talking about, maybe that will help me understand what you feel needs substantiation. I'm in the middle of a pretty intense deadline at the moment, but I'll get to it. And, Wakuran, I think we're all very much aware that "this is not a school essay." Kindly keep such unhelpful comments to yourself. deeceevoice 21:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Powers is great. I just thought it was strange that he quoted a comment on the talk page to make a point about the article. Personally, I think the end of the preface and the end of the section "Blackface minstrelsy and world popular culture" is slightly dubious. It's presented more or less as a descendant, while it is just different manifestations of a vaguely defined fascination for black americans connected with popular culture. 惑乱 分からん 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, let's say we create an article like "Racial stereotyping in cartoons ans comics" (I think "racial stereotyping" sounds broader and less biased than "racism") The section would still fit that article better than this. Also, the article lacks information about how the stereotype has been used differently, it was often used accompanied by other blatant stereotypes (such as the spear-wielding, bast skirt-wearing cannibal or the childlike and ignorant big baby) but sometimes seemed to be more used just as a cartoon depiction of a black person. The article mostly fails to make clear that distinction. I think that's interesting. 惑乱 分からん 12:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, that could include other stereotyping, such as the depiction of Japanese during World War II. Unlike blacks, Japanese were USA's enemies and were generally hated and perceived as cowardly after the Pearl Harbor attack. Anyway, I am interested in cartoon culture, and I see the issue mainly from that point of view, not primarily in relation to minstrel shows. 惑乱 分からん 12:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the information that is presented is perfectly fine where it is. That does not, however, preclude a separate article on racism in animation -- which would be a welcome addition to the project. The other "blatant stereotypes" you mention belong there -- not here. And, as I noted earlier, "The added space of a separate article would allow for a cross-cultural examination of the topic, appropriate to a project such as Wikipedia. There's certainly ample information for a stand-alone piece." deeceevoice 17:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just an aside on the discussion in this long talk section: encyclopedias (and encyclopedists) can be either "lumpers" or "splitters". Wikipedia has a strong tendency toward the "splitter" side, probably driven by the fact that everyone is welcome to start an article on any "valid" topic, partly by a strong tendency of a lot of us to say of certain material "that's not quite exactly on the topic suggested by the title," and partly by the effort to keep articles relatively small. I think that, if anything, we could do with a bit more lumping. - Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Moss

The cited Guardian article says that Kate Moss was "made up to look like a black woman", not that she was in blackface. Presumably, she was made up to look like a more or less realistic black woman, not an exaggerated racial stereotype, hence not really blackface. I would suggest removing this from the article, or at least making this distinction explicit. - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Then, it doesn't belong in the article. The article states very explicitly at the outset that blackface involves a very particular kind of racial caricature. I don't get while people still want to try to include this sort of thing. I've deleted it. deeceevoice 08:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stating the obvious

"The international imprint of African-American culture is pronounced in its depth and breadth, in indigenous expressions, as well as in myriad, blatantly mimetic and subtler, more attenuated forms."

Requesting a citation for this statement is, IMO, patently absurd. The statement is already supported by much of the preceding information. Further, the statement is an obvious one: gospel, jazz (in all its forms), hip-hop, Motown, R&B, blues -- virtually forms of popular music, dance -- hip-hop culture, slang/language, dress -- and that's just for starters. That's about the worldwide popluarity of African-American culture. With regard to mimetic and attenuated forms, the "white Negroes" of Mailer's day are with us now. And there's no question about how white rock, blues and pop artists have appropriated modes of black expression of all kinds. Again, all that has been addressed before -- and properly cited. deeceevoice 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, obviousness does not obviate the need for references. If, as you say, the statement is supported by the preceeding information (which is presumably sourced), then isn't that an "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" claim (prohibited by WP:OR)? Powers ^T 20:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It's not analysis -- even though there's nothing wrong with analysis when properly done. Information/good writing is more than just regurgitating facts. Good writing is assimilation and objective analysis and interpretation of raw data/facts. But what you're refering to has nothing to do with either analysis or "original research." It's what's called a summary statement, merely a way to wrap up neatly what's already been presented -- and documented. deeceevoice 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, the last "citation needed," which I have preserved, will be dispensed with as soon as I find the particular book in my personal library. I already know the specific, relevant paragraphs and where the info is located. deeceevoice 18:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actually...

Actually, deecee, there's quite a bit of info here on the talk page to justify those labels -- you just can't stand having your pet articles tampered with. My apologies... I was under the impression that we were striving for accuracy above all else, not biased, POV-driven, personal essays.

The record clearly shows that any attempt to revise the info for either accuracy or neutrality is quickly reverted by you. For that reason, I move that a simple dispute tag be added, and the article be locked as is so that nobody else wastes his/her time vainly attempting to clarify this nonsense. 216.107.82.154 20:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, anonymous "editor," you must detail your specific concerns and raise them here first. You may not simply slap labels on a featured article -- or any article, for that matter -- merely because it suits you. You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that snide, catty, petty remarks are a substitute for substantive reasoned disgreement.

Let me assure you they are not.

If you have a point worth considering, then make it. Otherwise, don't waste our time. deeceevoice 21:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Snide? Catty? Petty? Physician, heal thyself!

What you claim to be a "must" certainly doesn't click with WP's standing; which, I must say, doesn't speak in your favor in the area of misrepresented citations.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to "debate" with you the subjects which have been well-aired here for years. What you are doing here is tantamount to vandalism, and you are contributing to the downfall of Wikipedia. If you are comfortable with that, then there's nothing I can do about it short of advising you to change your ways -- a course of action that you have proven time and again to be futile. 216.107.82.154 21:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire. Vandalism is drive-by graffiti in the form of labels slapped on article -- and a featured article at that -- by an anonymous editor, with no attempt whatsoever at justifying such a measure in the edit notes. And, then when the vandalism is reverted there is absolutely nothing substantive offered by way of explanation -- just petulant complaints. deeceevoice 09:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The login status of an editor is not a factor in determining whether something is vandalism or not. Powers ^T 00:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. The complainant is still wasting my time. deeceevoice 05:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPLC

The main issue I have with this article is the comment "or as part of an acknowledged climate of racism and intolerance on campus". First, there is no "acknowledged climate of racism" in college climates. If anything, the colleges ruthlessly hunt down any form of perceived intolerance and silence them(free speech issues aside). Second, the cite lists the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source for this. This is not a NPOV source, it is a source with an agenda and a history of making up/distorting the facts. Furthermore...the cite links to a SEARCH function on the page...not even an article that makes the claim of an "acknowledge climate". I propose to change the sentence to this:

"or steming from ignorance of the history of blackface" and link it to this article

http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=885

The link actually has isolated incidents of people doing blackface, and an actual discussion of the concern over this issue instead of just a search function. I have chosen to still use the SPLC as a cite to this (even though it shouldn't be) to both a) prevent any claims that I'm "racist" and b) because the article is actually pretty good.

I plan on making this change tomorrow sometime unless someone has an objection.

Chairman Meow 04:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"First, there is no 'acknowledged climate of racism' in college climates." This is a blanket, naive and absurd statement--one contradicted by your later assertion, "If anything, the colleges ruthlessly hunt down any form of perceived intolerance and silence them(free speech issues aside)." If it didn't exist, then there would be no need for action on the part of college administrators -- would there? Of course there are campuses where racism is known to exist.[19][20][21][22] And in the case of blackface episodes, students have come forward attesting to the fact. Finally, there is an ongoing debate about such incidents and free speech rights and, in some quarters, like at Kentucky, the university has sided with "free speech" and refused to impose sanctions as a result of such racist activity.

I don't agree with everything the SPLC prints, but unless you can cite an authoritative source discrediting the Southern Poverty Law Center's information on campus incidents, then your objection has no merit. Dees, the SPLC SPLC projects have won recognition and numerous awards,[23][24][25][26] and both Dees and the SPLC are highly thought of by mainstream organizations. deeceevoice 06:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I don't disagree at all with your statement about the high frequency of racist incidents on the campuses. What I DO disagree with is the way the sentence was phrased giving the impression that ALL colleges are racist and that this is facilitated by a racist administration.

Second, my statement about "hunting down perceived intolerance" went completely over your head. The key word there is "perceived". We all know that campus administrations are very quick to punish any form of perceived intolerance. If you haven't witnessed this then you haven't gone to college. Also...just because there is a hunt for something, doesn't mean it exists (Joe McCarthy anyone??). And, correct me if I'm wrong, but...this is the US, shouldn't we hold Constitutional ideals higher than offending someone? Who said that famous line about..you know it, "defending till I'm blue in the face"...something like that? Where is that mentality anymore? So what if ONE college out of thousands sided with free speech...shouldn't we be encouraging this instead of using this ONE example as grounds to say that ALL college ADMINISTRATIONS are racists?

Finally, I can post just as much negative press about the SPLC as you can post awards (I believe Dees was once quoted as saying something like "I'll take advantage of all these people till the money comes flowing in"). You know as well as I do that most of those awards are politically motivated and ammount to nothing more than person A taking position B on issue C (fill in the blanks and you get an award). The most neutral one is the trial lawyers award...and that has nothing to do at all with what he, or the SPLC does. Furthermore, as you will notice in my previous post, I said that my main complaint with the SPLC link was that it linked to a search function, NOT to an actual article. The link I proposed using links to an actual article with a nice break down of some of the more famous and recent "blackface" episodes on campuses; AND it has a nice editorial on it. I plan on replacing on 10/18/06 if there are no further, reasonable objections. Chairman Meow 20:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I appreciate your willingness to discuss your objections/concerns on the talk page before making changes in the text -- but, please, don't tell me what I know. What you stated -- flat-out -- was, "First, there is no 'acknowledged climate of racism' in college climates." That is obviously untrue. Further, the article does not say anything about the "high frequency" of racist incidents. What it does say is completely accurate and indisputable: "In recent years, there have been several inflammatory blackface 'incidents' where white college students donned blackface as part of possibly innocent, but insensitive, gags, or as part of an acknowledged climate of racism and intolerance on campus." If you have an objection to the link, that's another matter. If you'd like to replace it with something more to your liking, that's fine. However, in the interest of objectivity, I think it best to stick to a source that simply reports the phenomenon without commenting on it. This isn't an editorial piece, and it doesn't take sides with regard to blackface on college campuses, so there's no need for the linked material to editorialize on the matter. deeceevoice 04:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I am in no way, shape, or form claiming that in any manner WHAT-SO-EVER that there are not racist incidents on campus. What I am disputing is the way the sentence characterizes the campus climate. I submit, once again, that the sentence characterizes EVERY single college campus as being RAMPANT with racists people who at the drop of a hat will engage in any type of offensive behavior. Once again, this "acknowledged climate of racism" was taken from the SPLC, a hardly neutral site. I'm am very sure that if I went to Greenpeace's site and read their Nuclear Technology report that I wouldn't get a very NPOV analysis of the situation. To say that an entity with such an obvious agenda as the SPLC has could ever produce an NPOV report is laughable. And to defend a cite to their reports as NPOV is even more laughable. If I even ATTEMPTED to link to this site "http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/" I have no doubt that you'd be on me like stink on a monkey claiming that that site is way too POV. Why then can an equally POV site get added in an article when we're supposed to take a NPOV stance? I again will not object to using the SPLC cite...as long as the sentence is rephrased to remove the over-generalization of its statement. Again, remember that the SPLC makes a living off of facilitating a climate of racism. Why would you even assume that their reporting would be NPOV? Chairman Meow 15:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I recall, many of the incidents reported on the SPLC website are corroborated by accounts elsewhere, so there's every reason to assume they're accurate. Uh, the paragraph doesn't say anything about "rampant" anything. It's quite clear what it says -- which, presumably, is why you reverted the deletion by another editor. Thanks. Do you still have an issue with the paragraph? If so, let me know. I'm crunching some deadlines for a couple of clients, but when I have time, I'll look for another, non SPLC link (I'm sure it won't be difficult to find one) dealing with blackface incidents on college campuses. In fact, with Halloween coming up, I'm sure there -- unfortunately -- will be even more in a few weeks. Regards. deeceevoice 16:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Jewface"

The Village Voice has an article on what they term "Jewface", which was basically American vaudeville songs about stereotypes of Jews. It probably deserves its own Wikipedia article, so I am mentioning it here in the hopes that someone will do the research and write about it. -- BrianSmithson 05:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also on that topic: Abstract of "'Yankee Doodle Abie': Tin Pan Alley Sings 'Hebrew'", Jody Rosen's talk at the 2005 Pop Conference. By the way, amazingly (as Rosen demonstrated in that talk) "God Bless America" musically quotes/plagiarizes "When Mose With His Nose Leads the Band".

I believe "Jewface" is Rosen's term, referencing "blackface". I'm not ready to start an article right now, but I will start a talkpage: further discussion at Talk:Jewface. - Jmabel | Talk 01:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)