Talk:Minstrel show

I uploaded Image:minstrelsLondonc.1880.jpg, but do not know how to make it an appropriate size for this article. Can someone fix it? Tuf-Kat 04:21, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yup, done and included. Lupo 18:28, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No mention of the "R" word?

While this is a decent -- and I mean that -- beginning for article on minstrelsy, I am flabbergasted that there is absolutely no mention of the "r" word. (Did I miss it?) Not even under "legacy"? Some might want to visit the expanded article on blackface for comparison. Amazingly superficial. Were you purposely avoiding all mention of racism? How the hell can you ignore the huge, honking elephant in the room that just dropped a steaming load on the fancy oriental carpet? Looks like I'll have to revisit this one. Wikipedia really needs some more color up in here. Damn! deeceevoice 14:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While the article doesn't specifically mention the word "racism", it does give a sense that the minstrel shows were about perpetuating the black stereotype as "uneducated" and "foolish". It also mentions that they served as a sort of "release valve" for abolitionists. As always, you are welcome to expand the article. Jeff schiller 14:07, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Yep, I've already mentioned my intention to return to this -- sometime. But "uneducated" and "foolish" as a far cry from accurately characterizing the pervasive, racist and damaging stereotypes of blackface minstrelsy. Talk about sanitized! What? Are people afraid an honest discussion of race and racism is gonna bite 'em in the butt? (Rhetorical question.) deeceevoice 14:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No one can doubt that minstrel shows and blackface have their roots in a racist culture, but it may be that there is a reluctance to turn these pages into heated "discussions" about racism when there are already pages in Wikipedia that deal specifically with that topic. As I'm sure you're aware, racism can lead to heated debates which may end up obscuring the encylopedic nature of the article dealing with these specific topics. Jeff schiller 14:37, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

That's no excuse for completely ignoring the critical historical impact/relevance of a subject under discussion. Take a look at the recent changes to blackface from what it was before. I think it's a great piece -- not perfect, but solid and factual. So far, no firestorm. If the subject is well written and approached with intellectual honesty (sorry I can't say the same for this piece), it can stand on its own. Heated discussion? You know what they say. "If you can't stand the heat...." :-p deeceevoice 15:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Finally inserted a comment about the archetypes of blackface minstrelsy and mentioned the "R" word. And guess what? The world hasn't ended. (Day-um.) This article still needs major work. Something about how and why minstrelsy ended -- again, more about the damaging effects of the RACISM it shamelessly purveyed, about black minstrels, etc., etc., etc.

Origins?

I'm curious if anyone knows whether minstrel shows grew out of some form of Commedia dell'arte and pantomime with the stock characters replaced by racist stereotypes? I think the structure of the show (stock characters, songs, improvisations) show similarities that make me curious. Jeff schiller 21:08, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

There was a TV movie made back in the late 1970's (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076393/) called Minstrel Man. Maybe this is relevant to the article?

All but disappeared by 1900?

I find it somewhat puzzling that this article claims that "The minstrel show had all but disappeared by 1900" (I was under the impression that this crap survived into the 20's, but what do I know), but then shows a postcard at the top dated 1906. --Bletch 14:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)