Talk:Minstrel show

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Minstrel show has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Louis Wright lynching

Deeceevoice removed the Louis Wright example from the following paragraph with this edit summary: "Deleted as inaccurate. The man was killed for defying white supremacy--which existed before and after minstrelsy."

Minstrel-show characters played a powerful role in shaping assumptions about African Americans. However, unlike vehemently anti-black propaganda from the time, minstrelsy made this attitude palatable to a wide audience by couching it in the guise of well intentioned paternalism. Black Americans were in turn expected to uphold these stereotypes, or else risk white retaliation. Some were even killed for defying their minstrelsy-defined roles. Louis Wright, himself a black minstrel, died after being lynched and having his tongue cut out for cursing at some whites who had thrown snowballs at him.

I put it back, as it's an example straight out of Watkins about how defying minstrel-defined roles could be fatal for African Americans at this time. And defying the darky stereotypes is a form of defying white supremacy, so it seems that Watkins's and Deeceevoice's interpretations are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, Wright was a black minstrel, so the example is pertinent here. Had he smiled and said something obsequious and in dialect to the whites, I doubt he would have been killed. Am I missing something here? — Amcaja 12:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice reverted with this edit summary: The objection is to "minstrelsy-defined." Black people's "place" was well-defined long before minstrelsy came along.
I understand that any black man would probably have been lynched under the circumstances of the anecdote, but the point that Watkins is making (and that the article is quoting) is that Wright was a black minstrel who was expected to act off-stage how he did on. He didn't, and he was killed for it. I've tried for a compromise position that makes this clearer; hopefully this will be satisfactory. — Amcaja 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If any blackman would've been killed for speaking up for himself -- and that almost certainly would've been the case -- then the passage, while somewhat improved, still isn't quite on target. If any black person likely would have met a similar fate under the circumstances, what's the real point of the passage? The fact that he was a minstrel was mere happenstance. 05:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Watkins seems to be arguing that Wright was killed either directly or indirectly from dropping his stage persona; you are arguing that the stage persona is beside the point; any black person would have been killed under those circumstances. Watkins's point would be stronger if Wright had not cursed the whites but had, say, tried to perform Shakespeare and gotten lynched for that. I'll remove the anecdote for now, but if anyone else is monitoring this page, I'd appreciate your views, as well. — Amcaja 12:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I see that no one else has chimed in in 2 weeks. As another sometime participant in this page, I hate to be wishy-washy, but I can see both sides of this. I undertand the point Watkins was trying to make, and while I don't think it is completely invalid, I also tend to agree with deeceevoice that the matter would have been overdetermined, and that Watkins may be reading into the circumstances something that was not really there. The lynching of an African American blackface minstrel might merit a mention on this page (though I don't think it is crucial), and Watkins remark may be worth reporting as Watkins' opinion/interpretation, but I'm not at all sure Watkins was on the mark. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I suppose it's best to leave it cut for now. The page is overlong anyway. — Amcaja 13:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entry of Black performers

The lead now suggests that Black performers first began performing in minstrel shows after the Civil War. I believe that is wrong. There is no citation. The obvious exception that leaps to mind is Master Juba, who died in 1852. Our article on blackface says, "By 1840, African-American performers also were performing in blackface makeup. Frederick Douglass wrote in 1849 about one such troupe, Gavitt's Original Ethiopian Serenaders: 'It is something to be gained when the colored man in any form can appear before a white audience.' Nonetheless, Douglass generally abhorred blackface and was one of the first people to write against the institution of blackface minstrelsy, condemning it as racist in nature, with inauthentic, northern, white origins." I see no reason to doubt it. I am editing accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 03:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't even notice that an anon had rewritten much of the lead until I saw your post here. I've changed back a few other things here and there. Over all, his or her edits were not bad. — Amcaja 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No vote and no land means no Americans

Negroes could not vote or own land in the 19th century, therefore they weren't "Americans." Please refrain from the use of the fakery: i. e., "African Americans" and "free blacks." Velocicaptor 01:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So by your standards, the entire civilian population of the United States (i.e. Americans) was male until 1920? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Velocicaptor has a point of sorts. I generally tend to refrain from referring to slaves as "African Americans" or "black Americans" -- because they were not Americans; they were captive Africans. I refer to them as "slaves," "enslaved Africans," "blacks," etc. They were not considered Americans/American citizens; they had no rights -- no right to the fruits of their labors, no right to their own offspring, no right to their own bodies, no right to freedom. The right to vote was the least of their troubles! Let's not put a current label on something that didn't apply/was not accurate to characterize the past. deeceevoice 20:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, in the case of slaves I agree with you: "African American" is dubious. I think it is more reasonable for free Blacks, even in the slavery era; it certainly does not strike me as an odd way to refer to Frederick Douglass, for example, or even Ira Aldridge. What are your thoughts on this? We could say "free Blacks"; I can't readily think of a third possibility. Certainly not "Free Negroes". What else is there?
Also, is there a point in history after which you would specifically say African American becomes appropriate? I see no problem with it post-Emancipation, do you? - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Heya, Joe. After Emancipation, though blacks suffered discrimination and all sorts of reprehensible treatment, at least we were no longer property, or subject to kidnapping and enslavement, so I'd say that sounds about right. I agree with you on all counts. deeceevoice 23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through and adjusted the terminology in a couple of places so that now African American is used only for free blacks before the Civil War or for blacks after the Civil War. Thanks for the feedback, folks. — Amcaja 09:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, African American also appears in the following phrases that refer to both the antebellum and postwar periods: African American folk culture and African American spirituals. Do people think these should be changed? — Amcaja 13:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. You see, actually being called American depends on the nationality status of the person involved. If they happened to be a captive black, they are not an American but rather a captured African. So yes, they were not citizens until they could vote, basically. They should be changed. .V. 13:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Most definitely. It's one of the reasons I use the old term "Negro Spirituals" or simply "Spirituals." And as I've said before, "black" (and sometimes "African") is always a perfectly serviceable alternative. deeceevoice 13:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This should be sorted now. It sounds like V is arguing that free blacks before Emancipation should not be referred to as African American, but I'm siding with Joe and Deeceevoice here and keeping the term in the passage about Thomas Dilward and William Henry Lane. Even after African Americans gained the right to vote, it does not mean they were able to exercise it. See Snowden Family Band for one example. — Amcaja 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shoot from the lip articles

What a crock! Free negroes could not vote or own land, therefore they weren't "Americans." 71.240.17.138 11:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you said pretty much the exact same thing when you signed in as Velocicaptor. Why don't you try to join the discussion above rather than just drive-by complaining? — Amcaja 11:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I erred by previewing my "edit" prior to logging in. After I logged in, I clicked "save" without previewing (again) as Velocicaptor. That was a mistake which displayed the IP number instead of my user name. I was disappointed, however it was my first "save" of the day, so I forgave myself. Velocicaptor 14:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's a "crock" to claim that one isn't an American if one can't vote or own land. (I'd change my mind if there were a citation from a reliable source, though.) Lou Sander 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a tremendous difference between being a slave born in or residing in the U.S., with no rights whatsoever -- neither civil rights (a term which speaks to citizenship and government) nor human rights (a term which speaks to innate or, God-given rights) -- and being an "American." Birth and death records of African slaves, as well as records of slave sales transactions often were kept in ledgers detailing similar events in the lives of livestock along with the disposition of other material goods/assets. Let's be perfectly clear here and not muddle the facts with outrageously inappropriate terminology/labels based on some misguided or sentimental view of world/American history or modern sensibilities. Slaves were chattel -- property -- not citizens. Many whites didn't even consider my ancestors human. A slave was no more a citizen or an "American" of any kind than was a horse, a mule, or a plough. To paraphrase Malcolm X, "Just because a cat has kittens in an oven, that doesn't make them biscuits." deeceevoice 12:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are a gentleman and a scholar, Velocicaptor. (And there are damned few of us left <smile>). Lou Sander 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (The gremlins are active today--the first time I posted this, I forgot to save it.)
People do not realize that each State in the Union determines who may vote. Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution (about 1870), some States' requirements restricted voting to people who owned at least 50 acres of land. That requirement kept some white men from voting, as well as "Free negroes." Even in 2006, each State may enact laws related to voting which differ from the laws in every other State. The same rule applies to laws relating to the consumption of alcoholic beverages, etal. Velocicaptor 14:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly made freedmen "citizens" -- this seems sufficient to use the term "African-Americans." Using the label doesn't diminish the prolonged and horrible racism flourishing in the American South for over a century after the close of the Civil War; instead, it just reflects the usual convention that citizenship defines the label "American." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.194.8.70 (talk • contribs) 1 December 2006.

So women were not Americans until they could vote? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.6.214 (talk • contribs) 18 December 2006.

Women were citizens, but didn't have the vote. The slaves weren't even citizens. Quite similarly to the situation of the slaves, few would refer to the unemancipated Jews of the 19th century Pale of Settlement as "Russians", but we would use that term for ethnically Russian serfs. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman women could not own land, were they not Romans? I think i hear an axe grinding.

[edit] Music samples

I think that two or three music samples might be a good addition to this article; minstrel music was the popular music of its day, after all. Can anyone suggest where clips might be useful and of what songs? There's a public domain recording of "Dixie" on that article's page; it could be placed here with no concerns for fair use. However, other songs may have to be sampled from modern recreations of minstrel music. Where might fair use justification be applicable? — Amcaja 03:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that plenty of minstrel music was recorded and issued before 1923, so it should be public domain. I can't think exactly what to look for, though. The blackface performers who I know were recorded (Bert Williams, for example) weren't really doing minstrelsy. Does someone know better just what is out there? I don't think we should need to resort to fair use. - Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, using the same source as the one from which "Dixie" comes, we have versions available of "The Arkansas Traveler" (1916, early country); "My Old Kentucky Home" (1918, soprano woman), several here (1898–1906, piano accompaniment); a couple here (1900, 1901); several here (1899–1911); several here (1909–20; includes blackface comic sketches, too); "The Whistling Coon" (1911; not sure if it's from minstrelsy or after); "A Coon Wedding in Southern Georgia" 1903; ditto); one here; 1903; piano); several here; 1901–03; piano); "Dixie" band arrangement (1905); several here (1896–1901); several here (1915–6; includes blackface sketches); several here (1900–02); several here (1898–1920); and "Old Folks at Home" (1898; piccolo) and (1914) (sounds like Alvin & The Chipmunks).
So, lots of blackface songs to choose from, but none of these is really played in the style of minstrelsy (fiddle, banjo, bones, tambourine). Everything's accompanied by piano or full orchestra. This may actually be representative of very late minstrelsy, though. — Amcaja 09:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, a lot of these are coon songs, a later genre than minstrelsy (and one for which Wikipedia needs an article). -- Amcaja 06:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I haven't listened to any of the recordings yet (I'm at school), but this site looks very promising for recordings of minstrel fare. -- Amcaja 05:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman women could not own land, were they not Romans? I think i hear an axe grinding.

I reverted this as SPAM but maybe I should ask for other opinions. 24.36.35.188 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topsy and pickaninnies

I removed a bit that claimed that the minstrel depiction of Stowe's Topsy character was the basis for the pickaninny stereotype. First, it needs a source. Second, I doubt it's true. Pickaninny characters are much older than blackface minstrelsy or Tom shows. Charles Dibdin was using the term in his black caricature pieces as early as 1788. (Nathan 28). It's possible that Tom shows were the first to present the fully realized stereotype, and that's worth noting, but, like I said, it needs a source. None of the major works on blackface minstrelsy (that I've read) mentions pickaninnies as a significant stereotype present in the form. — Amcaja 22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baker quote

By 1840, the minstrel show had become central to the culture of the Democratic party (Especially in the northern US). These shows gave whites of the Democratric party the images they needed to suggest that blacks should be governed more harshly and closely. "In holding the public infantilism of blacks constant, Northerners denied what was allowed in white aliens and male children-the possibility of political maturation-and thereby rejected environment as the source of the black debasement. According to popular culture, the Negro was not the creature of his circumstances ... In this way the popular arts and especially minstrelsy provided symbolic justifications for keeping the Negro in his place." <ref>Jean H. Baker (1983) p242.</ref>

I removed this quote from the lead section of the article. This information is already covered in the article (see the third paragraph of the "Height" section). It may need to be summarized somewhere in the lead, but I don't think the long quoted passage is necessary for this purpose. — Amcaja 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Knipp

I removed this image.

thumb|left|250px|Charles Knipp, a white gay man who dresses up in blackface as a character he calls "Shirley Q. Liquor," whom he describes as an “inarticulate Black women on welfare with 19 kids". In spite of Black protest, Knipp routinely performs his minstrel show for a predominately white gay audience in West Hollywood. 2007

This seems beyond the scope of this article, which is about a theatrical form that has died out rather than blackface in general, which persists. Instead, the image would probably be a better fit for our blackface article. There are also fair use concerns, but perhaps those can be sorted. -- Amcaja 02:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent additions

The stuff about hokum and W.C. Handy needs to have a source citation. Can one be provided in the next couple days? If no, the material should be removed. — Amcaja 03:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rap Music

How about a discussion of the similarities to how today's pimps and hoes entertainment industry plays a similiar role to minstrelry: reinforcing stereotypes such as a perpetual adolescence.

Please sign your contributions by striking the tilde key four times. If you have any good printed or Internet source for that statement, you might want to add it, although it seems a bit off the subject. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A song by Cartel - A Minstrel's Prayer

This song could represent symbolism between men and when and the act of minsterlry [1]There are the lyrics to the song. Could be added as just a "pop-culture" quick refrence. MikelZap 01:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, thanks. Minstrelsy is, by definition, popular culture. Long lists of trivia and "popular culture" sections in articles are usually frowned upon. See WP:AVTRIVIA. — Amcaja (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Rabbit's Foot Company

I've added a new article on the Rabbit's Foot Company / Rabbit Foot Minstrels, which it seems to me should be linked into this article as a post-1900 development of the black minstrel show tradition. There is a reference here in the Legacy section to Ma Rainey, one of the most prominent performers with the Rabbit Foot Minstrels, but I'm (uncharacteristically!) reluctant to edit this article as it's getting well outside my areas of knowledge. Can anyone help here, eg by putting in a clearer reference to how the black shows developed from the late 19th century into the first half of the 20th ? Ghmyrtle 11:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. From the article you wrote, it seems to me that the Rabbit's Foots were more of a variety troupe of the kind that replaced minstrelsy rather than a minstrel troupe per se. However, Watkins mentions the company as signficant for beginning the careers of several notable black performers, while noting that they added lots of other stuff to the standard minstrel fare. Feel free to add something to the Legacy or History section. — Amcaja (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added a sentence or two. Ghmyrtle 14:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A small thing

"Performers told nonsense riddles: "The difference between a schoolmaster and an engineer is that one trains the mind and the other minds the train.""

Maybe not a great joke, but not nonsense.MarkinBoston 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Othello, and referenced material

It is stated that the tradition of blacking up goes back to Shakespeare's Othello (1604). This is backed up by reference. However, Shakespeare's earlier (1590s) Titus Andronicus also has a 'Moorish' character who would have been played by a white actor in blackface. My amendment was removed, with the comment "that's not what Watkins says; please don't change referenced material". Might I suggest that although the tradition does go back to 1604, it goes back even further as well - so Watkins is right, and so am I. Widmerpool 02:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the sentence you changed draws from material in Watkins. If you have a source that pushes the blackfaced Shakespeare characters back further, not only the prose needs to be changed, but the reference to Watkins needs to be changed to reflect the source from which the material was drawn. In other words, I'm just trying to make sure the references in the article continue to say what the article says they say. — Amcaja (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] international side

Good article but needs stuff on minstrelsy in Britain Canada Australia and elsewhere. IN Britain it was massively popular in the second half of the nineteenth century Johncmullen1960 (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw your note here. You're right, but for the most part, the performers in Britain and other places were mostly Americans on tour. — Dulcem (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "One source"

Why was this article tagged as relying on only one source? It cites quite a few. — Dulcem (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree - it is far better referenced than the vast majority of articles - what is the problem? If no-one comes back with a good argument, I suggest that the tag should be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and counted the citations. The article has a total of 115 footnotes, which break down by source like this::
50states.com: 1
Cockrell: 14
Jackson: 1
Lenz: 1
Lott: 16
Marc: 1
Malone and Stricklin: 1
Nathan: 1
Oliver: 1
Paskman and Spaeth: 1
Sacks and Sacks: 1
Smith: 1
Stark: 1
Sullivan: 1
Toll: 52
Watkins: 22
Perhaps the page tagger meant to say, "This article relies too heavily on the book by Robert Toll", but even that work is cited in fewer than half of the footnotes in the article. I think there is more to be said in this article (particularly from books by William Mahar and Hans Nathan), and I'm actually preparing some material to be added here in the not-too-distant future. But even without this material, I don't see how this article qualifies for having a tag on it saying it only has one source. — Dulcem (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
One final note: 11 of the citations are quotes from other sources (many of them from the minstrelsy period) and further serve to diversify the article's sources. — Dulcem (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)