Talk:Blackface/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Blackface. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Perhaps the greatest horror of Spike Lee's Bamboozled is that he had the courage to make the stylized blackface singing, dancing, and joking very well done and quite entertaining. Ortolan88

---

I don't understand about the reversed italics in the caption. It looked to me like there was an extra pair of '' floating around in there, so I just took them out. Maybe you meant that captions should be italic and so therefore the title of the film should be non-italic, thus becoming italic in the context, if you follow me. Anyway, I like having the picture there. I wonder if you could do the same with a picture of Bert Williams. It is unbelievably poignant in our time to see a black man in blackface. Ortolan88

No big deal, but, as far as the italics are concerned, that's exactly what I meant. I've seen it both in books and on other Wikipedia pages, but, as I said, this is nothing to fuss about. -- For me it's rather difficult to get hold of suitable pictures, and I'm always slightly worried about possible copyright violations, even if this is not mentioned in the source. Right now I can only think of one other photo, a still from one of the last scenes of Hitchcock's Young and Innocent. --KF 17:26 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

I'll look around a bit and then raise the question about italic captions in Talk:Wikipedia Manual of Style, which is where such things get wrangled out. Thanks. Ortolan88 PS - Just added it there, KF.Ortolan88

---

Certainly, white performers have continued to emulate black performers, but without the makeup. Frankie Laine, Johnny Ray, Elvis Presley, Bill Haley and his Comets, Mick Jagger, and many many more emulate a black style, both out of genuine admiration and out of recognition of the performance power of that style. Indeed, allusions to black style are virtually standard for rock and roll.

At what point does this performance style cease to be "black" style, and become simply "rock and roll style", without having to insert a color designation in there? What, exactly, is "black style", anyway? kwertii

Oh, the Pet Shop Boys don't do a lot of it. Black style is what Mick Jagger does, trying to imitate James Brown, young Elvis Presley crouching behind the piano in a Memphis joint in 1952, trying to figure out what the hell Ike Turner was doing, stuff like that. You can't take the black style out of rock and roll. Ortolan88

Sure, if you're talking about those few select early rock singers, but making the blanket statement that all rock and roll is "black style" is saying that rock music is essentially a bunch of white boys trying to be hip. Where's the "black style" (again, whatever that means) in David Bowie or Nirvana? At some point in the 1960s, rock stopped being "black style" and became just "rock style", for both white people and black people.. at this point in time, saying that rock musicians consciously emulate "black style" and "allusions to black style are virtually standard for rock and roll" makes about as much sense as saying that rock and roll is musically just a variant of Spanish classical music, because it uses guitars.

(And I'm still not exactly sure what the term "black style" refers to, other than a euphemism for "poseur white boys".) kwertii

"If you have to ask, you'll never know." Old saying. Ortolan88

Yes, yes. It all sounds like so much exclusionary, pretentious twaddle from over here. There's no such thing as "black style", any more than Mozart and Bach exhibited "white style". Both statements are nonsensical self-aggrandizing pomposity. Why create artificial distinctions (like presuming all members of a given skin tone range magically share some genetically ingrained stylistic sense) where there don't need to be any? I thought that sort of ignorant generalization about people based on superficial physical characteristics was finally dying out in this society.. -kwertii

Black style can be attributed to the social culture of African Americans. The same can be said for most minorities or ethnic groups i.e. Italian or Jewish. American black music has been directly influenced by our history in North America via slavery. Spoken word, song and dance were the primary forms of entertainment while in captivity. Our culture preserved African rhythms and dance to help influence the style of music presented in early rock and roll and now hip hop, jazz and R&B. Today Black style is more in line with the urban culture or hip hop culture rather than today's rock and roll. There IS such a thing as black style! And it is not exclusive to blacks anyone can admire or emulate anything for their benefit or entertainment as long as it's in a positive manner. T-215

The fish don't notice the water. I didn't say any of those racist things you attribute to me, but if you think there would be any rock and roll without the contribution of black people and black culture, then you are in error. For my money, it is racist to think otherwise. Ortolan88

I agree with Ortolan. Saying that there are no social commonalities within racial subcultures is just silly -- of course, not all black people are identical, but it's rose-tinted naivete to think no commonalities can be drawn. I also agree with the listed names. Kwertii, the ones you mentioned are significantly later in time -- in the 50s and 60s, rock and rollers were clearly almost all exhibiting a black style because that was what was popular. Tokerboy

I wonder if kwertii is British. He says he speaks "from over here". There's a book, White Boy Singin' the Blues by Michael Bane (DaCapo) that explores the very different understanding of the Americans and British regarding the blues and the black contribution to culture. Put briefly, his thesis is that the Americans know about it and the British don't, having received the blues as an import rather than as an integral part of their culture. I don't think that makes the British racist, and I regret having used that word above, but I do think it shows that they don't understand how the web of popular music was woven in the world. That is, exactly where did those three chords and those two funny notes come from anyway? Not to mention all that strutting. Ortolan88

Rock and roll didn't stop in the 1960s, when people like Elvis and the Beatles were covering black blues songs. There's been lots and lots of rock and roll since then; it's a very broad category, and the article doesn't say "allusions to black style were virtually standard for 1950s and 1960s rock and roll". I can't quite find the "black style" in Radiohead or the Dead Kennedys or Guns N' Roses or any of the other 50,000,000 rock bands who existed after 1964 and didn't start their careers covering Chuck Berry. I just think the way it's phrased now is waaaay too overbroad and generalized. "from over here" just means "from my perspective," I'm an American.. -kwertii

Radiohead and Dead Kennedys maybe not, but Guns N' Roses sure, all those power bands that picked up from the Rolling Stones, not to mention a good many grungy acts like Dinosaur Jr. and Teenage Fan Club. Blues-based and black-influenced rock and roll did not stop in the 60s either. It is naive to think that it only a matter of "covering black songs". Three chords, blue notes, sassy style, silly shtik, all trace their origins back to the minstrel shows. It's in a lot of country music too, maybe I should add that. History itself is overbroad. Ortolan88

Anybody that plays any derivative of heavy metal is playing a highly evolved form of the blues. I think the distinction Ortolan is driving at, and the most important one in the development of music, is the idea that "music" doesn't have to be pretty to listen to. Even the rougher sounds of folk and country were polished compared to blues and jazz. Any singer that sings more like John Lennon than the Wilsons is, consciously or not, directly or not, imitating black artists. (On a sidenote, David Bowie sang soul music). All this is really more discussion than this warrants here, though -- white rock singers sounding black is not blackface and is only tangentially related to the topic (I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the article, but I don't think this is so important we should be spending a lot of time on it). Tokerboy

Everything influences everything. Music is music. Music's been around for ages and I doubt it's ever changed substantially as far as the essentials go. People like Presley were as influenced by 'white' music as they were by 'black' music. The whole "black people invented rock" schtick is reminiscent of the very same racist arguments American right-wingers used in the 50's to try to demonize rock'n'roll (i.e. calling it "negro jungle music" that was corrupting white teenagers, etc). Jazz went through the same thing - did black people invent jazz, too? I think it's OK to try and analyze an artist's work in a socio-political perspective, but vague generalizations like these are meaningless and can't really be proven or disproven. They serve no useful purpose. They don't even account for the fact that most blues artists had their own unique sound. Distorted guitars aside, alot of heavy metal reminds me more of Bach and military marches than it does the blues. Can you prove me wrong?

Well, I just added some more, anyway. I do think that it is important to note that although the black makeup is gone, the impulse is still there. I was watching Melissa Etheridge last night, moaning about "the WO-man who stole mah love away from me" in the grand old manner. Ortolan88

Give me a break. Any musician who makes music that uses a blues scale (and incidentally, heavy metal like Metallica or Guns N' Roses or Yngwie Malmsteen is musically much, much closer to Spanish classical guitar forms than it is to blues), or is not pretty to listen to (e.g. Einsturzende Neubauten, Nine Inch Nails, John Cage, Karlheinz Stockhausen), or uses "sassy" and rebellious, in-your-face stylings that go against the grain of mainstream society (e.g. Dead Kennedys, Nirvana, Ludwig van Beethoven, Green Day) is, consciously or not, imitating "black style"? Geez. You could just as well say that Muddy Waters and Blind Lemon Jefferson were just, consciously or not, imitating the style of Spanish classical guitarists. The link is just as tenuous. In both cases, the mountain of other subsequent differences compared to a relatively small similarity (not to mention that black people do not have a historical monopoly on being "sassy" or making rough music) renders the proposed causal link nonsensical. --kwertii

Subtract the black contribution from world culture and I doubt if even Kate Bush would survive. Ortolan88

Subtract the 'white' contribution from world culture and there'd be alot missing, too. Ditto for the 'Asian contribution', the 'hispanic contribution', etc. What's your point?

The issue isn't technical similarities, it's in styles of dress and speaking -- if a Tuvan throat singer invented a style of throat singing and used black American slang and wore baggy jeans and pimpish suits and started a trend, the same idea would apply even through Tuvan throat singing has nothing whatsoever to do with anything African-American -- I've seen Native Americans playing traditional music, dressed like Kurtis Blow and they were influenced by African-Americans in a way that has nothing to do with blues scales, but a lot to do with diction, fashion, demeanor, slang... My comment about heavy metal was an exaggeration to prove a point -- there's obviously a big difference between Marilyn Manson and Muddy Waters, but there is a connection. It would also be true that there is a musical connection between Manson and Spanish classical guitar, but you'd have to go back pretty far to see it; Marilyn Manson's style is maybe two or three generations removed from the electric blues and white performers who directly imitated black artists -- spanish classical is much further back there. The link is much less tenuous. Tokerboy

---

I have been following the above discussion for some time, and have been trying to figure out whether I have anything to contribute when the discussion has managed to stray so far from the article in question (I mean, so far none of this is going in to the article itself), while still being interesting. I would hate to see it confined to the talk page. For what it is worth, it seems to me that there are three distinct issues at hand

First, "diffusion," or the spread of cultural traits. Anthropologists, historians, and geographers, among others, have long recognized that "culture" is not (or not just) a clearly bounded system, it is a melangue of things borrowed, lent, stolen, or shared across boundaries. Thus, Whites have influence Blacks, Blacks have influenced Whites, and you can find motifs from different forms of music all over the place. Some of the above discussion provides a good example of this and there may be a place for it in Ethnomusicology, Culture, or Culture theory. There is nothing controversial about this fact, but it is important to take into account in any history of such phenomena.

Second, sometimes diffusion is politicized, meaning that it occurs across some strcuture of inequality and that the meaning of what has or has not diffused is meaningful, not just as a type of cuisine or music, but as a statement of identity or a mark of exploitation. I think that in the case of music across the racial divide in the US this has sometimes been the case, and other times it has not -- at times Jazz has been celebrated or marginalized as "Black" music; at times it has been celebrated as American music involving a fusion of Black and White and providing a space in which people of different races can creatively work together. This can be a controversial topic, since it is almost impossible to talk "about" it without getting involved/taking some stand. But I think this is an issue worth exploring in articles on Rock and Jazz, among others, if it can be handled in a nuanced way.

Finally, there is the issue of blackface, which initiated this discussion. Although I think the above discussion is very interesting and important enough to merit inclusion in a variety of articles, I do think that in this context the discussion misses an important point. There is something unique about Blackface itself (I like many am both appalled and morbidly curious to figure out why it happened and what it meant) and certainly one part of it involves cultural appropriation (see no. two), and also a strange form of cultural identification (Whites wanting to appear Black, even if in a charicaturish form). Diffusion and appropriation (no. one) occured long before and after Blackface, and I think that to link Blackface as a particular phenomenon with other forms of appropriation and diffusion will muddy the issue and make it harder to understand Blackface in its specificity. I think it is significant that Elvis could sing the Blues without putting on Blackface (and I presume, without wanting to either). What made that possible? In any event, we need to be clear about how Elvis (or Stan Getz or Dave Brubeck) were different from Blackface in order to understand Blackface more fully. Or, conversely (and more to the point of this article), we need to be clear about how Jolsen was different from Elvis; how Blackface is different from Rock and Roll or Jazz. Slrubenstein

Well put, Slrubenstein. The sentences in question are "Certainly, white performers have continued to emulate black performers, but without the makeup. Frankie Laine, Johnny Ray, Elvis Presley, Bill Haley and his Comets, Mick Jagger, and many many more emulate a black style, both out of genuine admiration and out of recognition of the performance power of that style. Indeed, allusions to black style are virtually standard for rock and roll." I think this is true, accurate and relevant, though of course a complex discussion of black influence on popular music would be out of place here. Maybe I'll try and add to Music of the United States -- the issue at hand is whether "allusions" to "black style" are "virtually standard", and I believe it is unquestionably so. Tokerboy

What a great topic! It's really big in folk lore and cultural studies right now too. About a year ago, I was going over an unpublished doctoral dissertation on the subject of Jews and blackface--they were especially prominent in the vaudeville era. The argument was that for second-generation immigrants who felt marginalized by the ghetto-like social structures in which their parents moved, assuming a new identity through blackface was an opportunity to integrate into American society. The performers took the distinctly American identities that they perceived to be as far removed as possible from their own cultural milieu, thereby making the statement that we can fit into the dominant culture as much as they do. At the time, my comment to the author was that if I read her correctly, the performers were not "Whites pretending to be Black," but "Immigrants pretending to be Whites pretending to be Black"--i.e., a double masquerade. I don't have the paper (or the sources) with me anymore, but it is certainly worth looking into for the social background of blackface in the vaudeville era. Danny 00:46 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

---

Can someone who knows something about it write about the British television show Black and White Minstrels? When I visited England back in the 70s, I saw a show. The men wore blackface. I was shocked. -- Zoe

---

This article is pretty good and pretty well-balanced (from a NPOV perspective). One criticism, though: is all that stuff about "black style" and so on really necessary to make the point about white audiences being introduced to black/negro culture through blackface shows? Honestly...what the hell do Mick Jagger and Vanilla Ice really have to do with blackface?

---

I initially thought Ortolan's mentioning of whites appropriating/mimicking black performance styles was a little off-the-mark and, given the demeaning nature of blackface, a bit of a trivialization of black cultural contributions. I deleted his comments. But I came across a quote -- which I inserted in the article -- that explains the introduction and diffusion of black music through minstrelsy and the ongoing phenomenon of pale imitators of black musicianship/performance. And then it suddenly occurred to me the passage provided the perfect segue to Ortolan's comments. It's not so much about comparing the phenomenon itself to blackface, but understanding that the "browning" -- to borrow a term from Richard Rodriguez -- of American (and world) popular culture is a continuum. deeceevoice 22:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Ortolan: "It is naive to think that it only a matter of "covering black songs". Three chords, blue notes, sassy style, silly shtik, all trace their origins back to the minstrel shows. It's in a lot of country music too, maybe I should add that. History itself is overbroad. Ortolan88"

Agreed. I was thinking the same thing as I read the piece initially, but when I started to work it in, it was getting to be too involved a task to try to fit it into the framework of the existing verbiage, so I deleted the unfinished edit and left it alone. I'm crunching deadlines and don't have any time. But, indeed, African American music and musical stylings and the aesthetic of cool have had influences across many music genres, including country -- and, of course, beyond. deeceevoice 07:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article does a great job at describing who, what, when, where, how....but WHY did it happen? Why was there an audience for it? Someone out there must have published theories as to why. My theory is that white audiences were incapable of dealing with applauding a black performer, but wanted to experience the wonders of black entertainment....so blackface would be a logical solution...but then why black men in blackface? Why would a white audience not accept a black performer as a black performer, but accept a black performer in blackface? Kingturtle 05:30, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I recently checked out a book regarding Blackface minstrelsy and if I learn anything interesting I'll let you know. One theory is that the attitudes conveyed in blackface minstrelsy propagated a false impression that slaves were actually happy, go-lucky, and quite content in their subservient role and that this gave those in the North who felt sympathy towards the slaves, a warm fuzzy that things were "ok" down there in the South. And of course for Southerners it gave the feeling of superiority. Jeff schiller

"today most people associate blackface mainly with the demeaning attitudes towards persons of African ..."

You need to cite the research to back up this bald claim. "Most people"  ??? I'd be willing to bet that whoever wrote this doesn't have a clue about what "most people" think. "Most people" is at the least one person over 50% of the human race. Hence "most people" aint American english speakers and may have never even heard of blackface. It strikes me as sloppy writing in an otherwise excellent article. (unsigned post)

Why? The answer, to my mind, is obvious. Black-face was no different -- as it states in the article -- from theatrical productions about greedy Jews or drunken Irishmen in that they were stereotypical stage portrayals. Racism and white supremacy were commonly held values of the day. The color bar prevented black folks from performing onstage (and white women, as well, in such productions). So, white men played the buffoon in "darky" drag. They particularly delighted in playing overbearing black women and henpecked, simple-minded black men -- contributing to the pantheon of racist archetypes in American popular culture. Simple, sometimes mean-spirited amusement that reinforced white supremacist notions -- that, yes, contributed to the popular myths about happy, docile "darkies" down in Dixie. deeceevoice 18:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's such a powerful archetype in American culture, I'm thinking it may merit a separate entry. deeceevoice 01:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) Someone also may want to add mention of Amos 'n' Andy. (I've already included a link.)deeceevoice 04:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm a techno-idiot, so I haven't a clue how to add images. But someone should include a darky image from one of the many artifacts of America's past -- an advertisement, or something, preferably in color. deeceevoice 04:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've got photos. I visited the "How To" section, but couldn't find anything. Tips, anyone? deeceevoice 08:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Upload file on the side bar. -- Error 01:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English language (I think), black Darkie toothpaste featuring a darky is still on sale in India. Apparently you can also buy "cock soup" in Indian markets. After finding Sinosplice and the PR Museum, it could be China or Japan instead of India.

I wonder what is to happen of Conguitos. There is already some of an anti campaign. I see that there are white Conguitos now. And they carried a spear, I think. Whatever. -- Error 01:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fazer uses a logo on one of their candies that some finde offensive. [1] // Liftarn

I added the part in bold to the following paragraph:

The songs of northern composer Stephen Foster figured prominently in blackface minstrel shows of the period. Though written in dialect, they were free of the ridicule and blatantly racist caricatures that so characterized other songs of the genre. Foster's works treated slaves and the South in general with an often cloying sentimentality that appealed to audiences of the day. Foster depicted slaves in family situations, as in his song "Old Folks at Home". This was the mirror image of the horror of the destruction of slave families that was a key plot element in both Uncle Tom's Cabin and Huckleberry Finn. Despite their strong sympathies, these authors also fell back on darky stereotypes.

deeceevoice objected to the next-to-last word, darky, but deleted the whole marked section. I believe that it is important, not to amliorate the racism of the blackface show, but to give a feeling for the racial attitudes at the time, to note the issues raised in the bolded section above. What is amiss with it if you simply remove the word darky? Granted, it isn't directly on topic, but until we have an article about all aspects of black influence on American culture, this is the best place for this stuff, I think. Ortolan88 19:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I may have mentioned only your, IMO, inaccurate use of the word "darky"; but, actually, I think the entire comment is unnecessary, which is why I deleted it. Further, Foster didn't always depict black folks in "family situations." Your earlier point (that I reworked in more formal English) is Foster's generally sympathetic treatment of blacks. The more accurate characterization of Foster's works is their soppy sentimentality. No one is suggesting that your comments are an attempt to "ameliorate the racism of the blackface show." My objection to your use of the term "darky" is not only about the general characterization of the works of Stowe and Twain as dealing with "darky stereotypes" (which is not wholly accurate); it is not on point. The allusion to Stowe and Twain, because they did not write for minstrel shows (presumably, the only reason you mentioned Foster in the first place), is wholly unnecessary. The nature of their works, IMO, is best left to another discussion/article. This shouldn't become a catch-all for commentary on race and racism in American society. Let's try to stick to the subject at hand: blackface. You write of the need to "give a feeling for the racial attitudes at the time." I believe that's already been done in describing racist stage stereotypes and their powerful role in the shaping of attitudes about blacks -- all within the context of blackface. deeceevoice 00:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are Mickey Mouse#First gloved appearance, Goofy, Minnie Mouse, Pete whatever, the cow, and many of the characters in the Disney universe (but for ducks) blackface? -- Error 01:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I grew up in the bad, old days and remember the blatant racism of Disney and the other animation studios. Here're a few links you might find helpful.

http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=3061&si=121

http://www.animatedbuzz.com/WB/13.html

http://www.januarymagazine.com/artcult/thatsenough.html

For additional information, I suggest you use your search engine. There are lots of online examples of racism and darky archetypes in children's animated cartoons. Disney had darkies, buck-toothed "Japs," etc., etc.deeceevoice 01:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Error, for your addition on Mickey Mouse! I added the first link later after looking up Mickey Mouse on the web. (I'm not old enough to remember the 1933 release of "The Meller Drammer.") While the racist cartoons are ingrained in my memory, I wasn't aware of Mickey playing "one of us" and a character called Horace Horsecollar trying to whip him. Wild stuff. I've left a note in the article on Mickey Mouse about that particular production. It seems to me it bears mention there, as well. (I haven't read the MM article, but I did notice it makes reference to the first gloved appearance of Mickey -- but there's no reference (I don't think) to minstrelsy or Mickey in blackface. If it's not mentioned, it certainly should be.) Peace. deeceevoice 09:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tried to reorder the paragraphs so that they made some sense chronologically. Don't know if I've succeeded, though -- if the article still hangs together as well. deeceevoice 13:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've the gotten permission of an antique dealer to use a great photo of a vintage "Jolly Nigger" mechanical bank in JPEG format. Now, what the hell do I do with it? And on the image page, can I give credit for the photo? deeceevoice 13:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've never done this myself but as has been described to you above, I suggest visiting the Upload file page. It seems pretty straightforward. Good luck! Regards, Jeff schiller 18:22, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Hello all, what are your references for this material? Also, can you rephrase the headings because they are reflecting the POV of the authors (even if I agree with that POV). We can't have this, see NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IMO, the headings are not violative of NPOV any more than the article is. (This is standard knowledge, folks.) The headings are properly reflective of the article's content and are meant to be provocative and informative in and of themselves. As long as the content of the article is solid, IMO, then there should be no problem with the subheads -- but I'll revisit them, nonetheless. Will get around to hunting up authoritative backup eventually, but more pressing (and interesting) matters presently occupy my time. Thanks for your input. For a more detailed response, please see the featured article candidate page by following the link at the top of the page. Peace. deeceevoice 10:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Change reference to persistence of blackface from "America" to simply world "popular culture." Add a clause/sentence about changed demographics in the Netherlands (it ain't Kansas no mo'). Briefly mention persistence of darky iconography in Europe and the Third World. Possibly incorporate paragraph about artsy-fartsy use of blackface into para re later uses of blackface (Spike Lee, et al.). Don't forget to consider subheads in the "darky iconography section" (it's long). And then, I think, you're done. deeceevoice 16:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Now, the references -- when you can get to it. deeceevoice 13:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• More references.
• Section on black performers -- and don't continue to assume people konw that there were black audiences.
• Research Hallam and first recorded blackface performance. Someone (apparently erroneously) credited Rice with "inventing" blackface -- when he didn't -- and you didn't catch it! Big mistake!
• Assemble photos for montage. Follow up on requests for use of Auckland "coon" photo, etc.
• More info on discrediting of blackface. deeceevoice 13:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Question moved from Wikipedia:Contact us:

At one point in my education I thought I read that blackfcase had been made illegal by entertainment laws? Is this true? It doesn't just seem to be taboo anymore, but morally apprehensible-unless you are Dave Chapelle, doing 'white face'. I support artistic expression as well as dangerous art, is there an invisible line that when crossed you are marked as a racist when really you are just pushing the boundries and causing people to feel. Shouldn't some good art make you feel rage? Blackface made it's characters one dimensional, and that is what became offensive. How is this different than a man playing a woman-chinese opera-drag queens? Why to we accept some kinds of stereotypical impersonations and reject others. Black men got to vote before women did- women have surely been opressed in this country and around the world---Are we so high and mighty now that we don't see that all characters on television are one dimensional-hidden far less honestly than under a film of makeup? There will always be blackface though the makeup has dissapeared.

I don't know anything about blackface actually being illegal. I would think that First Amendment rights would apply, in which case no law actually forbidding blackface would have been able -- or be able -- to stand. The article takes no stance on any of this; it simply explains what blackface is and its history as a theatrical tool the role it has played in the creation and proliferation of darky iconography. You will note that last week I made an addition to the piece that puts the use of blackface in the context of "artistic" use:

Over time, blackface and darky iconography became artistic and stylistic devices associated with art deco and the Jazz Age. By the 1950s and '60s, particularly in Europe, where it was still tolerated, blackface became a kind of outre, camp convention in some artistic circles. The Black and White Minstrel Show was a popular British musical variety show that featured blackface performers, and remained on British television until 1978. A blackface actor appeared in Dutch-German pop singer Taco Ockerse's 1982 music video "Puttin' on the Ritz," which aired in the U.S. regularly on MTV.

deeceevoice 08:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just read that business about, "Blackface made it's characters one dimensional, and that is what became offensive." Ha! That's a load of relativist bull. Literature and art are full of one-dimensional characters that are perfectly benign. Blackface is racist, and that's what makes it so offensive. deeceevoice 10:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some performers of genuine talent performed in blackface, including Al Jolson; Eddie Cantor; Mickey Rooney; and actor and comedian Bert Williams, who was the first black performer in vaudeville and on Broadway.

Is it saying that blackface performers were, in general, not talented? And if so, what about them displayed their lack of talent? - Vague | Rant 07:38, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

You make a good point. I didn't write that particular paragraph, so I've generally sort of skipped over it -- though I noticed it, too -- one of those annoying, little things that trips one, catches at the corner of one's mind as one reads. But I have to say (a teeny bit shame-facedly) I've been more concerned about other aspects of the article. The absence of anything like publishing deadlines on Wikipedia -- save for, perhaps, something being a "tomorrow's featured article" -- encourages a kind of inertia/procrastination in such matters. (A similar laziness has kept me from digging up the requested sources to qualify this piece for featured article status. It's on my list of things to do ... eventually.) I'm sure I, you, or someone else would've gotten around to dealing with it eventually; but I'm glad you mentioned it when you did. I tweaked it a little; perhaps you now find it acceptable? If not, please, have at it. Peace. deeceevoice 08:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that a lot of the cartoons like Tom and Jerry have had blackface scenes (usually the result of the cartoon physics of a large firecracker explosion) removed. I used to see these as a kid, but now they are faded out quickly or cut completely. They don't seem at all racial (for the most part, unless it's exaggerated), it just gets absorbed into the larger gag. Has anyone else noticed this (particularly on Cartoon Network)?   –radiojon 19:32, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Well, if they're blackface, they're racial -- which is why they're often deleted or the cartoons are simply not aired. The few examples I've seen the few times I've watched the Cartoon Network, however, have not been abbreviated in any way. deeceevoice 15:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As this article already grew to impressive size, i must say it would be great to give a short introduction to the whole topic in the beginning of the article. what is blackface, is it racial, popular examples, etc - everything in a nutshell. thanks, --Abdull 14:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the introduction needs to be changed. It already describes what it is, where it originated, that it is clearly racist in origin. That's a lot of information in a few, short sentences. Further, if someone is looking for more information in a particular area, the subheads are there to guide the reader. Going into more detail in the lead paragraph would simply make the article even longer -- and, IMO, needlessly so. deeceevoice 15:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I gather that there is quite a literature on this topic (of which I admit I've read little), and this article seems mostly not to reference it. For starters, has someone working on this read Eric Lott's Love and Theft? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Mae West certainly deserves mention. I don't know enough about her to say whether she did actual blackface (although I believe she did) but she certainly appropriated African American style bigtime. Also, Frank Sinatra often (up until the mid-1960s) went into a distinctly African American persona in his stage patter, although he never did blackface in the literal sense.

I don't have extensive knowledge here, nor citations — these things went by in passing at a conference I recently attended, with audiotapes of Sinatra and film clips of Mae West to back up the claims. If someone has appropriate citations, please add these to the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:15, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't want to get into the legions of white performers who've stolen/appropriated black performance styles. Already, the list of whites who've performed in blackface is ridiculously long (people keep adding to it --as though it's supposed to be exhaustive). The article is, after all, about blackface. It's not an examination of the appropriation of black culture by white majority culture. That subject could go on forever. deeceevoice 17:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mae West may well have done blackface in the narrow sense. As I said, I'm not sure, but someone else may be. Given her unusual degree (for a white person of her generation) of involvement in black culutural milieux, and given her stature as a writer and performer, if she did do blackface, I think it merits mention. This was more by way of a query. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:49, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Weirdly, we don't have an article about cultural appropriation. We should, it should be linked from here, and probably that's where some of this material should be. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:53, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Further, let's not confuse what blackface is. The earlier version of this article, I thought, did -- equating white appropriation of black culture with it. The two are certainly not one and the same. I rewrote the section to examine the precedent set by blackface in this regard (cultural appropriation). IMO, one does not do such an extreme device as "blackface in [a] narrow sense." Either one greases up or one doesn't. But I'm in agreement that cultural appropriation is certainly worthy of an article. deeceevoice 18:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article portrays as if Zwarte Piet is very controversial in the Netherlands which is not true. Zwarte Piet is generally accepted and there is very little debate about it. I know, I used to live in the neighboorhood (Bijlmer) of the Netherlands where many black people lived and there I had only seen once during the 10 years that I lived there a protest against him with the slogan "Zwarte Piet, zwart verdriet" (En:Black Pete, black sorrow). So unless references are provided for what is written I will rewrite the paragraphs about Zwarte Piet. (Dutch are so sentimentally attached to this tradition that it will probably won't go away.) Andries 05:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read the article again. It expresses both viewpoints and does not make any statements regarding the extent of the controversy. In my reading about the ugly phenonemon of Zwarte Piet, it seems white Dutch particularly have a tendency to downplay the controversy. The same can be said of the golliwog in England -- though British public institutions seem finally to have faced up to the racism of the tradition. I expect that, as the Netherlands' population of color increases, the tradition will eventually disappear -- regardless of how obtuse the general public appears to be at present (even going so far as to flat-out lie about the tradition, claiming Zwarte Piet is black because he's a chimney sweep. But that doesn't explain the blackamoor garb, the Afro wigs, the google eyes and the big-red-lipped darky iconography, now -- does it?). If you doubt the seriousness of the controversy, I invite you to investigate some of the outside links provided. There is nothing whatsoever over-the-top about the article's treatment of Zwarte Piet. The controversy is completely accurately characterized deeceevoice 06:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I admit that this is a big controversy abroad and among foreigners but not among the Dutch population both black and white. Andries 06:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully, "Bull!" Like I said, check out the links. And then simply google "Zwarte Piet racism" and see what you come up with. No, it's not just "outsiders" who take offense at this blatantly racist tradition.deeceevoice 06:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These articles were written by foreigners and I do not dispute that the practice is controversial among foreigners living in the Netherlands. Andries 07:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The film was made by a filmmaker living in Rotterdam. Further, if you'd bother to read the various discussion threads on the Internet on the subject, you'd find that there IS considerable controversy in the Netherlands on the subject. deeceevoice 07:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I felt compelled to return to also add that the controversy surrounding Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands is a process. The Surinamese population (and others of color) there is growing (despite deportations targeting blacks), and they are slowly gaining political sophistication and economic clout. The kinds of indignities and insults the economically and politically powerless will suffer in relative silence (and often presenting a public face of indifference or resignation, "the mask"), will no longer be tolerated once these same people become organized and empowered. Dutch society certainly isn't exempt from insensitivity and blatant racism -- as this tradition so graphically illustrates. It's simply a matter of time before government-sanctioned, public Zwarte displays are officially criticized, discouraged and then forbidden -- no matter how comfortable/complacent so many whites have grown with the tradition. It's all about "the motion of history." deeceevoice 07:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that criticizing Zwarte Piet is perceived as an attack on Dutch culture because this is a cherished typicall Dutch tradition about which many Dutch people have fond childhood memories. It is not a minor thing that can easily be abolished. Blacks here are mostly silent about it, possibly because they realize they will make themselves intensely unpopular by complaining about it. Andries 08:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Understood. But, increasingly, blacks and whites (in the Netherlands) are speaking out about it -- and it's a tradition that holds the Dutch nation up for considerable ridicule in the eyes of outsiders. The Dutch explanation that it's a quaint, Yuletide tradition, that they just love their little darky Xmas mascot to pieces 'cuz it gives them warm, fuzzy feelings just doesn't quite cut it in the court of world public opinion. I'm sure there are lots of white southerners here in the U.S. who yearn for the days of Tara and Rhet Butler and Scarlet O'Hara, with Butterfly McQueen's negress character actin' all simple-minded and waiting on her white mistress hand and foot. But "slavery chains done broke at last," and Atlanta burned.

I didn't say I thought abolishing the tradition would be easy or immediate. But internal and external pressures eventually will come to a head, and Zwarte Piet will go the way of the dinosaur: extinction or mutation to something completely inoffensive -- and that means no more "respectable" white folks acting like some Euro-white-trash version of backwoods peckerwoods, dressing up in blackface and nappy wigs and playing dumb darkies. deeceevoice 08:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, IMO, the departure of this racist tradition -- which needs to simply disappear -- is retarded by people who offer apologist lies about Zwarte Piet's identity, who want to sweep the controversy under the rug, claiming that accurate accounts of the controversy are "exaggerated" and that only "outsiders" find it objectionable (as though that would make it all right, even if it were true, which it certainly is not). deeceevoice 09:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deeceevoice, you are probably right that the Dutch tradition should disappear but please do not use Wikipedia for advocacy. The truth is that Zwarte Piet is somewhat contoversial in the Netherlands, not very controversial, whether you like it or not. The external links give a distorted picture of the controversy because these links were written by or for foreigners. If Zwarte Piet was so controversial then how is it possible that the most popular and most prestigious supermarket chain and warehouse chains Albert Heijn and De Bijenkorf respectively have no problem at all to depict Zwarte Piet on many of their products? Moreover attempts to introduce Piets of different colors were very unsuccessfull. If Zwarte Piet were really controversial this would not be the case. Andries 19:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Andries. It's not really the question if it should be widely recognised as a controversial tradition and therefore abolished but if it really is recognised as such, which is, in my experience as a Dutchman, not the case. The vast majority just sees it as part of the tradition without any thought of racism whatsoever. Lankhorst 22:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Were the hell have I used Wikipedia for advocacy? Nowhere in the article is this done -- so lay off. (You're trying my patience.) deeceevoice 15:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me Deeceevoice has an axe to grind making blatently POV statements like "In my reading about the ugly phenonemon of Zwarte Piet....." So, you think Zwarte Piet is ugly (and before you bother, I have no doubt you could prove that there are others who agree with you so dont waste your time). You have every right to that Point Of View. BUT thats all it is. A point of view. To some people Santa Clause is evil personified...this is the wrong place to go into the whys and wherefors, but again, thats just POV. And Wiki is supposed to avoid POV.

'Scuse me. But before you presume to lecture me on Wiki policy, get it right. There is absolutely nothing which prohibits opinions on discussion pages. That is, in part, what they're for! (Jus' day-um.) lol deeceevoice 01:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, the controversy is overstated. Zwarte Piet is iconized as the right hand of Sinterklaas, bringing presents as well as punishment, depending on the behaviour of the children involved. You may criticise the servant status, but Zwarte Piet is not generally percieved as evil. Little children are afraid of Zwarte Piet, but I think they tend to be afraid of everything that looks strange, and it is not connected to a black stereotype. As soon as they get bigger they will run to any Zwarte Piet they can find to get candy. Actually, some white-faced Pieten have come along, usually black people spoofing the stereotype.
  Please fix this aspect of the article. Deeceevoice is right in that opinions have a place here, but keep those on the discussion page and not in a featured article. Regardless of the controversy is has generated in some circles, the vast majority of Dutch society has no issues with the tradition. Whether this should change is open for discussion, but should not be mixed in with the fact that it is not currently under debate. - ovvldc 08:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The part about the controversy is really exagerated. While, personally, I am surprised that it raises no controversion on a large scale (in the real world, not wikipedia, that is :p ), I must say that this part is really POV and gives a biased view of the reality.

Deleting the unnecesary last sentence (which is the "conclusion") would really improve this part. Besides, the link is a Blog with an entry from "an American on adventure in Amsterdam" (I moved this link (7) to a better place) and this part is repeated in the wiki-article of Zwarte_Piet.

"So, at least once a year in the Netherlands, the debate over the harmlessness, or racism, of Zwarte Piet resurfaces—along with, the usual, smiling golliwog dolls; strolling <<Zwarte Pieten>> tossing sweets to eager children and other passersby; and the sometimes jarring storefront-darky images."

This also fits better in the Zwarte_Piet article. A shorter text would be better more suited here. KevinGovaerts 02:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the part of this article about Black Peter is for the most part quite good and informative. However I do think that it refers to a somewhat old fashioned way he was seen. First of all, Black Peter is not mean (in fact, he's quite popular with many children nowadays) and I doubt if there are still children that think that all black people are Black Peters nowadays (though that sort of thing happened when there weren't many black people in the Netherlands). The controversy debate was there a few years ago (when the Coloured Peters appeared), but seems to have calmed down since. What I am curious about too though is what colour Peter is in Surinam and the Antilles, where it is celebrated too, and where most people descent from African slaves.

I think most people would be surprised to know that in Suriname we've always (well, as far back as I can remember) had a blackfaced "Zwarte Piet". There has been some protest over the years, but most people have no problem with it. Personally, I've always been more afraid of Sinterklaas himself, not Zwarte Piet!

Just a note on my Saturday July 30 minor edit of the questioned section- I'm really not taking sides because I have no information by which to do so. The only opinion I had was that there was some serious abuse of the comma going on in one of those sentences, so I cleaned up the grammar. I figure that if I've edited a section apparently this contested, I should probably note that I don't necessarily agree with it! Kistaro Windrider 07:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, you seem to be driving this article well, so I thought I'd just throw in a comment rather than jump in and edit (especially because I am not expert on the topic). It seems to me that there should be some material contextualizing blackface performance in terms of other ethnic and racial stereotypes in theatrical performance in the late 19th and early 20th century. While blackface was undoubtedly the most widespread, I know that there were similar stage caricatures of Chinese, Italians, and Jews (not to mention how Native Americans were portrayed at the time); I'm sure there were also similar caricatures of other groups, but for these three I've seen a significant amount of sheet music, posters, etc., comparable to what one sees for blackface in character, if not in quantity. Do you agree that this should be mentioned? And, if so, do you happen to have relevant material, or should I go do some research? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:57, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This matter is addressed early on in the article. I see no need to go into that matter further, as this article is specifically about blackface. Further, the subject at hand, I think, is complex enough, the article already substantial enough in length, that broadening it to the treatment of other ethnic groups in theater would be imprudent. Perhaps there should be a separate article on the subject, related to/referenced by some other article on, say, theater, or archetype, or racism, etc. About sheet music and blackface, specifically: I added sheet music (a few days ago) to the list of items where darky iconography was evident. It was such an obvious and pervasive thing, I don't see how I could neglect to mention it. See the subhead on this page related to a suggested side-by-side photo montage. I'd love to use an image of the sheet music of the day there. deeceevoice 12:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Additional remark: I see the "Blackface spinoffs" section, but the emphasis seems to be specifically on the fact that these things also worked specifically with face-coloring rather than with ethnic and racial stereotyping, which seems to me to be slightly beside the point. The fact that the equivalent in portraying Jews used big fake noses rather than face color seems to me a triviality. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Didn't write that section, and I've kind of glossed over it. Will take a look at it later after I accomplish some other tasks related to this article (and knock out a few work deadlines) and see what's what. But keep in mind that this article is, again about blackface -- a theatrical device, the hallmark of which was, indeed, face paint. You seem far too inclined to expand the scope of the article beyond what I think germane to this very specific subject. Mention of related devices which change the skin color of an actor to represent another ethnic group is precisely on point. While other techniques are related, treatment of such measures would be going into far more detail than is warranted here. Once again, this article is not about racial/ethnic stereotyping, generally. But thanks for your ongoing suggestions and comments. Keep 'em comin'. :) deeceevoice 12:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to significantly expand the article in this direction, I just want to provide links (either as a "see also" list, or one appropriate prose paragraph) to articles (or future articles) that will lead people to the other similar phenomena that help to contextualize this. Right now, as I read it, we have links to several ethnicities, but not to articles (or articles-to-be) about these similar phenomena in the popular entertainment of the time. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:08, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Another question I notice that the article doesn't address: when blackface was in vogue, to what extent were African Americans among its audience? Were there Blackface performers on the Black Vaudeville circuit? I'm guessing there were, but I don't know. And when did African American organizations first start protesting against Blackface comedy? I'd guess 1890s, but again, I don't know. I'd imagine there is some pretty interesting material out there somewhere to cite.

I know that right about that period is when Jewish organizations started protesting the so-called "Hebrew comedians", and that one of the things they had to contend with was that Jews were a remarkably large portion of their audience. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Good question. Blacks enjoyed minstrel shows, too. Of course, they attended the black shows, where the humor was one of familiarity and affectionate recognition -- with an understanding, of course, that these were buffoons, not accurate depictions of who and what black people were. (It's one thing to laugh at yourself/your people; it's another to have white folks doing it -- kind of like the use of the word "nigger." Blackface was, in its essence, after all, all about white folks shouting "Nigger!" in a different way.) It was an opportunity to see black folks onstage, performing black music and doing comedy that manifested black sensibilities w/regard to matters of race. Minstrel shows were a hit. One of the first songs/routines I learned from childhood playmates, growing up in the Midwest (in those days, we were all first-generation "up South" as part of the Great Migration) was "Open de do', Richard" and "Ah come to git duh muhnee fo' de mowgudge on duh house" -- straight outta blackface minstrelsy/vaudeville. Guess I assumed that people understood that; I should include it. Lots of the old tap dancers, especially, were the last blacks to perform in blackface. Used to be blacks couldn't get onstage without "blacking up," as they called it -- no matter how dark they naturally were. (Black minstrels didn't dare perform without blacking up until almost 1880.) deeceevoice 09:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I think I'd position a subsection on blacks in blackface in right after "The shaping of racist archetypes." When I have a chance, I'll check out a couple of things in my personal library and see what useful info I can dig up. And, of course, there's always the www. :) deeceevoice

As far as the timeline for protestation of blackface, there were always blacks who objected to it -- of course. My only knowledge of any concerted action against it is when the NAACP began an effort to get rid of it in the 1950s. Will do some reading up when I have time. Right now, I've got deadlines. I'm in the process of intermittently giving the article a good once over, getting ideas for adding references, so this is a good time to raise such questions. It crossed my mind a while back to about add a section on black blackface performers -- one of these days. I just hadn't given it enough thought to mentally put it in sequential context for the article. But a separate section, I suppose, would be appropriate on blacks in blackface that would mention explicitly that black audiences also enjoyed black blackface. In fact, Bert Williams' sadsack "Mr. Nobody" was a big hit with black folks, and he got extremely wealthy playing that character. I didn't want to just tack them on to seemingly endless (and ever-growing) list of others -- and, thus, encourage more such ad nauseam listing of the type that goes on with "snaps" in The dozens. (Annoying as hell.)deeceevoice 10:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting that concerted action would come that late. I'd have bet there was something earlier. Might be an interesting research topic some time. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, certainly Bert Williams was popular with Blacks and Whites about equally. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Question: have you read Eric Lott's Love and Theft? I haven't—I'm currently on a longish waiting list for it at the local public library—but I heard him talk last month at the Pop Conference at EMP, and I suspect there may be a goldmine in some parts of that book. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what your first point is about. Concerted action about what? Blackface? Well, frankly, the NAACP, as the nation's most prominent civil rights/black advocacy organization up to that time had a few other things on its plate. Among other things, it was consumed with an anti-lynching campaign.
  • Absolutely. And, needless to say, Jewish groups had higher priorities, too, but starting about 1902 (if I remember correctly, citation not handy), there started being a good number of joint letters from organized Jewish groups objecting to the "Hebrew comedian" thing. Not sure on the other ethnicities; if there were writings in this period (especially from organized groups rather than individuals) protesting blackface as racially demeaning, it would be interesting to find and cite them; I'll keep my eyes open, though I know I won't get to this in the next month or so. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Yep. Williams was a celebrated actor, period -- but he remained bitter that, despite the respect he commanded because of his talent, despite his considerable wealth, he was still subject to the Jim Crow laws of the time. He had all that money and still couldn't go and do as he pleased.
• No. And I probably won't. There's another book on blackface on my lo-oong list of books to read -- the title of which escapes me at the moment. In all likelihood, I probably won't get around to reading either of them anytime soon, if at all. When you do read it, it'd be nice to read what you've learned. I wish you'd turn your attention in part to minstrel show. That article really sucks. The last I checked, it didn't even mention racism. It's really pathetic -- IMO, a perfect example of why some folks with "issues" should just leave a topic the hell alone. It's like trying to ignore the elephant in the room. Ridiculous. deeceevoice 09:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I will certainly let you know what a learn when I get my hands on Lott's book. As for minstrel show, I'm not going to get there in the next month, but I'll put it on my (admittedly long) list. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

What's say we emancipate Zwarte Piet? Currently, typing in this guy's name redirects to another, related character. I think he deserves a separate article. (There's enough material in blackface alone to make a decent start of one.) I don't know how to undo a redirect, if someone else does, then please take care of it. For now, just a sentence or two, with a referral to blackface would do for now -- unless someone has more time. Also, the list of outside references should be placed there, too. (If someone wants a chuckle, be sure to check out Boom Chicago, Amsterdam's rap video parody of a Run DMC release.) deeceevoice 10:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. The article is a skeleton and so far mentions none of the controversy surrounding the subject -- but it's now a discrete article, and that's a start. deeceevoice 16:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

nothing wrong with a short mentioning of the controversy there. Even the Dutch version mentions it. Andries 17:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Well, I wasn't exactly asking for permission/approval. I just don't have time at the moment. If someone else beats me to it, fine. The first thing was actually getting an article started. deeceevoice 22:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess now's the time also to bring up something else that's been buggin' me. I've been wondering about the category at the bottom of the page. Blackface isn't really a character, per se. Further, shouldn't there be other things listed that relate to African American history and culture, etc.? deeceevoice 10:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I've also been toying with the idea of doing side-by-side photos across the page of the progression of darky iconography. It's evident when one looks at the scattered photos on the page, but I think it would be even more striking/clearer with photos placed side by side to illustrate the continuum of the caricature. I don't suppose this is common on Wikipedia, but blackface is, after all, a visual phenomenon. And I think most people don't make the connection between a largely defunct theatrical device and the darky images that are so pervasive (and which persist) internationally when it comes to the portrayal of black people. Overkill? Comments? deeceevoice 10:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• You might want to try a Gallery. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Very cool. I will -- once I decide which photos to use. Thanks. :) deeceevoice 09:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

There's something else I noticed a while back. This article was rejected for featured article status ostensibly because it lacked "references." Not a problem; I applied for FAS on a lark. But then I noticed that Jazz is a featured article and has been for some time, apparently having been voted to that status when it was, IMO, a piece of crap. (At least it was when I discovered it, so I assume the quality of the article was the same or worse before then.) It's been improved substantially by the input of several people (myself included), but guess what? It's got nary a reference. Not a single, solitary one. So, what's that about? deeceevoice 11:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Probably got approved before we started getting hardass about that. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to Bosko and the related pic. The relationship of blackface to the development of Mickey Mouse is clear. Bosko, on the other hand, never appeared in blackface getup (in bushy sidewhiskers, white gloves and with reddened lips). He's essentially a black character. That's not the same as blackface. deeceevoice 02:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the section that tried relating blackface entertainment with various genres of popular music. Blackface was a specific type of performance that drew humor from exaggerating derogatory stereotypes. While music often accompanied the act, this article's subject does not center on that. It's absolutely absurd to try to relate blackface performances as a root of pop music. (anon 18 June 2005)

I see someone has reverted your changes -- and rightly so. You completely miss the point. This is explained earlier on the talk page. Blackface was the first meaningful appropriation of African American music on a massive scale. As such, it set a precedent which has changed the face of world popular culture forever. In this way, the influence of blackface has been immeasurable and long lasting. The first paragraph states that very clearly. If you still don't get it, read it again. deeceevoice 19:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to delete anything, but I'll make a strong mention that the section on American musical genres such as Jazz, Blues, and Rock & Roll is a complete and fictitious rant. Race never had anything to do with jazz, and the section seems more of an attack on musicians that happen to be white. Where does the writer get off insulting Janis Joplin? Jazz always has been and always will be a collaboration of musicians that has nothing to do with race whatsoever. Read up on the history of jazz, whoever wrote that section; don't assume you have a good grip on musicology because you own a few Miles Davis records. One of Coltrane's greatest influences was Stan Getz, and Getz was influenced by several musicians, white, black, or otherwise. As a jazz musician I find it particularly offensive that people try to claim art forms as "essentially african american" or "essentially white". You can't put race into real art forms, unless it's the subject *of* the art form, such as blackface. Post-modernism, jazz, poetry, Mozart, et cetera, cannot be placed into the categories of race... that's why they're so appealing. They escape and transcend from the materialistic, skin-defined rants of people who can't see past their own prejudices. Sigh. (Anonymous artist, 13th of September, 2005)

"Race never had anything to do with jazz"? Like, you think a bunch of white folks could have as easily developed this music? That African musical roots and black cultural experience played no significant role? That it could have as easily arisen in, say, Sweden? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You, anonymous "artist, are way off base. I'm an African American, and I wrote the section (in predominant part). If you really are a jazz musician, then you should take some time and learn something about the art form and its history. You don't have to go far. Check out Jazz on this website. The originators, seminal contributors, baddest artists, the majority of innovators in the form overwhelmingly have been African American/black. I'm not going to waste my time hunting down a bunch of citations or links, but I suggest you Google "jazz." That it couldn't have originated from anyone other than people of African descent is clear.

Also Google "exploitation of jazz artists," or "ripped off black musicians," or some other related language. I did, and the very first thing I came across was a PBS special on the subject.[2] The history of African American artisty is rife with exploitation and outright theft. Hell, before there were many musically literate black jazz artists, white musicians and rip-off artists would sit in the front row at jazz clubs and write their riffs down note-for-note. Educate yourself and stop blowing smoke. It's naive, not to mention boring. deeceevoice 14:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah well, thanks for the personal attack on my intellect. Let me place in one more sigh before I go off on a musical lecture: Sigh... For one thing, the jazz article on wikipedia is akin to something you'd read in the "Highlights" magazine for kids. Let me simply point out the more glaring omissions without going into too much detail: Billie Holiday, Bill Evans, Johnny Mercer, Rodgers & Hart, Cole Porter, Lenny Breau, Nina Simone, Chet Baker, Django Reinhardt, Stephane Grappelli, Dave Brubeck, Sam Cooke (I know, go ahead, say it, "Sam Cook was a rock musician!"; well, that may be his reputation, but I'm not even going to pretend his "Bring it on Home to Me" and rendition of "Born by the River" aren't filled with heart-shattering jazz changes)... You might even want to throw in Frank Sinatra. Hmm... The article also says that jazz has particular roots in Mali and the Sahara region... Well, having actually listented to and studied West African music for the better part of a decade, I don't see it. But I could be wrong. I'm just trying to point out that that the wiki article is woefully poor. If I find the time, I might revise it. Anyway, I don't see where the tribal music of Ali Farka Toure and his ancestors has a relationship to american jazz (aside from being good music, of course). The music of Mali and of the Saharan parts of West Africa is much more akin to the Arabic and Muslim ballads (which, as the Arabic nomads ventured through the land which now belongs to the Basque and into what is now Ireland, spawned the Gigue and other Irish folksong). To me, the inception of jazz was, of course, greatly influenced by music and rhythm from West Africa (more towards Senegal, though, not Mali), but equally as heavily by the gypsy music of the Andalusians and, especially, the folk music of the French; all of which are heavily sown with a surrealists' disbelief in the world around them and a longing for the purity only music can bring. A case in point would be the music of Orchestra Baobab from Senegal, one of if not my most favorite bands. Though heavily influenced by French cafe and folk music and Cuban jazz from the exodus of Cuban musicians to West Africa after Castro took power, they still retain Senegal's surrealist musical facets. Their most recent album, "Specialist in All Styles", contained a particularly good example in the song "Dée Moo Wóor", about the death of the singer's father which brings to mind French surrealist films, Debussy's wishing for a better world in Arabesque, and Richard Wright's abject refusal to acknowledge of the cruelty of the world around him. I'd say two of the greatest influences on American jazz were, in fact, Debussy and Satie, if not Chopin as well. Finally, even though my discretionary time is extremely limited, I saw that the latin jazz section is a mockery of a stub, and therefore, must be expanded, so I'll try to get that done sometime soon (no, I'm not too happy Ibrahim Ferrer died before I could afford to see him in concert). Anyway, my main point is that music, true music, especially jazz, is a refuge away from the hateful ways of the rest of the world; the lines of *any physical attribute* with no prejudice whatsoever. I take serious issue with the notion in the article that nearly every American genre of music is due almost entirely to the contributions of one ethnic group. I'm not taking issue with the contributions of Black Americans at all, and I need to make that clear, because there are a lot of wolves in sheeps' clothing, inasmuch as they say one thing but aim for another in the old game of racial superiority (aren't those ugly, ugly words?). I'm not contesting that some greivously unethical white "musicians" (I can't call them musicians, so we'll refer to them as charlatans from here on out) stole the works of very gifted black musicians, and that record companies got in on the action in a wallet-fattening way (which hasn't changed); I'm one of those that advocate outright castration for people who steal the work of artists, namely when they use racial barriers to do so, particularly because I hold art and music in the *highest* reguard. My point is that not only is Jazz an American genre with influences from nearly every culture that drinks from the Atlantic, but moreover that it has come to express the most profound aspects of music which have absolutely nothing to do with someone's ethnicity. When I listen to Miles, I don't hear a black man playing the trumpet; I hear someone closer to me than my father or mother or lover laying next to me speaking so deeply into my soul I can barely think. When I listen to Stan Getz, I don't hear a white man playing the sax; I hear an angel carving song out of the air with his fingertips. Ah, well. I tried to explain what jazz means to me with 4 hours of sleep in the past 2.5 days and defend my intellect and musicianship. Unfortunately, it usually requires a cold day in hell to take my advice. Either way, deeceevoice, in keeping with my Buddhist principles and the Lao Tzu quote on your userpage, let me express my love for you. And if you like Lao Tzu, you should read a little Hui-Neng. (Formerly Anonymous Artist at thenoxx.deviantart.com)

The Mali/Islamic Africa connection with jazz is most clear in certain blues forms. If you doubt it, I suggest you rent Scorcese's installment on the blues, which aired on PBS sometime last year (I think).

I didn't write much of the jazz article. I got in on redefining the form, because the article -- already a featured article -- really sucked big time when I first saw it. There was no mention of its essential elements at all. I moved on to other things, but was also dismayed at the lack of any mention at all of numerous jazz greats after the 1940s. I, too, could provide a long list. Hell, when I left it (I don't know what state it's in today), there was no mention of Mingus, Coltrane, Roach, Nina, Vaughan, Holiday, Hunter, Hancock, McBee, Brown -- one could go on and on. (How the hell can there be a credible article on jazz without Coltrane?) And I wrote about the shortcomings of the article and the need to flesh out the article in this regard on the discussion page.

IMO, there is absolutely no argument that the originators of jazz were African-American -- and, overwhelmingly, the innovators through the years, as well. By far, the most formative influences in Western popular music across the decades, likewise, have been African-American in origin. To say as much does not imply that jazz musicians must be black, or that (ridiculously) one somehow hears color when listening to a piece. While I understand/appreciate your sensibilities, that much of your somewhat lengthy missive was wasted verbiage. The information in the article is on point and absolutely correct. Funny how no one disputes the origins of opera, or kabuki, or yodeling, or klezmer -- but when black folks lay claim to our own, white people get the a**. :p

I have a quote on my page from Martin King, too, but I'm not nonviolent. :p But, yeah. I got love fuyyah, too. Peace. deeceevoice 09:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Quite a lot of Morris dance sides wear black facepaint when they're dancing; especially Border Morris and Molly dancers. So far as I know, this is nothing to do with the black-and-white minstrel tradition, and it's not meant to be an attempt to resemble black people, but the parallel evolution is interesting. Might it be worth including a reference to this, and if so does anyone know enough about the subject to do so? (anon 25 June 2005)

• Might be worth a passing mention, but no more. I'd imagine, given the geography of Morris dancing, that it's about coal mining. (Somewhere in there ought to be a decent pun on Morris Minor, but I can't quite work out how to get there.) But a citation on that would be good. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:22, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I appologise for diving in and adding a section on Border Morris, without checking in the talk page first. I think it is worth a "See also", because it is sometimes referred to as Blackface Morris, and most Border Morris groups acknowledge that it may have been copied from minstrel troupes. — PhilHibbs | talk 18:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Since "Morris" dancing is, etymologically, "Moorish" dancing, I'd suspect that it's blackface. (dd)

It's still not directly relevant to this article. The "Compare" link suffices. deeceevoice 18:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed before, but thought I'd put in my two cents. As others have mentioned, I think the article as it now stands conflates black musical influence with blackface. Listing artists influenced by black music is kind of pointless; everyone in American music (virtually) has both black and white influences. (Howling Wolf loved Jimmie Rodgers, for instance; Robert Johnson was a big fan of Bing Crosby; the most influential soul backing group of all time was interracial, etc. etc.)

Which isn't to say that blackface has no impact on current music, just that it's a little more complicated than simple influence. That is, John Zorn's tribute to Ornette Coleman has nothing to do with blackface (that I can see); Madonna's stage show (as discussed in bell hooks' "Black Looks" I believe) certainly does. The core of blackface, it seems to me, was the adoption of a racist stereotype as a performance style. Though the racist stereotype in question has changed over the years (the gangster persona is rather different than the happy-go-lucky darky) the money-making potential has not. I think talking about this is regard to a handful of artists (say, Elvis, Mick Jagger, Madonna, Vanilla Ice, NWA) might be more enlightening than suggesting that any white performer who has African-American influences is indebted to blackface (since inter-racial musical borrowing probably goes back at least to the first slave-ships, and quite possibly before that.)

We also might want to mention that eschewing black influences or performance styles is not necessarily an anti-racist move. On the contrary, Scandinavian black metal eschews blues influences because of white nationalist beliefs.

What do you all (and deeceevoice in particular) think? Should I rewrite that section along these lines, or just go find other articles to meddle with? NoahB 16:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Rereading the section, I see that it is "performance styles" and not influence per se that is emphasized. Still, I think it might be worth making it a little clearer what's at stake.... for instance, it seems to me that Led Zeppelin, despite their use of blues forms and coverage of blues songs, isn't a particularly good example of a band that appropriates black performance styles (Robert Plant sure doesn't sound like Muddy Waters to me; I mean, he sings about Vikings, y'know?) But again, I'll hold off for other's opinions..... NoahB 16:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the section treats the precedent set by blackface in terms of exposing American and world popular culture to African American music, comedic and dance, focusing on the subsequent pervasive influence of black cultural expression as manifested in the music and performance styles of various performers. It does not equate cultural appropriation with a lack of racism. As a matter of fact, such appropriation/adoption of black cultural expression is often (though certainly not necessarily) accompanied by a great deal of racism. So, no. It is not necessary or desirable to mention that "eschewing black influences... is not necessarily ... anti-racist." Nor does the article emphasize performance styles, necessarily. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at -- because, quite frankly, I think you've missed the point, reading more into the text than is actually there. However, my suspicion is that, yes, you may be better off "find[ing] other articles to mess with." :p deeceevoice 17:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but my point is that black cultural expression as manifested in the "music" has little to do with blackface, while that manifested in the "performance styles" has a lot to do with it. But I'll leave well enough alone. Sorry to bother you. NoahB 18:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Not a bother at all. I appreciate the interest. But, still, I get the impression you're missing the point. Black cultural expression as manifested in popular music has everything to do with blackface in the sense that blackface is the identifiable starting point at which black cultural expression was made available to a wider public; it is the beginning of the continuum of the dissemination of black performance culture into popular culure/the mainstream. It is the first real instance wherein whites appropriated/mimicked black music and black performance styles and took them mainstream. All the groups and individuals mentioned are products of that continuum, of that continuity of cultural dissemination -- whether they perform black music or black-influenced music (like Elvis), or simply have appropriated black performance styles (also like Elvis, or Mick Jagger, or some country singer swaggering onstage, deadpan, wearing sunglasses and trying to act "cool." Blackface was the starting point. I feel like I'm repeating myself, so I'm probably not communicating. I, too, will leave it at this. deeceevoice 18:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I just can't leave well enough alone, I guess. I'm somewhat skeptical that blackface is the ur-moment for the dissemination of black musical and performance styles (Can blackface even be considered "black" in music or style? Al Jolson sure sounds like a cantor to me...) I'm thinking of a quote in the book "Creating Country Authenticity" in particular, where the author notes that white performers often liked to credit a particular black performer as the inspiration for their style, in part in an attempt to downplay the extent to which white and black performance styles were so mixed as to be essentially indistinguishable. I think blackface is extremely important (and relevant) as an influential form in its own right, and as the prototype of a particular racial politics endemic in popular music. Anyway, your further explanation of your position has made it clearer to me how we differ, and while it might be entertaining to try to reconcile the two perspectives, I will continue to keep my hands off unless you suddenly feel I shouldn't. Take care. NoahB 19:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with the music of blackface would not seriously question whether the music was black or black-inspired. Even the primary instrument of blackface minstrelsy, the banjo, was an African American creation. The only explanation for your statement I can come to is that you aren't -- Al Jolson notwithstanding. Additionally, after the Civil War, African Americans also performed in blackface, and black troupes also traveled abroad (or didn't you pick up on that from reading the article?). As a matter of fact, for a long time, blacks couldn't appear onstage without "blacking up." While, obviously, white performers differed in their intent and ability faithfully to reproduce not only black dialect, but black music and dance, as well, no knowledgeable source/historian doubts that the defining creative force which so characterized blackface minstrelsy was African American culture -- often bastardized, parodied, even ravaged merciless, later straight from African Americans themselves. But the basic DNA of blackface minstrelsy is undeniably African-American. deeceevoice 20:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

For a layperson, I'm pretty familiar with blackface performance -- Bert Williams, Al Jolson, a lot of early country and jazz. And I know the banjo is an African instrument, too. I think that, like most American music (the cakewalk for instance) it had black and white roots . Still, can't hurt to learn more. I may go read up on it and see if I have something to contribute later. Take care. NoahB 00:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

All knowledgeable contributions are welcome. Peace. :) deeceevoice 01:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thought it would be useful to add info on blackface's more direct influences on later music. Hope you agree.....NoahB 18:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Good additions. This had been discussed some time back, but was never attended to. Though aware of the influence of black music on country music, I, myself, neither being a fan of, or being familiar with country, had nothing specific to add in that regard. Glad you added it. deeceevoice 07:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference for Hallam as the first blackface performer? Dale Cockrell's book "Demons of Disorder" doesn't mention him. Cockrell does point out, though, that blackface was often used in productions of Othello in the early 1700s.... NoahB 18:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Blackface is separate and distinct from an actor darkening his face to play a black character -- as in Shakespeare's "Othello." Blackface is a particular style of makeup, as described in the introduction, that is a grotesque caricature of blacks, used to lampoon and ridicule the race. There is no such caricature or intent with "Othello" and other serious theater. deeceevoice 23:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

That's fine....I'll add a note to make that clear. But you still need a reference for Hallam; as I said, Cockrell's book makes no mention of him. Also, Cockrell strongly suggests that early blackface (before 1880s) was not always intended to ridicule blacks -- I need to read the book more closely to find out exactly what the argument is, though.NoahB 00:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted the text before I read this. Frankly, I think it weakens the paragraph to add extraneous information. After all, there are all sorts of performance traditions where people paint their faces -- even where performers paint their faces black, across cultures. I don't think it's necessary to refer to Othello, etc. The first paragraph makes it very clear what blackface is -- and it, again, has absolutely nothing to do with Shakespearean theater, or Chinese theater, or East Indian theater (all traditions involving blackening the faces of some characters). In this case, I think less is definitely more. Peace. deeceevoice 00:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, you seem to want to put all blackface influence under the general category of spreading black influence into the (largely white) mainstream. As I noted before, minstrelsy had both black and white musical elements. Country performers in blackface (like Jimmie Rodgers) were certainly influenced by black music (Rodgers knew (and even recorded with) black musicians)-- but they were also influenced by minstrelsy, which was its own genre with its own tropes. I think distinguishing between the two -- pointing out that the blackface tradition was influential both as a genre in its own right, as well as as a pioneering form for later African -American crossovers -- seems pretty important. Why do you disagree? NoahB 19:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, NoahB, but I'm a little distracted at the moment. I've really got to tend to some pressing deadlines. I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. Could you point to the precise passage(s)? Will be happy to reread ane reconsider your comments/verbiage when I come back in a couple of days. Peace. deeceevoice 00:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Outwikied you, did I? No problem; I'm referring to the changes you made to my version of 18:14 14 July 2005. I'd changed the lead to the "In the U.S." section when I added the stuff about country and R & B; you changed it back, more or less. I can provide more details if needed at whatever point. Good luck with the deadlines.NoahB 05:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Noah, the unexpected resubmission of this article for featured article status forced me to return to it and the FAS discussion page for several submissions. Because it's up for FAS, I wanted to resolve this issue w/you. But I've searched the edit history of this article for recent changes to the "In the U.S." section and can't find anything. Sorry. :( More details would be helfpul, but now I've really got to get to work. Will check back here later. Peace. deeceevoice 12:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, I agree that an actor blacking to play a role like Shakespeare's Othello (or an opera singer performing Verdi's Otello) is a different matter, but that's probably not self-evident to a lot of people, and we might want a paragraph or two talking about why it isn't the same thing. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

If people simply read the definition of blackface which appears at the very beginning of the article, I think it is absolutely clear that Othello and Shakespeare have nothing to do with blackface. Wikipedia is international. Why not add information about why blackface isn't the same thing as every other performance tradition that includes actors with blackened/darkened faces? Some people have said I've taken a proprietary attitude w/regard to some of the articles I've edited, so I feel I have to issue this disclaimer. This is certainly not that. I read the earlier revision, and my immediate reaction was that it actually detracted from the force and flow of the piece. I then carefully reconsidered the addition, and I still feel the same way. It's always better and far stronger/more assertive writing to state what something is, rather than what it is not, thus excluding other ancillary issues (and this is one -- purely outside the matter being discussed) from consideration by their obvious omission. And, given the length of the article already, this incomplete and very West-skewed reference to another black-faced performance tradition is extra verbiage that is wholly an unnecessary diversion (and, I might add, an incomplete one in that it ignores the traditions of other cultures) from the subject which is very clearly at hand. The piece reads far better without the extra "stuff" -- which, IMO, is all it is.

Further, particularly with the consolidation of the subsections treating blackface's origin (history) and archetypes, I think there's less of a felt need to beef up the formerly exceedingly short subsection by adding ancillary verbiage. Combined, "History and the shaping of racist archetypes" work well together in further explaining to any reader who may be thinking about "Othello" or other performance traditions precisely why those traditions don't apply here. deeceevoice 11:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

General rules of Wikipedia say that the lead section should be a summary of the article. The section about Zwarte Piet is quite large so I think ZP should be mentioned in the lead section, especially because there is, as far as I can see, no proof that ZP is a derivative of the American blackface. It may have been developed independently. Besides presence of ZP is pervasive in the month of December in the Netherlands: it may be the most important contemporary form of blackface worldwide. I do not understand why Deeceevoice strongly opposes mentiong ZP in the lead section, but I may miss something. Please explain. Thanks. Andries 13:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Zwarte Piet doesn't belong in the lead section because his mention (as well as mention of the Cape Coons, etc.) is an attenuation of the subject under discussion -- not central to it. Zwarte Piet as he exists is simply a version of darky iconography, influenced by the inky-faced, red-lipped (or white-lipped), wild-haired minstrel characters. That's why. deeceevoice 14:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I guess you are right that mentioning Zwarte Piet in the summary/intro would be overdoing it, but I would appreciate a somewhat longer summary/intro. Andries 19:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, the references for Zwarte Piet are flimsy and unscholary. I can correct this if you give me a week or so. I doubt whether the connection with satan will be supported by better references. Andries 19:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The links don't necessarily have to be scholarly; they simply must be relevant to the article -- which they are. Further, I learned of the connection between ZP and Knecht Ruprecht/Satan by surfing the Net. If you'd bother to do just a little research instead of repeatedly raising the same objection, I'm sure you'd find the same information. The article is already very lengthy. IMO, the info provided and the space devoted to ZP are more than sufficient. deeceevoice 23:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the references for Zwarte Piet do not have to be scholarly when they deal with the contemporary popular culture aspect of ZP, but it is a different matter when describing the history of ZP. I think the main reason why ZP is associated with Knecht Ruprecht is because KR happened to be an English word and Zwarte Piet not, hence some aspects of the two may have been merged by accident on the internet in English language (i.e. the satan aspect). Andries 10:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Why are you so obstinate? There are dozens and dozens of references which associate ZP with the devil. You've tried repeatedly to press this viewpoint in the face of concrete evidence to the contrary, removing the passage and complaining on the FAC page. With all due respect, this isn't about what you think. Here are a few passages:

In van Renterghem's work, we see that the Herne/Pan side of St. Nicholas was further restored. In 1581, the Dutch declared independence from both the Roman Catholic pope and the Spanish monarchy. Zwarte Piet, Sinter Klaas' dark servant, was returned to the fore as their shaman-god. When the Church tried to denounce Zwarte Piet as a devil, the Dutch retaliated by drawing him as a Spanish-looking devil, further aiding the Dutch cause. Children were encouraged to be good, or they would be carried off in Zwarte Piet's bag to Spain.[3]

In the area of Central and Eastern Europe comprising Germany, Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, the Devil was never fully absorbed into the Christian mythos as Satan but remained as he had always been, a slender, horned, bearded, fur-covered half-man of the woods. Under the regional names Krampus, Schwarze Peter (Black Peter), and Knecht Ruprecht (Ruprecht the Servant), he accompanies Saint Nicholas on his rounds of gift-giving, originally on December 6th, but eventually on Christmas Day, December 25th. In the early part of the 20th century it was the custom during December to send humourous Krampus postcards to friends. [4]

His best known companion is Knecht Ruprecht, "Knecht" meaning servant. Historically, Ruprecht was a dark and sinister figure clad in a tattered robe with a big sack on his back in which, legend has it, he will place all naughty children. (A famous poem by Theodor Storm features Knecht Ruprecht and his whip.)[5]

And what do you mean "K[necht [R]uprecht happened to be an English word and Z[warte] P[iet] not"? "Knecht Ruprecht" means "Knecht the Servant" and is clearly not English. Ridiculous! Enough already of your baseless speculation. The matter is settled. deeceevoice 13:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'am am not really into this discussion but "Knecht Ruprecht" means "Ruprecht the Servant" and not the other way around, just wanted to mention that. User:Balenman

Okay, you are correct from a historical point of view, but the current Zwarte Piet is perceived by nobody as satan. I tried to clarify this. Andries 21:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This kept bothering me, so I finally changed it. It seems worth mentioning, but a separate paragraph and a block quote? Why is this more important than Ted Danson's schtick or than Bamboozled? It's much less well known, and while it is important to point out that this stuff hasn't vanished, I don't see why such an extended treatment of an extremely minor cultural phenomena is warranted. So I pared it down. I also cut out the discussion of who does and does not think it's racist; at this point in the article, reader can probably make up their own minds based on the description.

I also think that the list of people who have been influenced by black music could stand to be much reduced; a few names and a brief statement that virtually all American music now has black influences seems like it could suffice. But I'll leave that debate for later, or never, as the case may be. NoahB 19:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Including Shirley Q. Liquor wasn't my idea. Way back when, someone seemed particularly interested in including it as an example. However, they portrayed Liquor as innocent fun, and I was determined to present the controversy, as well. I'd be fine with simply a passing mention. About that list of people influenced -- that was another major struggle of mine, to prevent people from adding on and on and on and on and on. And, yes, I added Gwen Stefani; I'm guilty of the latest addition. (I guess I got tired of her tired, blatant rip-off of "A Drum Line" and stuck her on.) If I have the support of folks, I'll edit it back down to something that makes sense. (I had a similar problem with the performers in blackface, until another contributor simply made a separate list of names.) I'm not certain such a thing is feasible with this latter category; the list would go on ad nauseam -- worse than in the article. deeceevoice 21:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

A list of performers influenced by black music would be pretty preposterous (so would a list of those influenced by white music, for that matter, but I digress....) If you can wait a couple days I think I can rephrase it in such a way that future editors won't feel quite such an urge to do that. I'll give it a shot, anyway....NoahB 00:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll take the editor's word that the musicians in Image:MinstrelsLondonc.1880.jpg are wearing blackface, but at the resolution in the article that is hard to tell, so I don't think that illustration particularly helps the article, unlike the other ones. -- Infrogmation 21:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Pretty clear when you go to the full-sized image. Maybe we should crop it? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:17, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Here you go: Image:MinstrelsLondonc.1880.crop.JPG. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context for the policy I will remove some links because I think the article has too many wikilinks not related to the subject and I hope that others can help. Andries 10:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Read Wiki policy regarding wikifying articles and removed several links which I thought were unnecessary. As the policy states, wikifying is highly subjective; but, in retrospect, I think you were correct. deeceevoice 13:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The image shows really yellow on the website, and the resolution isn't as crisp as it should be. I've enhanced the image on my computer and tried simply uploading the revised file with the same name -- but, still, the old image appears. How do I replace the old image with the improved one without creating a separate wiki file? deeceevoice 14:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Easy. Simply name the new version the same name as the old image, and upload it. It will ask if you want to replace the existing image; say yes.

(It may take a little bit for the server cashe to expire and the new image to show up, but it will.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 14:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Did that already. Okay. I'll wait and see what happens. Thanks. deeceevoice 14:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Argh. I made the same changes three times because my browser hates me and I am stupid. Sorry for the confusion.

As for what the changes are exactly: as per the discussion here, I tried to cut out the name-dropping and rewrite the section in a a way that would make it clear that we weren't trying to create an inclusive list. To do that, I tried to pin down exactly what blackface's influence was: that as a form it influenced musical genres; that it served as the prototype for future borrowings from black music; and that it served as a prototype for borrowings from black style. I also tried to make it clear that this is not an entirely positive legacy -- the earlier version emphasized the genuine respect of white performers, etc. etc., which is all well and good, but blackface is also a blueprint for the marketability (and perpetuation) of black stereotypes (as bell hooks points out.)

Anyway, hope this is usable in some form. NoahB 03:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

From the article: "Bert Williams, who was the first black performer in vaudeville..." Literally so? No Black vaudeville before him? Or was he simply the first to cross over to White audiences? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:32, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Literally, yes. Racism/discrimination in hiring prevented other blacks from performing. Just as Jackie Robinson was in major league baseball, Williams was the first in vaudeville. deeceevoice 09:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

On second thought.... I didn't actually write that passage (disclaimer! :p). I did, however, rewrite the caption to the photo. Now, back in the day, vaudeville was pretty diffuse. I did a little research. I don't know if it actually can be said that Williams was the first -- particularly since he had a partner named Walker with whom he performed. Their first Broadway gig as near as I can figure was with a white company called Koster and Bial in 1896 or '98 (I forget). So, technically, even if Walker and Williams were the first pair, they were still a pair. So, no. I'm going to reword the passage. Thanks for the question. deeceevoice 11:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find this is insufferably pompous/dense and pseudo-intellectual. And please don't take this as an attack. It is meant as honest criticism. (I actually groaned when I read it.)

Historians' views of blackface

Eric Lott, in his book Love and Theft:Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class characterizes two opposite poles that have been taken at times by historians and other writers when writing about blackface. On the one hand there are those in which "political disapprobation" combines with "aesthetic disdain" and a dismissal of the "mentalité of the popular classes". On the other hand, there are "apologists" whose "reactionary nostalgia…longed for the imaginary day of the strumming Sambo".

Lott himself identifies with a middle position in which cultural critics look at ambiguities and contradictions. He argues that while early blackface minstrel shows obscured "the material relations of slavery" by "pretending that slavery was amusing, right, and natural", it was nonetheless the "first formal public acknowledgment by whites of black culture… [and] was based on small but significant crimes against settled ideas of racial demarcation". Blackface was "an encapsulation of the affective order of things in a society that racially ranked human beings", but was "highly responsive to the emotional demands and troubled fantasies of its audience", in particular White fascination with black culture and black bodies. (Lott 1993, 3–7)

Perhaps this fellow has something important/useful to say that has not already been said. Perhaps not. But this add-on reads like someone just read a book and they want to do a book report for class and impress the professor. And it reads like an add-on. Include this stuff if you must, but please change the tone/language. As is, it's pretty hard to take. It completely changes the tone and flow of the piece. deeceevoice 08:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Lott is widely considered the leading contemporary academic writer on the cultural significance of blackface in the antebellum north (yes, antebellum North: minstrelsy at that time was mostly in the North). Conferences have been held about his book Love and Theft. Bob Dylan was impressed enough with it to name an album after it. As I said in my comments when I added these passages, "more to come", I was trying to stake out the beginning of a new section.

We have almost nothing in the article right now about the range of historians' and cultural critics' views on the role of blackface in American popular culture, just uncited assertions about its role. I don't particularly like Lott's writing style (he reads like a French academic), but I quoted his words directly because I was afraid that paraphrase would not necessarily represent him correctly. I think something like this needs to be in the article. It was my intent over the next week or so to flesh this out by actually quoting representatives of both the group who, in Lott's words, combine "political disapprobation" with "aesthetic disdain" and of those whose work shows a "reactionary nostalgia". Do you have a better suggestion as to how to approach this? Do you not believe that any discussion of this belongs in the article? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:06, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hey. :) Thanks for noticing the jumbled passage about TOBY and restoring the original language. And thanks for paring down that cumbersome section with the endless list of performers. (I had to go back and make sure that was you. :)) And the answer to your question is yes. I never said a historian's perspective didn't belong. But how 'bout taking it down a couple of (or three or four) notches? I think you underestimate your ability adequately to paraphrase Lott. I mean is it really necessary to Frenchify "mentality," to use "disapprobation" instead of "disapproval" in order to make Lott's point? Does that make his views more credible/enlightening? Does it actually help to use "reactionary nostalgia" without making it clear that the "cloying sentimentality" (already noted in Stephen Foster's songs) and the notion of "happy darkies" and the "old folks at home" scenarios of the Old South that were cultivated by the genre contributed to the rage and militarism of the South's response to abolitionism and other perceived affronts -- and that the result was that backface played a role in whipping white Southern emotions to a fever pitch, creating a regional jingoism that helped precipitate and very possibly prolong the Civil War? (A point I'd intended to make early on in that same passage, but never got around to doing.) I'm glad you gleaned that important point from Lott's writing and referred to it. But the reference isn't really clear. Perhaps quoting a passage or two, rather than a phrase here and there, might help to make the information less dense/opaque -- but I somehow doubt it. The whole thing reads as pseudo-intellectual puffery/swill. I understand this work was very well-received -- and my hat's off to 'im for pulling it off -- but if the whole of Lott's book actually reads like this, then I pity the hapless students (and book reviewers) who've been forced to slog through such a huge, honking, steaming dollop of pretentiously worded cerebral diarrhea to get to his message. By all means include whatever of Lott's findings you deem appropriate; but, please, let's not subject our readers to the same cruel fate. Not only will a more conversational, less academic approach to the subject be more in keeping with the tone of the article, IMO, it would go a long way to making the information you seek to present more accessible, as well. Peace. deeceevoice 19:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was me who initially cut out the endless list of performers. It looks like you and Jmabel reworked it fairly extensively, but found at least bits of it useful, which is nice. (It's also me who keeps trying to reorganize the introductory material for that section. I still think my version's better, but it's not worth arguing about.) NoahB 01:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Noah. My bad. :( Guess I was looking at the latest edits. Thanks for to you, too, for your work.  :) deeceevoice 06:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to work on what I can do with this (and other) material from Lott. 2 remarks, for now:

1. As for his style: he's a clearly brilliant but frustrating author. He has done some excellent research; he has some Freudian theorizing that I find almost embarrassingly silly; some of his passages are excellently written, while others are hideous academese.
2. One substantive matter: According to Lott, before the Civil War, blackface minstrelsy was much more popular in the North than the South, and many Southern cities actually banned it. Do you know anything about this from other sources? Or think he might be wrong about it? It seems quite notable, if true. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I can't help you there, Jmabel. This is the first I've ever heard/read of it. deeceevoice 06:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, I've still got Dale Cockrell's book on blackface on my shelf. He focuses on pre-Civil War blackface; I'll see if he has anything to say about the issue you raise i n the next day or so. NoahB 12:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the article to say whiteface for the Cape Coons, the participants are typically naturally dark skinned people who paint their faces white. The article on the CapeTours site talks about "blackface" but as you can see from the photos on the site, the people are naturally dark and have smeared a bit of white sunblock on their faces. This is the usually situation although some go for a full on clown style whiteface. I live in Cape Town and see the carnival every year so I know what I'm talking about. I've also removed reference to "creole" culture, most South Africans will probably be unfamiliar with the word or at most think that it refers to Caribbean cuisine or such like. Kuratowski's Ghost 18:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Two things that are not mentioned in "blackface influence on world popular culture" section that I think should be:

--Blackface inspired and influenced not only the appropriation of black musical styles, but also the use of black stereotypes. Madonna's stage show plays off stereotypical ideas about black sexuality and dangerousness, for example.

--Black people sometimes make money by presenting black stereotypes as well, just as Bert Williams did. Steppin Fetchit and NWA are two examples . The politics is obviously a bit different when it's African-Americans caricaturing African-Americans (you often can't really call that appropriation, for one thing... ), but it's a a pretty important phenomena, and worth mentioning.

I mentioned both of these things in passing when I rewrote the section, but they've been removed. So I thought I'd suggest their reinsertion.

And did you know that Jimi Hendrix was a big fan of Billy Gibbons (the ZZ Top guitarist)?NoahB 12:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Noah. Can you point me to the excised passages? (I'd appreciate it.) I'm not sure what you're getting at w/Steppin Fetchit and NWA. Self-parody is a phenomenon that's common to just about every group. I'm not sure how it fits into blackface. Beyond blacks in blackface -- like Bert Williams -- I don't see the connection. (Perhaps the deleted passage will make your point more clear.) Should you decide to reinsert material, please make sure you're staying within the reasonable boundaries of the subject matter. Playing on/camping up racial stereotypes isn't the same thing as performing in blackface.

And, no. I didn't know that Hendrix was a Gibbons fan. But I figured I'd mention ZZ Top since they're into cool -- with a redneck/white-trash/biker twist. (I always dug "Sharp-dressed Man" myself. :p) deeceevoice 14:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I doubt the excised passages will make my point more clearly, now that I think about it. I could try again, though. Self-parody is common to many groups, but its usually not marketable or recognizable on a national level in the way that black performances of black stereotypes are in the U.S. Blackface made it clear to whites that black stereotypes were a moneymaker; it made this clear to blacks as well. Steppin Fetchit seems a lot more directly relevant to blackface than ZZ Top (though I don't have any problem with their inclusion. Incidentally, if you like their later stuff, and/or Hendrix you should check out the first few albums, especially Rio Grande Mud. Boy are they...er...cool.) NoahB 16:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey (again) :). But there are lots of things that were/are potential moneymakers these days. So is Denzel Washington, or Halle Berry, or (if we want to do comedy), say -- well, so was Eddy Murphy in a movie. But just because he's black, I wouldn't say it was related to blackface. Further -- and more to the point -- I think you're straying from the central idea. There are lots of things that could be written about Steppin Fetchit, but in the context of the paragraph, which discusses nonblacks referencing/appropriating black culture, Steppin Fetchit clearly doesn't belong. You can't appropriate that which is already yours. ZZ Top definitely belongs. -- deeceevoice (forgot to sign it!)

This would be a superior article but for the usage of the term African American which arrived sometime after 1960. None of the pre-1970 people had ever heard of African Americans. 71.240.6.59 00:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, IMO, it's a "superior article," anyway. This article uses the term "African American," because that is the terminology of these times. Would you prefer we used "Negro" with a small "n," or "nigra"? Or worse? Not! deeceevoice 13:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

A historical and continuing use of blackface by a predominantly black organization, which seems appropriate to mention, is that of the New Orleans Mardi Gras krewe known as Zulu (the Zulu Social Aid and Pleasure Club). The organization's parade on Mardi Gras day involves ironic/satirical but nonetheless proud tribute to iconography of African tribes, with all members on the parade floats, black and white, in blackface. If this were not currently the featured article I would make an addition. I hope someone who is more familiar with the Zulu organization will add something to the article. DavidH 04:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder about the Zulus of Mardi Gras. I worked it in. (There's apparently already an article on the krewe, which I haven't seen -- but when I wikified it, the link is blue.) I hope the brief allusion to it is to your satisfaction. Presumably, those seeking additional information can consult the reference, or clink the wiki link.) Peace. :) deeceevoice 12:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Forgive any inepness at the use of wikipedia wikicode and any problems I may have with the forms usualy adhered to in making posts to discussion pages. This seems fairly un-objective in presentation, though accurate in fact. I think if the article's title were "Blackface's Role in Racial Stereotyping" I would find it less subjective sounding. I'll work a little on seeing if there is anything I can do to work on it after it gets off the main page. (I don't want to mess it up when everybody will be looking at it). Or I might look at it in a week and be embarresed that I had any problem with it to begin with. I'm usualy pointing things out with a bias in the other direction.

I have a username but forgot the password, my login is something like LittleBrother or Little Brother. 26 July 2005 05:33:16 UTC

I don't know how you would approach the subject. In working on this article, I focused on the device itself. There is a separate article (which I, frankly, detest) on minstrel show. As a device, blackface is what it is. I think its treatment is appropriate and balanced. deeceevoice 12:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hrmm the minstrel show article seems much less slanted, and much less intresting. There is definantly a relationship between the two and I for one don't know where the two should meet. The least subjective in tone history is the one nobody wants to read because it sounds like nothing was meaningful. The main article in question reads, to me, more like a passage from a book studying racism and black history than one more specificaly about the theatrical substance known as blackface. It seems to have the intent of showing (accuratly to be sure) how terrible the things associated with blackface are/were instead of focusing on an encyclopedial discussion of blackface. I think if I were writing it, and since, stylisticly your writing is far superior to mine I'm not going to so sully your work, I would try to make the opening more to the point about the substance and try to remove the part where it talks about the racist overtones to the second or third sentence or at least to a subordinate clause of the first. Perhaps something like, "Blackface is a style of theatrical makeup from the United States used to affect the countenance of an African American, especialy the iconic, racist, American archetype, that of the 'darky' or 'coon.'" The more I read the origional article the more I realize that it isn't a non-nutral point of view so much as the appearance thereof that I am picking up on. It reads like the author(s) start from the beginning trying to make a point rather than delivering information. But unless I can find one person who agrees with me, I'm going to assume it's more in how I took it as a reader than how it was actualy written. Anyone think what I'm saying has the slightest bit of merit? LittleBrother 27 July 2005 04:50 UTC

I don't necessarily think it is a problem if someone uses a topic as sort of a key into something else, unless the result is that the topic gets covered badly. Situating a phenomenon in its context can often make for a much better article. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

My approach to this piece (framed generally and in part by its earlier treatment before I came to it) was to focus on blackface as a historical and cultural phenomenon. Keep in mind that there's already an article on the minstrel show -- which, IMO, really needs help; it's awful. (But that's another matter.) After all, once you get past the description of blackface as (essentially) a cosmetic effect/style of makeup in the American context, what else is there to say about it? IMO, the most important and interesting things about blackface are how it was used and what its impact has been in the world. Otherwise, you get an article like minstrel show that is boring and all but completely divorced from its historical and cultural implications. I figure those wanting more information about the format of the stock minstrel show itself can read that piece. Those desiring information about more substantive and, IMO, intersting matters can read this one. And, no, "Blackface" isn't "neutral"; it's objective. There's a big difference. Racism is racism. There are two options when dealing with an inherently value-laden/ugly subject: deal with it for it what it is -- or do like "Minstrel show" and ignore the issues altogether. I (and other contributors) chose to do the former, and I think the result is a provocative and informative piece. Peace. deeceevoice 09:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Informative and balanced. Well done! --- Mike 05:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

For myself and everyone who worked hard on this piece -- gee, thanks. :D deeceevoice 12:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There's some incorrect information about the Dutch Zwarte Piet. It's not part of the Christmas celebration, like the story makes it out to be. It's part of the Sinterklaas celebration. The Sinterklaas and Santa Claus characters are linked historically, but the two have evolved into different characters. The former has his own holiday (not an official Dutch holiday) on December 5 and has gone back to Spain (so the story goes) come Christmas time. Santa Claus is known as De Kerstman (The Christmasman) in the Netherlands.

If anyone can edit the Zwarte Piet part without going into so much detail as I just did (straying from the actual Blackface topic), I welcome him/her to do it. Or, if there's good reason that Zwarte Piet is tied to Christmas in the Blackface article, please explain it to me. Atlan

The article mentions the dates 5 & 6 Dec for Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet, so it will be clear to the readers that it is not Christmas. Andries 08:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Clear to Dutch people such as yourself, but for others it is confusing. If I would read this article without prior knowledge, I would assume that Zwarte Piet is a Christmas tradition. It's basically misinformation and leaving it in the artictle just for the hell of it doesn't seem right. I'd edit the article myself but I'm yet to come up with a better way of explaining the Zwarte Piet character. Atlan 09:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess I'm responsible for the "Christmas" mention and "Yuletide." I've gone back and deleted that language. I guess the connection for me was a reflexive thing -- although I've read up enough on the subject to know Zwarte Piet and Sinterklaas are related to pagan observances. deeceevoice 18:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I read the Zwarte Piet part of the article again and think that it is much better this way. Good job. Atlan 20:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Parents often tell their well-behaved children that Zwarte Piet will leave them presents, but those who have been naughty will be punished. Zwarte Piet will kidnap bad children and carry them off to Spain in his bag, where, legend has it, he and Sinterklaas dwell out of season. As a result, some Dutch children are fearful of encounters with Zwarte Piet impersonators.

Those punishments are more of a historical thing; I doubt any parent nowadays would tell them to their children in seriousness. However, it's true that the stories themselves are widely known - if only because they are in the songs. Sinterklaas 'himself' has denied them them several times on national television, calling them blatant lies. I also don't really think that this is the reason children are sometimes scared of Zwarte Piet. More likely, this is due to his blackness (for children who have never seen black people) or simply because of the reverence for him (children are often scared of Sinterklaas, too. I bet some American children are scared of Santa Claus). Junes 07:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

What I wrote of ZP I gleaned primarily from several articles. The section was also niggled and tweaked endlessly with considerable input from a contributor who is from the Netherlands. He's happy with it, so I'll simply have to trust it's reasonably correct, never having been to the Netherlands in December myself. (Good thing, too. I think I'd have to slug somebody. :p) deeceevoice 08:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The Zwarte Piet tradition may have been changed since I was a kid, but I vividly remember Zwarte Piet (pretending to) punish children. The punishing, fearsome aspect of Zwarte Piet is still maintained in songs e.g. "Wie zoet is krijgt lekkers, wie stout is de roe"/"Somebody who is sweet will get nice food. somebody who is naughty will get the stick [carried by ZP]" So if you are sure this has changed over the course of time then let me know and the text can be changed. Andries 18:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"Once portrayed realistically, Zwarte Piet became a classic darky icon in the mid-to-late 19th century, contemporaneous with the spread of blackface iconography."

What made you think so? I mean "Once"? When? The character was "black", but was not etnically "fixed" before 1850 and did not get his definitive name before 1891. I would rather say that he is totally unrelated to Blackface in origin, but it's hard to deny the similarity in appearance. Theodore W. 00:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Read the passage again. It doesn't say ZP originated in blackface. The latter portrayals of ZP -- the darky iconography -- did. Such renderings appeared after this insulting means of rendering black people essentially became codified in the very stylized and distinctive images associated w/the spread of blackface minstrelsy. In fact, to this day, they use costumed Golliwog dolls -- the "descendants," if you will, of the original character, which was based on a blackface minstrel doll -- in the Netherlands as ZP dolls. deeceevoice 14:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You have a point there but it is rather fuzzy in my point, and I would rather disagree with you about the suggestion of direct link between the portrayal of ZP and Blackface.

http://www.lambiek.net/piet.htm (look at Sjimmie en Simmy)

http://www.marktplaats.nl/index.php3?url=/nieuw_zoek.php3%3Ft%3Da%26s%3D100%26q%3Dpinkelman

(look at Flop)

There's "Tintin in Africa".

If you want to claim that Blackface had determined perhaps not what people in white places thought black people looked like, but had taught them how to portray one (I mean the black I will defend against anybody, even the wig, but those red lips show you are right), do so, but please don't limit it to Zwarte Piet. Yes, charicature and all, but completely fitting in with other famous "negro"-characters from the time and region where he grew popular. And like Pete, the boys were written much less "inferior" than the way they were depicted may suggest. That is yes, Sjimmie abused the language like any other foreign character, Kareltje's parents treated Flop as a little slave, but you never got the idea that they were less. There's one question, what main holiday character in the United States of America is there, as established as being of African origin? Theodore W.

I knew before checking that the examples of darky iconography you would provide would postdate blackface minstrelsy. There is absolutely no earlier record of such stylized portrayals of blacks in this manner. The article focuses on Zwarte Piet, because the tradition is rife with some of the most obvious and glaring examples of darky iconography today. And it's not some atavistic, backwoods, redneck ritiual; it is a national phenomenon"! That makes it particularly notable. And, no. The article doesn't limit itself to a discussion of Zwarte Piet -- does it? I think you already know the answer to your question. The U.S. doesn't have a black holiday character, but that has absolutely no bearing on the subject at hand, now -- does it? Further, if the racist Netherlands' tradition of Zwarte Piet is any model of a black, national "main holiday character," I have one thing to say about the U.S.'s lack of a similar seasonal darky: "Thank God!" deeceevoice 07:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course, it is not a national phenomenon, it's international, Belgium and parts of the FRG and France are also part of the region where Black Pete can be found, as are a number of former colonies. Of course my exampls did not predate Blackface minstrelsy. The article fails however to describe any connection between the phenomena, similarities yes, but if you think all this attention for Pete has a place in this article, there should be more attention for the relevant aspects and less for background details. I must say that a lot of people who take things like skin color into consideration claim that it are mostly whities complaining about Pete, not the country's people of color. Of course, you are defending a false portrayal of reality. You are connecting a black holiday character with blackface, without comprehending what that character embodies. without backing that connection, that lack of support, failure to describe history is what I see as the problem, while you seem to have nothing positive to compare it with. I must say that "the racist Netherlands' tradition of Zwarte Piet" still seems a completely unfounded claim, but ZP's own Talk Page would be a better place to discuss that. 80.61.97.215 23:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The treatment of ZP in this piece is balanced and more than appropriate to the article. And, frankly, I'm thoroughly bored with all this back and forth about it. Many of the depictions of ZP are racist and based on darky iconography, which has its origins in blackface -- not to mention that the impersonators black up with bright, red lipstick, which is also clearly from darky iconography. Your claims about who has a beef about ZP and who doesn't are off-point. There should be more whites opposed to the tradition than people of color. After all, they're in the majority. They're the ones running around dressed wearing fright wigs, acting like mental defectives and looking like clueless (or racist or both)mental cretins. They're more likely (than struggling, black immigrants) the ones with the time and luxury to devote such concerns. Good for those white folks with some common sense and a conscience. I don't really care about any additional information related to ZP other than that what's been presented in this article. The most salient points are covered. I don't ever plan to be in the Netherlands -- and certainly not during its "dumb darky days," so I couldn't care less. This is not a treatise on ZP. I'm really done with this subject matter. From what I can tell, lots of Dutch are in denial about this stupid tradition, still trying to claim ZP is a chimney sweep and closing their eyes to the offensiveness of it. If all the Dutch Wiki members would like to converge on this piece and niggle and nag and bicker amongst yourselves about ZP's entry ad nauseam as a handful of you seem intent on doing, hey, have at it. I haven't read that section of the article for a very long time and don't care much about it. Absent some gross distortion of the facts; the inclusion of a lot of useless, irrelevant information; and mangled English, I don't care what you do to it. Knock yourselves out. I've got other things to attend to. I'm done. *x* deeceevoice 04:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence tries to pack in too much information and winds up being terribly ambiguous "Blackface is a style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States, used to affect the countenance of an iconic, racist, American archetype, that of the "darky" or "coon." " This really needs to be at least two sentences 1) Blackface is theatrical makeup used to make white performers appear black. 2) The performer would portray an archetypical figure in a way that is now considered racist. As it reads now, ("used to affect the countenance of [a] ... racist archetype") the sentence implies that the purpose of the makeup was to create a racist portrayal. In reality, "racist" is how it's viewed from a modern perspective. --Lee Hunter 15:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. -- BRIAN0918  17:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Me too. Moriori 21:25, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• I wholeheartedly disagree. I wrote the passage very carefully to say exactly what it says. The archetype itself is what is racist -- as well as the portrayal. There is no way the darky archetype is not racist. It's as racist an archetype as that of the venal, hook-nosed Jew. deeceevoice 21:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, it's intentionally racist (from the standpoint of the time) not just racist from our perspective. It was intended to denigrate and mock black people, and was popular in large part because denigrating and mocking black people was all the rage at the time. That's racist, period. And it isn't just from our modern, "enlightened" perspective that such portrayals of blacks are considered racist -- the NAACP was protesting against this sort of thing as early as the 1910s for sure. NoahB 00:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• And while black folks did blackface, it wasn't the nasty, racist stuff; it was good-natured self-parody. White folks really believed black people were slow-witted and inherently inferior, and they believed themselves superior. (The more things change, the more they remain the same.) The sentimental scenarios of happy, dullard darkies back home on the plantation were lies calculated to advance the notion that slavery was just the thing for "niggers"; it benefitted them. Blacks generally detested white blackface; it wasn't funny at all. That brand of blackface was simply theater in the service of racism/slavery/white supremacy. deeceevoice
• Well, I don't quite agree with that. I've heard some pretty depressing blackface-style performances done by blacks (Cab Calloway's "Strictly Cullud Affair" for example, the sort of thing he himself later suggested was problematic) and some pretty great blackface-style performances done by whites (Emmett Miller's "Lovesick Blues" for example.) It's sort of beside the point, though -- something can be racist and have other merits (IMO; others may disagree.) Anyway, the article doesn't deal with this stuff; it just says the darky archetype was racist, which it was. NoahB 15:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• I didn't say black blackface was PC; it certainly wasn't. And, yes, there are some "problematic" things about it. I, for one, have a real problem with the Zulus of New Orleans portraying Africans as darky stereotypes -- in blackface. And I don't care what their original intent was. I find it appalling. But it's one thing to do something out of ignorance and another thing entirely to do it out of maliciousness, hatred and a sense of inherent superiority. To an outsider, the end result may be the same, but the motivations and shared meaning in the inner group are likely completely different -- hence the complexity of the phenomenon and its ongoing controversial nature. I mean, my God. Have you seen the Auckland City Dukes -- a bunch of Maori, Irish and God knows what else calling themselves "Coons"? It's enough to make your eyeballs ache/head hurt. :p deeceevoice 15:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

OOh. Put my "problematic" in quotes and call me PC, will you? Harsh, but I'm still unrepentant; I'm not sure how your ingroup/outgroup explanation works with white performers in the blackface tradition who had large black followings (Jimmie Rodgers, much admired by Howlin Wolf, B.B. King, Mississippi John Hurt; Bing Crosby much admired by Robert Johnson, Louis Armstrong, Roy Brown....) And what about the fact that Bert Williams blacked up in order to cross over (successfully) to a large white audience?

Back to things that might actually be useful for the article: I think I've got a "darky" imagery 19th century Democratic campaign poster which makes it pretty clear why this iconography is racist. I don't have a scanner here, but maybe I can upload it next week and we could maybe put it in the article, if you think that would be worthwhile. NoahB 18:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You're reading too much into what I wrote. I wasn't calling you PC; this isn't personal. (Gawd.) There were lots of black folks who loved Amos 'n' Andy, too -- my dad among them. That still doesn't stop all of that from being "problematic"/complex and very un-PC. Nor did it obscure the fact that some of that was about ignorance, some of it was about white supremacy internalized as self-loathing. Some of it was simply about people's perceptions of what was genuinely funny/engaging. But there were also a lot of black folks who hated blackface of any kind, no matter who did it -- and especially when it was done by whites. It was like being called "nigger" -- often literally -- with the expectation that black folks would find it funny (or they just didn't give a damn how we took it -- just that we take it). You know as well as I do there are some things that can be said identically by two different people of two different ethnicities -- and the same thing can be taken in a completely different way -- because the motivations of the speakers may be different, or may be perceived differently by the other group. What about Bert Williams? Hell, what about the fact that most black performers back in the day blacked up -- because it was the only work they could get? Williams, in fact, resented it deeply -- that he had to do it, and that he made lots of money he couldn't spend in a lot of places. There were lots of things black people have had to do in this nation to put food on the table, or simply to stay alive and keep their families viable. It didn't mean they necessarily liked doing it; it's "how we got over," as the song goes. All of that, again, is the complexity and controversy of blackface.

There are lots of images that I think would be great for the article, but I'd rather do a photo gallery, as I mentioned before. It's far better than cluttering the article w/images. But, yeah. It sounds like an interesting photo. deeceevoice 21:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I know it's not personal -- I was just joking. Sorry about that. Anyway, maybe I'll upload the image, give you the link, and let you do with it as you will. NoahB 15:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I just looked at this article, it being on the front page. It seems to be loaded with all sorts of POV material and weasel terms. To give one example, "Virtually every important stylistic innovation in popular music in the United States from the twilight of the 19th century to the dawn of the 21st century—from ragtime to blues and jazz, to swing, to rhythm and blues and rock and roll, to classic rock to hip hop— is due to the contributions of African-Americans." Umm, I don't even know what that means. Did someone make a list of stylistic inventions, go down the list, and say "yeah, that one had contributions by blacks, that one did too"? Isn't every single innovation in any area at all "due to the contributions of" African Americans if the size of the contribution is not important?

"It is a continuum of pervasive African-American influence that is arguably most evident today in the ubiquity of the cool aesthetic and hip-hop culture." It's arguably most evident? Any controversal statement at all can be described as "It is arguably [one side of the controversy]".

Etc. 208.240.214.251 21:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This article has been through months and months of scrutiny, and is NPOV. Any serious study of popular culture would readily acknowledge the pervasive impact of African American culture. Yes, one conceivably could argue that there are other more obvious signs of that impact -- though, IMO, they would be hard-pressed to do so.//I tweaked that ending earlier and now have gone back and revised it to something that, I think, reads more definitively. Besides, the "arguably" was redundant. deeceevoice 21:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I also went back and did a partial revert of the earlier passage the anonymous editor mentioned. Rather than "stylistic," the passage refers directly to genre -- as does the list of forms (or genres). Perhaps that makes the passage's meaning more clear. It is certainly incontestible. deeceevoice 22:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph that starts with "By 1840..."; does this paragraph make sense? I don't see how the second sentence follows the first... ike9898 21:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's already been changed. (Check the edit history.) I remember rewriting this section when I realized the Mark Twain quote referred not to a black minstrel show (which more commonly used phrases like "the real thing"), but a white one. That sentence should have been moved to the following paragraph -- and I did so after reading your comment. Good catch. deeceevoice 22:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

See, the problem is, the sentences can be read either way.

Use blackface to effect (make up, create, cause) the blah blah...

Use blackface to affect (act as, use a guise of, portray) the blah blah...

IMHO, nobody is being stupid or wrong in their edits, but the comments are getting a little tense. Maybe it's time to try a completely different word or phrase, to be absolutely unambiguous. Otherwise, someone is going to come along every so often and change it. Cheers! DavidH 02:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

The wording is fine the way it is. If people will bother to read the edit note and not arrogantly assume that people are incapable of reading a thesaurus correctly (even with the direct quotes presented), then there shouldn't be a problem. deeceevoice 02:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll assume you're not saying that I "arrogantly assume." That would be impolite, don't you think? DavidH 02:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Deecee is right. Using "effect" would be ungrammatical here. Guettarda 02:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

No, DavidH. I'm referring to someone else. I reverted the article (for the umpty-ump time), with (another) explanation embedded in the edit note quoting Roget's Thesaurus -- and then another editor STILL reverted it and left me a lengthy note about how "the correct word in this case is absolutely, positively, definitely 'effect'." And he was "absolutely, positively, definitely" WRONG! He cited an online dictionary and claimed he didn't have a Roget's Thesaurus (which is also available online) and had the nerve to say, "put simply, 'affect' cannot convey that ["to bring about") meaning." Day-um. hasn't anyone heard of an "affectation"? Further, clearly, anyone familiar with the use of "effect" in such a manner (e.g., to effect a change) should know d***ned well this is a different usage and meant in a different sense. The very idea that someone whose understanding of English is so limited that he believes this is an identical usage would then visit my talk page and presume to write me a lengthy missive (like I'm some half-wit), telling me how wrong I am is annoying.

This guy then capped off this presumptuous, arrogant ignorance by stating, "I don't have access to Roget's at the moment, but I can only assume you're misreading something in it'." How's that for being not only ignorant, but arrogant as hell? Uh-huh. I'm so dumb, I don't even have sense enough to understand a simple list of synonyms? This same guy not only changed the headers from "Related topics" to "See also" and included Ganguro in "Related topics" -- when it clearly isn't directly related to blackface, he then de-alphabetized the list, writing that "sometimes pure alphabetical isn't the best order." WHAT?!!! It seems that when people find the article's wording so tight they can't drastically overhaul it, they resort to niggling changes -- even when they do not need to be made. What is it with some people? Do they just want to leave their mark? Is it some kind of compulsion? His simple format fixes to the sources, presumably, are in order; I don't care enough about stuff like that to examine them. But he should have left it at that -- and certainly not have (admittedly) assumed that I "misunderstood" Roget's. And then he apologizes for 'getting off on the wrong foot.'

Well, hey, as far as I'm concerned, he should have thought about that before he went out of his way to revert a fully justified edit and then came to my space and stuck that wrong foot in his mouth. deeceevoice 07:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"Blackface is a style of theatrical makeup from the United States used to effect the countenance of an iconic, racist, American archetype." This would mean, in essence, that Blackface is a style of makeup used to imitate a racist archetype.

"Blackface is a style of theatrical makeup from the United States used to affect the countenance of an iconic, racist, American archetype." This would mean, in essence, that Blackface is a style of makeup used to change a racist archetype.

If the author wants to say the latter, that is fine but I don't think that would make any sense in context. If the author means to say the former, the author should use the word 'effect', not 'affect'.

See http://www.wsu/edu/~brians/errors/affect.html for more backup.

Fowler's Usage Guide backs me up, too.

"Affect means 'have an influence on, produce an effect on,...' Effect means, 'bring about, cause, produce, result in, accomplish.' ... Affect, in the sense, 'assume (a character), pretend to have or feel, etc.' (As he reached the pick-up point, he should affect to slow down as if hunting for a car - J. Le Carre, 1989) is a quite separate verb of different origin."

It also is used intransitively, whereas the offending 'affect' is used transitively in precisely the way that 'effect' would normally be used.

The author could say:- "Blackface is a tyle of theatrical makeup from the United States used to affect to imitate the countenance of an iconic, racist, American archetype." ..but that is a bit clumsy, in my opinion.

It should be 'effect', not 'affect'. Roget's Thesaurus is great but it doesn't help in this context because it lists synonyms and antonyms, not correct usage of a given word. It is irrelevant. Fowler's Usage Guide and the Oxford English Dictionary are far more useful and they both point to 'effect', not 'affect' being the correct word to use. It's not a big deal; it's simply the case.

If I had written, "White blackface performers in the past used burnt cork and, later, greasepaint to affect jet-black skin and exaggerated lips, often wearing woolly wigs, gloves, tails, or ragged clothes to effect (rather than "complete") the transformation," that would have been correct. "Affect" would have been incorrect in the second instance (not to mention redundant). As noted in the edit notes and in my discussion with the editor to whom I refer in my earlier comments, Roget's Thesaurus lists a number of synonyms for "affect", and among them is "simulate." This is the sense in which the term is properly used in the article. No, the article reads the makeup is used to affect, "simulate", "mimic" the countenance of a racist archetype --which is precisely what I meant it to say. This is an affectation, as in the use of an artifice or the taking on of a persona; this is mimicry/simulation/imitation. Thus, the use of "affect" -- not "effect" is correct. deeceevoice 07:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

That's fine except that Roget's Thesaurus doesn't explain proper usage, which is the issue here. Fowler's backs me up, as you've seen. So does Paul Brians, Professor of English (Washington State University) - see http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/affect.html

Also see http://www.io.com/~eighner/writing_course/oldquestions/qausage2.html and http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_spelprob.html

effect (verb): means to bring about or enact. For example: Grant effected Lee's surrender. As a quick test, see if "put into effect" can be substituted for the verb. If so, the verb wanted is "effected."

affect (verb): (in the sense that is confused) means to influence. For example: The Northern blockade affected the outcome of the civil war. As a quick test, see if "had some effect on" can be substituted. If so, "affected" is the correct verb."

Examples of the contrast: A lobbyist can affect legislation, but only Congress (or whatever legislative body) can effect legislation

Irrelevant to this discussion.

Did blackface have an effect on a racist archetype? No.

No. Read my comments again. That's not the intended meaning. deeceevoice 08:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

...Then perhaps you should use a word which adequately conveys the intended meaning, such as 'imitate'? 'Affect' is not acceptable, as explained in Fowler's Usage Guide. Roget's Thesaurus does not explain correct usage, so it shouldn't be used to try to justify a word's choice based on its correct/incorrect usage.

Did blackface imitate a racist archetype? Yes. Therefore, 'effect' is the word to use.

Yes and no. But you just answered your own question. Right question, wrong answer. Blackface did, indeed, affect, imitate (or, as Roget's states, "simulate") the countenance of the archetype and "simulate" jet-black skin. At least we're making progress in that you're understanding the meaning of the passage under discussion here.

Now let's address your syntax. "Effect" as a verb does not mean to imitate." But "affect" does. It is not an "'effectation," but an "affectation." Again, read the article, read your own definitions of "effect" (it doesn't fit here), and then read my above comments. Blackface imitated the countenance of the iconic, racist archetype; and it "imitated" jet-black skin. deeceevoice 08:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

In that case, use 'imitate'. Even if it were possible to use affect in this way (which Fowler's says it's not), it would clearly be open to misinterpretation (which it has been - see this entire discussion for evidence). This confusion and disagreement will continue as long as you use 'affect' in this way (which is wrong anyway - see Fowler's).

http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/chref/chref.py/main?query=affect&title=21st - Chamber's English Dictionary, respected almost as widely as the Oxford English Dictionary - indicates that 'affect' means to have an effect on someone or something. Meaning 2.2 is listed as "to use, wear, etc something in a way that is intended to attract attention • affect fast cars." This sounds like your sort of thing... but it took a lot of searching for me to find a dictionary that backed up you in any way at all, which suggests to me that perhaps another word should be substituted. Otherwise, we'll just go round and round.

The amount of time it took you to find a reference to corroborate my position has no bearing on its viability. I went directly to Roget's, which verified the accuracy of my syntax in less than two minutes. Fowler's does not say "affect" cannot mean to "simulate"; it does not contradict Roget's. Simply not mentioning one of many varied usages does not rule it out implicitly. (And then there is the related, and commonly understood, "affectation" -- which clearly makes no sense without the use of "affect" in precisely the manner in which it is herein and commonly used and understood.) The same may be said of any other source with regard to any false presumptions regarding implicit misuse. Roget's, on the other hand, which is also a respected reference, mentions the usage in this manner explicitly and, therefore, states my case strongly in the affirmative. Your earlier misuse of "effect" to mean "simulate" makes my point. I appreciate your rigorous defense of your position, but it is mistaken. The syntax as originally written is accurate and should remain -- with a reference to this discussion for anyone with questions, as is the usual case with Wikipedia. For all the people who've read this piece, less than a handful have questioned the use of "affect." Its meaning is not at all confusing. The only problem has arisen when people who have presumed the usage to be incorrect have reverted it. And only you and Horse-what's-his-face -- and particularly you -- have done so stubbornly and repeatedly. The passage remained relatively undisturbed for several, several, several edits and with no real challenge through the approval phase for featured article status, before Horse-(whatever) and you became involved. I suspect the edit note and this discussion will suffice for those reasonable persons who may question the passage in the future. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 08:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice, while I agree with you that "affect" in the sense you mean it is correct here, all of the foregoing makes it clear that it is easily subject to misreading. Perhaps you might want to consider a different way of wording this that would be more unambiguously read the way you intended it? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:04, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing convoluted about the language. There is nothing incorrect about the language; it is plain-spoken and in English. There is no real confusion about the passage -- just a few people who fancy themselves proficient in English grammar and syntax who think they're making a correction -- when they, in fact, are not. These last two contributors were simply particularly stubborn, with the last HugoSomethingorother (who never even bothered to sign most of his posts, making no other contributions to Wikipedia before or after his intervention on this point -- which suggests he may have been called in to intervene particularly on this point). I believe the average reader understands perfectly well what is being said (which is my goal in what I write: accessibility) and doesn't get hung up on "affect" and "effect." There may be an initial, but small, cognitive trip for a few; but they will consider it briefly and then simply read on. (To quote Toni Morrison, "That, my dear, is reading.") The few who may be inclined to "correct" the syntax will encounter the edit note and, if they wish, then can proceed to the discussion. And if some people are educated in the process about a broader use of a word to which they normally would give little thought, then so much the better. Further, I believe prose should resonate -- not just convey meaning: "Traveling throughout black communities in the Deep South and to northern big cities, these musician-pioneers were the Hand helping to fashion the music's howling, raucous, then free-wheeling, "raggedy," ragtime spirit, quickening it to a more eloquent, sophisticated, swing incarnation. " (I suppose some nit-picking, pedantic hack eventually will try to slice and dice that, too; but so far, it's stood for several months.) And, no. I don't think my writing is the sh*t; it's far from perfect. And I certainly am not wedded to imperfection. As I told Horse-what's-his-face, it's not about ego; this is not a pissing match. But there are times when I'm able to say precisely what I mean, and I hope that verbiage has sufficient integrity -- and, yes, resonance -- to stand. IMO, plain English should not be dumbed down to "See Spot run" sentences simply because society is becoming less and less literate. It's time for people to catch up. Wikipedia should not pander to ignorance or the lowest common denominator when it comes to language usage. 'Cause, like, I mean, like, where would that, like, leave us at? deeceevoice 08:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I noticed the usage error in the first sentence. I went to the edit page where I saw the comment that states that the usage is correct and to look at the talk page. I've looked at the preceding comments and I am very amused. The editors trying to correct the error provided sources which prove that "affect" is incorrect usage. One user, deeceevoice, just argues with the other editors until they realize the futility in reasoning with him and go off to try to effect change where it will be welcomed. Deeceevoice insists in the following quote that not only is the usage correct, but to change it would be pandering to an increasingly illiterate society and the lowest common denominator of language usage:

"But there are times when I'm able to say precisely what I mean, and I hope that verbiage has sufficient integrity -- and, yes, resonance -- to stand. IMO, plain English should not be dumbed down to "See Spot run" sentences simply because society is becoming less and less literate. It's time for people to catch up. Wikipedia should not pander to ignorance or the lowest common denominator when it comes to language usage." This comment seems to be insulting to all editors involved in correcting deeceevoice's erroneous usage of "affect". I am going to change "affect" to "effect" but I'm not going to stick around for the edit war when deeceevoice comes to protect his ego. See also: Argumentum ad nauseam 24.250.60.198 06:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverted. The matter was settled because I provided proof of the correctness of usage. If anything, your change is the insult. You offer absolutely no argument for undoing language that has been agreed upon after lengthy discussion -- proffering only a weak ad hominem attack. See edit note. Further, I doubt that your, IMO, rather juvenile attempt at sparking another edit war will succeed. The matter is settled. deeceevoice 07:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You (above) say this as if deeceevoice was wrong about it. While the verb "affect" might be a tad archaic here, "effect" is simply incorrect. One does not say "effect a countenance" any more than one would say "In order to avoid the question he effected ignorance"? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

From the OED:

1. a. trans. To bring about (an event, a result); to accomplish (an intention, a desire).

b. To produce (a state or condition). Obs.

There are various other apparently obsolete definitions that are along the same lines. I posit that effect is correct, though I acknowledge (thanks to deeceevoice!) that affect is also appropriate here, and further has the suitable connotation (possibly denotation?) of falseness or imitation.

Since effect would clearly still be correct (though it would lose the minor and obvious implication of imitation), and since so many people—who are at least informed enough to understand that effect can be used as a transitive verb, and who comprise minority of English speakers, I'm sure!—are not aware of the less common definition of affect, I suggest it be changed to effect. If it isn't changed, this issue will never die, and it will continue to frustrate editors for no good reason. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about it being "archaic." I'm not in the habit of using obscure verb forms; I certainly hear the verb used in this manner. In fact, in my experience, literate people use it in this manner all the time. Interestingly, Roget's didn't mention that the usage was either obscure or archaic. The editor who resurrected this matter clearly was not acting in good faith and clearly intended to try to spark another edit war. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was some troll just trying to start some s**t. They didn't even attempt to offer any reason for the revert -- just some stupid ad hominem attack. (Typical.) Hell, they didn't even sign in. Let it drop. deeceevoice 13:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone recently added "shoe polish" which seems pretty drastic, and I've never heard about that (though I'm not expert on the topic). Any citation for that? Conversely, I've often heard "lampblack" listed among the substances used for blacking up, and we don't mention that. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:46, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, they used it. I suppose it's easy enough to verify. You've got a web browser, doncha? :p Peace. deeceevoice 05:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

They do use it, poke around google. It's cheap and works. Um, not that I've tried it ... Proto t c 08:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been drawing on Lott's Love and Theft for articles on various individual performers, etc. I've now written up some notes from that I think have potential for use in this article, or in minstrel show, or elsewhere, but which I'm not sure what to do with. Please, have a look, and feel free to draw on what is there if you see a good place for it. If you incorporate a passage into an article, please strike through and leave a note about where it landed, so we don't end up using the same material twice. I will probably still be adding to it. So far, I've run through about half of my notes from the book. Of that, I've decided some is just not encyclopedic, found places to put about half the rest, and the remainder is what is in the linked notes. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:08, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Added some more to this today. Still more to come. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Lott mentions (p.171) a prominent 1840s blackface performer named Charles White, but doesn't say much about him. If anyone knows more, probably someone worth an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting piece by Robert Christgau: In Search of Jim Crow: Why Postmodern Minstrelsy Studies Matter. I'm too busy with other stuff to follow up on this right now, but someone else may want to. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice, what screen resolution do you have? Because for me at 1024 x 768 your version makes a great big white space on the right (the template is left of the picture, and there is a big gap under the picture) and mine looks fine, and you say that for you mine has a big gap and yours (I presume) looks fine.

Maybe we should bring this to "technical" or "assistance" on the Village Pump and see if someone knows a cleaner way to do this? Or we could just stick both in a table on the right, which should be at least reasonably clean. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this the same problem that you're talking about? As it is, it is unacceptable; the text is almost unreadable in Firefox, IE, and Opera unless I make my browser ridiculously narrow. (Funny; usually these sorts of problems come up because my browser is already too narrow!) Can't the "Africa info" box just have a "clear: right" style or something along those lines? It may require throwing in an extra div, but the tradeoff in markup complexity is well worth it. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have put a band-aid on the Africa box that appears to fix my concerns, at least, in IE/FF/Op at page widths from roughly 600px to 1600px. The only problem with the fix is that if the Africa box changes width significantly, the width of the containing div on this page will have to be changed accordingly. I am happy to watch the template for such changes, if need be. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is Bugs Bunny listed as a related topic? Just because a couple of episodes used blackface? Unless there is an explanation of a stronger connection than that, it should not be listed. That may be a reason to link blackface from an appropriate sentence in Bugs Bunny (as someone has already done), but it's no more a reason to list Bugs Bunny here than to list the dozens of performers who have appeared in blackface. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The link to Uncle Remus also seems rather tangential. If anything, it should be a link to tar baby or something like that. Perhaps it's not that uncommon outside the pages I pay attention to (or perhaps I'm particularly ignorant on this topic), but I'm not used to having to read an article thoroughly to understand why it was linked from a "see also" section. —HorsePunchKid→龜 08:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The idea that all white reference to black art has beginnings in blackface is unsourced and non-obvious. Clapton is a good example of a different thread of artistic allusion than that of blackface. Jim Apple 04:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That is not what the statement intended, and I don't believe that's what it says. I've tweaked it a bit. Comment? deeceevoice 09:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Blackface also presented a way for the white American man to queitly [sic] announce his fear of the unknown and the unfamiliar. Here was a "safe" way for men to express emotions about race and control with out any real potential threat. "The black mask offered a way to play with the collective fears of a degraded and threatening – and male – Other while at the same time maintaining some symbolic control over them” (Lott, 25). It became a way of control both over the fear these men had for something they did not understand and control over the exact thing that was creating this fear.

I'm not going to mess with this for the time being. Perhaps the original contributor (or someone else) would like to clean this up a bit? deeceevoice 16:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have made an attempt (diff) to make it fit into the section a bit better. I'm not sure it's up to the standards of the rest of the article, but it's an improvement, at least. Can someone double-check the Lott quote? It seems very stilted, and I'm wondering if there were possibly some transcription errors. —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the book at hand, and I'm pretty sure I didn't write the text surrounding the quotation. I might have added the quotation itself to the article or the talk page; I don't remember. (I had the book out from a library. This quotation is not in my notes, but I did some work in the article with the book in hand.) I believe it needs a comma after "Other"; except for that, it is probably verbatim. Yes, it is a bit stilted, but it reads like Lott. Lott's style can be a bit over-academic, and the sentiments are certainly his. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I figured this was probably just a case of excessively florid academic writing. The reason I think other should not be capitalized is that it is the noun modified by degraded and threatening. So if you take out the appositive ("—and male—"), you get collective fears of a degraded and threatening other, which is acceptable, though you don't see other used that way (sort of as a pronoun) very often. —HorsePunchKid→龜 18:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Jmabel. I'm thinking "Other" is probably capitalized in the original text -- as an archetypical unknown, a despised entity, "The Other," which implies a kind of inchoate fear and loathing -- as in "Everyman." But, yep, Jmabel. Another concrete example of Lott's prose style. It really sux. :p deeceevoice 19:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I promise you that Lott would capitalize "Other" in this usage. I am going to restore that again. HorsePunchKid, have you read Lott? And, if so, recently? I read this six months ago—closely, took notes, I just don't happen to have taken down this passage. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

If it's going to be capitalized, its function must be to start a new sentence, right? Then I don't understand the function of Other in this sentence: "Other while at the same time maintaining some symbolic control over them." Sorry, I'm really not trying to be obtuse here, I just don't actually understand the quote when it's written that way. :) Does anyone have the book on hand? I suspect I could probably find it here, but it's been ages since I set foot in the main library... —HorsePunchKid→龜 01:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I found this with a quick Google search; you'll find the same quote there with the same curious style that was originally here (as bolded above). I haven't read Lott, unfortunately, so maybe I'm just not used to his unorthodox typography. Up above, where I explained how I was interpreting the sentence, does it sound like I'm reading it correctly, at least? —HorsePunchKid→龜 01:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are reading this correctly. And, of course, you are more than welcome to track down a copy and check it. I don't own one, and unfortunately the Seattle Public Library's only copy is in deep storage, along with much of their collection on African American topics, while the Douglass-Truth library undergoes remodelling.

As deeceevoice notes above, capitalizing "Other" when used in this sense is not uncommon. About 5 minutes of searching found another example of this capitalization. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a Looney Tunes short, one of the so-called Censored 11 that are no longer aired due to racist themes. Still, probably doesn't belong here. The list of "Related topics" is already pretty dang big. —BrianSmithson 20:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah hah! Sorry, I should have searched for it. The link just looked sufficiently absurd (and red, more importantly) that it seemed unlikely to be genuine. I'll add it back in with the correct title. I think the "Related" and "Compare" sections need to be combined, making it even longer, but I believe last time I did that, User:deeceevoice reverted it without explanation. Also note that there's a bot going around that will change "Related topics" to "See also", which I would favor, anyway. —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I reverted it with explanation. I wouldn't favor combining the two lists. And because the short is rife with excellent examples of blackface-inspired darky iconography, I'd say it definitely belongs. deeceevoice 22:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I basically concur with deeceevoice. It might be better to work a mention into the text than to have it as a "see also", but it belongs, probably the most prominent example of blackface in (or suppressed from) the Disney catalog. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Coal Black is actually a Warner Bros. cartoon, not a Disney. And the Censored Eleven -- eleven shorts, Coal Black included, which were all banned in 1968 for their racial stereotyping -- would make a better "related topics" link than just that one cartoon. --FuriousFreddy 06:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You are right on both counts, I stand corrected, and feel very foolish for the Disney remark; I can only plead that I was at work and dropping by quickly. Still, foolish, I certainly should have known better. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, no, it's alright. Disney just seems to have that stranglehold on animation (or at least animation's public perception) in America. I've heard films like An American Tail, Anastasia, and others referred to as Disney films. --FuriousFreddy 20:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice: Coal Black short does contain blackface-inspired gags and caricatures, but all characters within the short are black characters, not in blackface (same with Bosko, who you removed for that very reason). Anyway, I think the link to the Censored 11 is a better overall approach... Jeff schiller 13:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the characters are black? Well, duh. Again, it's about darky iconography, which is directly related to blackface and is treated extensively in this article. deeceevoice 16:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Zwarte Piet is often characterized variously as buffoonish, mean, mischievous and stupid.

I dispute this. There is a Sinterklaas TV-film that I liked much in my youth called Witte Piet (White Peter), based on a book with the same name, about a (white) boy who desperately wants to become Zwarte Piet and smuggles himself to Spain with Sinterklaas. He goes to the Zwarte Pieten College and is only revealed as white at the end of the film. Much of that film I don't remember because it's a long time ago I saw that film, but I remember wanting to become Zwarte Piet myself after seeing that film.

Although Zwarte Piet is somewhat portrayed clumsy and stupid (for instance, just before the entrance of Sinterklaas in Holland the Zwarte Pieten notice that they've forgotten the presents, or, worse, notice that Sinterklaas has gone missing!) this is used to add excitement. Children wonder if Sinterklaas would still come this year and are completely happy when everything turns out fine in the end. Despite all this I think most children would like to become Zwarte Piet, if possible (which off course is impossible).

Portraying Zwarte Piet as the 'punisher' is a bit incorrect. Although he carries the 'roe' he never uses it to punish children. The story of Sinterklaas is that Sinterklaas has the so-called 'Grote Boek' (Big Book), a sort of encyclopedia with all Dutch children in it with their acts of that year. Children are asked to sit on Sinterklaas' lap (usually on school), where Sinterklaas reveals some (naughty) acts of the children (the schoolmistress told Sinterklaas all these acts off course, but the children don't know this and see in Sinterklaas the Great Old Wise Man). Off course nobody is taken to Spain, and nobody is punished, but it is this subtle 'threat' of being taken to Spain (on the order of Sinterklaas, not of Zwarte Piet) that adds extra excitement to the celebration (I can tell you that Sinterklaas is the one of the most exciting events of the year for children).

To this day, holiday revellers in the Netherlands blacken their faces; wear afro wigs and bright, red lipstick; and walk the streets, throwing candy to passersby, some of them behaving dim-wittedly and/or speaking mangled Dutch as embodiments of Zwarte Piet.

This is new to me. Who are these holiday revellers? Off course "behaving dim-wittedly and/or speaking mangled Dutch" are no embodiments of Zwarte Piet.

Some white Dutch children believe their black classmates will grow up to be Zwarte Piet, and still others believe black people they meet in public are Zwarte Piet.

This is generally not true. I can say this because I'm Dutch, grew up in the Netherlands and had coloured classmates. Never, ever in my life did I see black classmates as future Zwarte Piet, nor did my other white classmates. Actually, the fact that black people are not seen as Zwarte Piet is an argument for many Dutch to claim that Zwarte Piet has nothing to do with racism. Being black is not the only feature of Zwarte Piet, he is also dressed in unusual suits and carries bags with candy; much like Sinterklaas isn't an ordinary white man, Zwarte Piet isn't an ordinary black man either. Zwarte Piet and Sinterklaas live in Spain most of the time, and come to Holland once every year to give everybody presents. Zwarte Piet and Sinterklaas just do exist (have somewhat always existed, Sinterklaas is about 800 years old, though this figure varies). They "exist" just as the Queen just exists or the Mayor just exists. Children don't think much about the origins of the Royal family or the Mayors, nor do they think about the origins of Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet.

---

Now a general note. As a Cultural Anthropologist I can say you that being black in the Netherlands isn't as much an issue as it is in the States. In my readings in Cultural Anthropology I've learned that in the U.S., especially in former slave states, black people are considered second, or even worse third class citizens. Black people in the Netherlands are usually people from Surinam, or adopted children from Africa. These people are generally very well integrated in Dutch society. Discrimination in the Netherlands focusses on Maroccan and Turk people, or Islamic people in general. Race isn't much an issue in the Netherlands; I remember reading about the hypo-descent-principle of defining to which race someone belongs and the biological consequences that race have in the States (black people have a lower IQ) with disbelief, I wasn't familiar with this. I deeply understand U.S. black people's crusade to racism and discrimination, and I fully support you in all this, but I think your opinion about the racism in the Sinterklaas celebration is a bit overthrown. Maartenvdbent 13:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, based on your personal experience; however, the information presented in the article regarding ZP was gleaned from several different sources. Some of the editors who contributed to that section in particular are from the Netherlands. The information is accurate as presented. Further, African Americans are not the only people who find ZP objectionable and racist. One needn't be black or from a particular country to find the blackfaced, big-red-lipped darky iconography and golliwogg dolls with which ZP is portrayed offensive. There are white Nederlanders, as well as your own countrymen and women of color, and immigrants who detest the tradtion. Time to take your blinders off. deeceevoice 13:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I dispute the information is accurate. The section doesn't include many references and the sources cited can be disputed as POV. The fact that some people from the Netherlands contributed doesn't make the information true. An highly controversial subject like this needs many provable references, preferrably from scientific anti-racist institutions. I would like to have information about the sources of the sentences disputed by me. In particular these two sentences strike me:

Some white Dutch children believe their black classmates will grow up to be Zwarte Piet, and still others believe black people they meet in public are Zwarte Piet.

Can you prove this, this sounds very very strange to me.

To this day, holiday revellers in the Netherlands blacken their faces; wear afro wigs and bright, red lipstick; and walk the streets, throwing candy to passersby, some of them behaving dim-wittedly and/or speaking mangled Dutch as embodiments of Zwarte Piet.

Again, who are these holiday revellers, or do you mean normal Dutch citizens who are asked by the community (County, City, School, Public Broadcast) to walk as Zwarte Pieten and give passersby candy. Then I suggest you change "holiday revellers" to "ordinary Dutch citizens". By the way, a normal Zwarte Piet speaks Dutch perfectly. This can be proven by just viewing the Entry of Sinterklaas on television. I think "Behaving dim-wittedly" is a bit exaggerating, Zawrte Piet is involved in the go wrong-thing that is part of the entry of Sinterklaas every year, but Zwarte Piet is a normal person, be it a bit clumsy. I have walked around as Zwarte Piet sometime, but I didn't behave dim-wittedly, I wasn't supposed to, I only had to give people candy, that's all.

Zwarte Piet will kidnap bad children and carry them off to Spain in his bag, where, legend has it, he and Sinterklaas dwell out of season.

I suggest we change that to "Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet". It is untrue that Zwarte Piet kidnaps children himself. It is Sinterklaas who knows everything en decides who will be kidnapped.

I know there are people who detest it, and I know that there are people in the Bijlmer who use Groene Pieten instead of Zwarte Pieten. I know that some people find it offensive. I don't have to take my blinders off. But you don't fully recognize that there is a majority who find Sinterklaas not racist at all. Sinterklaas is portrayed as a racist celebration, and I contest that. I think that an neutral encyclopedia should also mention that most Dutch don't see Sinterklaas as a racist celebration, and that they don't see Zwarte Piet as an inferior black man, and that some do.

Sinterklaas may originate from a tradition of slavery, that doesn't mean that it is a discriminating and racist celebration nowadays. It has evolved. ZP is seen by most as a helper of Sinterklaas, because Sinterklaas can't do everything on his own (you know that Sinterklaas himself also climbs the roof with his horse to bring the presents? It is not only de Pieten who do the work!). Maartenvdbent 15:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

If you'd like in-line references, that can be arranged. I'll provide them sometime within the next couple of weeks. Until then, the sources, which already have been noted at the end of the article, will have to suffice. And, duh. Objectivity isn't assured simply because some contributors are Dutch -- but I mentioned the Dutch contributors because you erroneously concluded in your earlier comments that only African Americans had a problem with ZP because we somehow were transferring our singular values resulting from our historical (and present-day) experiences in the U.S. to the ZP phenomenon -- which is most certainly not the case. And with regard to "neutrality," I suggest you read the article again. It does, indeed, express both viewpoints. Finally, your suggested rewording about Sinterklaas and ZP -- that just won't fly. It's simply inaccurate. Parents don't threaten their children with Sinterklaas; ZP, the black one, is made to be the villain. Children, by and large, don't cringe from Sinterklaas or cry in terror when they see him. Such reactions generally are reserved for his black slave. Frankly, I don't care about your personal opinion about ZP or your personal experiences. That's not the point. The info on ZP is accurate and impartial as presented. deeceevoice 05:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, since you've freely expressed your opinion to me about all this, I'll take a moment to express mine: I find it interesting that you claim to be a cultural anthropologist, yet are so clearly clueless and in denial about ZP and the harmful impact of this racist tradition -- and that not only are you an apologist for it, in the 21st century, here you are running around in blackface, red lipstick and a nappy wig playing a slave to Sinterklaas, pandering to truly offensive, racist stereotypes. Speaking frankly, if I were a tourist in the Netherlands and you approached me with that sh*t, there'd be hell to pay. For an informed, scholarly take (nominated for the Het Parool/University of Amsterdam National Thesis Prize) on the ZP tradition by a Dutch national, see the section "PhD research" at [6] deeceevoice 10:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Quote:

I mentioned the Dutch contributors because you erroneously concluded in your earlier comments that only African Americans had a problem with ZP because we somehow were transferring our singular values resulting from our historical (and present-day) experiences in the U.S. to the ZP phenomenon -- which is most certainly not the case.

I did NOT say that!!! I only mentioned that being black in the Netherlands isn't as much an issue as it is in the States. I have never in my childhood made the connection between the Sinterklaas-tradition and racism, nor have I ever thought the black 'race' (which doesn't exist as such as a biological entity) being inferior. I said this as a remark for you te be careful to judge the Sinterklaas-culture so vividly as racist and discriminating. In an American context Sinterklaas would be much more controversial, because the U.S. public only recently (if so) have dropped the racist idea. In the Netherlands Sinterklaas would be much more controversial if Sinterklaas was assisted by a unit of Maroccan figures, because these are the groups who are discriminated nowadays.

You have the advantage of an outsider, who can objectively overlook Dutch society. I have the advantage of an insider, being grown op with a Dutch context, rather than an American context, so that I can point to cultural differences which are necessary for putting things in the right context.

Quote:

Finally, your suggested rewording about Sinterklaas and ZP -- that just won't fly. It's simply inaccurate. Parents don't threaten their children with Sinterklaas; ZP, the black one, is made to be the villain. Children, by and large, don't cringe from Sinterklaas or cry in terror when they see him. Such reactions generally are reserved for his black slave.

Let's say first that most parents don't threaten their children with Zwarte Piet nor Sinterklaas. Sinterklaas is one of the most joyous occasions of the year. It is about having the whole family together on 'Pakjesavond' (presents evening) and having fun reading the poems that Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet made about all family members (off course the parents make these poems, older children who don't believe Sinterklaas exists make them for each other). Only parent who lack authority threaten their children with this. Can you imagine your mother saying to you that if you weren't behaving good you'd be put in a bag and taken to Spain? What parent would do that?

By the way, Zwarte Piet nor Sinterklaas are considered villain. Come on, this is a celebration for CHILDREN. It's about joy and fun, and children overall have fun. I suggest you should see the Entry of Sinterklaas here: [7], it's nothing but joy, like Santa Claus is in the States. Furthermore I can say to you that the youngest children often cringe for Sinterklaas. I spoke to my younger brother about Sinterklaas and he said he used to be scared of Sinterklaas whe he was younger (he said this out of nowhere, I wasn't insinuating), and I am pretty sure he is not the only one.

Quote:

and that not only are you an apologist for it, in the 21st century, here you are running around in blackface, red lipstick and a nappy wig playing a slave to Sinterklaas, pandering to truly offensive, racist stereotypes. Speaking frankly, if I were a tourist in the Netherlands and you approached me with that sh*t, there'd be hell to pay.

Yes, I was running in blackface once, when I was six years old, making absolutely no connection with racism, I didn't even know what racism was, because I had never encountered racism and teacher hadn't taught me in school (maybe you do in the States, but like I said earlier, racism isn't (anymore) as relevant in NL as it is in the States).

Finally, I know Zwarte Piet is controversial, and the wikipedia-article is right in mentioning the racist tradition of which Sinterklaas evolved. But I think, and more think so, that the article is too much condemning, and too less mentioning that in modern Dutch society most people don't make the connection between Zwarte Piet and racism. Sinterklaas has evolved from racist to a more innocent type of celebration, and it will evolve more and more to such one. Maybe we have mixed Peters one day, Black, Yellow, White et cetera. A bit more balance in the article would be appreciated. Maartenvdbent 17:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course -- but you're simply repeating yourself. IMO, any objective reading of the article will reveal that it is fair and balanced in its treatment of the ZP phenomenon. deeceevoice 09:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the article to say whiteface for the Cape Coons, the participants are typically naturally dark skinned people who paint their faces white. The article on the CapeTours site talks about "blackface" but as you can see from the photos on the site, the people are naturally dark and have smeared a bit of white sunblock on their faces. This is the usually situation although some go for a full on clown style whiteface. I live in Cape Town and see the carnival every year so I know what I'm talking about. I've also removed reference to "creole" culture, most South Africans will probably be unfamiliar with the word or at most think that it refers to Caribbean cuisine or such like. Kuratowski's Ghost 18:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As I e-mailed you, another collateral-damage (it happens somewhere every time I sign on) block prevented me from editing this page, and your talk page, as well, to explain my reverts. I've modified the text. What you've observed is clearly a modified form of blackface -- what I referred to in the information regarding the Auckland City Dukes as "pared down blackface," where the lips are exaggerated using white makeup. "Creole" culture is perfectly appropriate here. As I also mentioned, the articles originating in South Africa use the term, and it sufficiently characterizes the disparate/diverse cultural elements. "Local", however, does not. That term could mean virtually anything -- including minority white culture. Perhaps you can come up with a few words to succinctly, but more adequately, describe the culture being celebrated. Also, since, as you say, you've attended the carnival for several years, perhaps you have a photo? I contacted the Auckland City Dukes and the web host of the website which featured similar photos of the makeup style (big, white lips outlined in black) -- but the photo was no longer available. deeceevoice 06:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)