Talk:Minstrel show

; Archives
	January 2004–May 2006; ; ; ;

Minstrel show received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Minstrel show has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

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? — BrianSmithson 12:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. — BrianSmithson 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. — BrianSmithson 12:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I suppose it's best to leave it cut for now. The page is overlong anyway. — BrianSmithson 13:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. — BrianSmithson 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. — BrianSmithson 09:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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? — BrianSmithson 13:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. — BrianSmithson 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? — BrianSmithson 11:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."

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? — BrianSmithson 03:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. — BrianSmithson 09:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a lot of these are coon songs, a later genre than minstrelsy (and one for which Wikipedia needs an article). -- BrianSmithson 06:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. — BrianSmithson 22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]