Well, I've just finished the first chapter. I've googled a number of artists, comedians, and movies mentioned so far. This is quite an eye-opening text so far. I have to agree with the author that there appears to be a double-standard in what is considered politically appropriate. Why are the comedic routines of Shirley Q. Liquor any more offensive than "White Chicks"? I'm also aware that most academic institutions base their admissions practices on a point system in which African Americans and other minorities receive 'points' toward admission that whites do not receive; this appears to favor one side unequally and pulls the race card to the forefront again. This may well be one factor that has promoted the re-emergence of blackface on college campuses (although it does not justify it).
Another aspect which captured my interest was the author's take on the representations of history in recent years. He states that "history is not only rigidly interpreted, [but is] in fact rewritten or edited to fit the new paradigm" (30). Having collected older films, radio shows, and books as I have, I had already noticed the striking difference in the voice of authors/directors/writers over the years. In my opinion, in an effort to pacify activist groups, we have begun to vilify America itself. Yes, we may have made mistakes in the past, but few are looking deeply into the impetus that created opportunity for these mistakes. Postmodern writing, in its supposed effort to understand truth, has grayed the lines of race, gender, and sexuality in such a way that our younger generations are growing up confused. At the same time, many activists push for identity-respect based on these very characteristics they have attempted to destroy. These are strange times.
Perhaps minstrelsy is one of the elements of popular culture that brought the discourse of race into play, enabling such experimentation today. Could it perhaps promote understanding of our uniqueness as individuals through satire of commonly-held stereotypes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I found the 2nd chapter to be an insightful read. Being a fan of Ripley, I recognized many of the names of the 'freaks', as termed by Strausbaugh, and find the link between them and blackface quite correct although it had never occurred to me. Interesting.
I like the way the 2nd & 3rd chapters so far give excerpts of popular minstrel songs. I read a book on the legend of John Henry that included the numerous renditions of the song. It is so interesting to see the various versions and look at the differences in presentation between artists and types of artists. For instance, the 'Jim Crow' song has offered two renditions so far.
I found the 3rd chapter interesting due not only to what Strausbaugh says but also due to what he leaves unsaid. Although the Italian mafia and Mexican mafia are often referenced in popular literature and Hollywood films, there is also an Irish mafia, which stemmed from the troubled early 19th century in various northeastern cities. According to Strausbaugh, the Irish were viewed as ‘black’ by the elite whites and were not afforded the rights of most whites, including the vote. It stands to reason that when a group is denied rights and niceties afforded other groups, its members will often band together and attempt to secure status -- of whatever type is available -- through whatever means possible. Such appears to be the case of the Irish mafia which is every bit as deadly and powerful as the Italian mafia. The dates provided by Strausbaugh in this chapter struck a cord with me so I took a moment to refresh my memory by looking up information on the Irish mafia. According to Strausbaugh, the racial tensions between the Irish and Blacks began around the early 1800s - about the time that Blacks in the north were being emancipated to a certain extent, making them more competitive in the job market in which the Irish worked. Because the Irish viewed the Blacks as a threat at this point, violence increased (Strausbaugh 90). According to him, the Irish during this era became “rabidly anti-Black” (92). Strausbaugh’s dates coincide with information I have read about the beginnings of the Irish mafia; however, Strausbaugh is strangely silent on the matter. Although Strausbaugh relates that there were Irish gangs, his take on them seems to be that they were youths being rebellious against mainstream culture. He does not go as far as to admit the emergence of an Irish mafia during this era. Other scholars and law enforcement officials have considered the Irish mafia to be extremely violent and as dangerous as the Italian mafia up to about the 1960s, when their actions became much more covert. I wonder why the author does not address the mafia issue. Any ideas? The Irish mafia still exists in major northeastern cities such as New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago today although it appears to have settled down in recent years. Does Strausbaugh not wish to distract his readers from the main topic of his book, blackface minstrelsy, or is his opinion of mob activity out of alignment with other writers on the subject? He seems to have digressed on other areas of interest, such as the freak shows and slave trade; why not the Irish mafia? Any ideas?
By the way, if you can’t tell, I’m fascinated with this book. Although I question the author’s take on this issue, I think he is an awesome researcher and writer. Great read!
Just a note. Strausbaugh is correct in saying that 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' was recreated and recreated. I thought it was interesting that the 3-paragraph excerpt about Eliza's escape across the ice was expanded when stage productions of the story were created. In 'The King and I,' a movie with Yule Brynner, there is a re-enactment of this particular scene by the women in his harem. This scene receives the most elaborate attention. Interesting. I wonder why this particular scene of escape across the ice has captured producers' imaginations more than other elements in the novel. Any ideas?
I think that the fascination with Eliza escaping across the ice is simply because it's one of the more dramatic--that is adventure-story-ish--elements in the novel, and one of the least expository moments in a novel that offers much direct exposition about the evils of slavery.
Just my two cents.
Post a Comment