Talk:Stephen Foster

message: A part of the article talking about his musical claims that Federal Hill in Kentucky was the inspiration for the song My Old Kentucky Home. However, the musical itself portrays Stephen Foster becoming inspired by the song after John Rowan beats a slave. John Rowan died nine years before the song was ever written. Also there is significant reason to believe that the song was originally written about Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin", and that the lyrics were changed before publication.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonathy (talk • contribs) 04:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Section: My Old Kentucky Home

message: You are absolutely, without question correct. That subject must be treated with precision and cannot be ignored. It sort of goes along with 'what do we do about the confederate flag'? You are most certainly qualified to make edits to the article that help represent this topic and I certainly welcome any and all input. If you don't want to do the editing in the article, then leave a message here-but we have to be able to have a reference for every statement that is made in the article. Please help out if you can. You have pointed out one of the most important thing about Stephen Foster and it can't be ignored.
:Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Excellent comment

message: *http://bluegrasstoday.com/150-years-of-civil-war-music/
*https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mp/9460447.0001.203/--singing-a-new-song-stephen-foster-and-the-new-american?rgn=main;view=fulltext added 7/14/2017
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional references

message: There is no logic to the statement that "Though they lived in a northern city, his family did not support the abolition of slavery". Opposition to slavery was not universal in northern cities, nor did living in a Northern city make one automatically an abolitionist. Many northerners were in fact supporters of slavery.203.80.61.102 (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery 

message: "for its depiction of an African-American banjo player at the feet of the seated composer. Critics say the statue glorifies white appropriation of black culture, and depicts the vacantly smiling musician in a way that is at best condescending and at worst racist."[39]
I realize this is a quotation from an actual news source, and as such, it has been rendered accurately.  It does not, however, render an accurate description of the statue in question, but rather a highly-biased view of the statue's assumed significance.
The banjo player is only presumed to be "African-American"; there is no citation from the sculptor stating this to be the case.  Indeed, the banjo player bears a not insignificant resemblance to Pete Seeger, a white folk musician, who counted some of Foster's material among his repertory.  Secondly, the banjo play is seated not at Foster's "feet", but at his side.  Finally, the observation that the musician is smiling "vacantly", reflects a high degree of personal bias -- he may well be smiling because he's a talented musician, enjoying the music he is playing.
The description of the statue and the reason for its removal depicts only a single side of a multifaceted issue, an approach unworthy of an ostensibly "encyclopedic" article.  Some balance, please?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Foster is wearing shoes, but the banjo player isn't. Chronology also prohibits the banjo player from having any relation to Seeger, who was born in 1919. The sculpture is from 1900. I don't know if "vacant smile" is the right assessment, but compare his expression with Foster's. You can say he's at Foster's side, but he is sitting on whatever Foster is standing on. deisenbe (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV