Talk:Blackface/Archive 1

message: __TOC__
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)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Upload file on the side bar. -- Error 01:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  but WHY? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Upload file on the side bar. -- Error 01:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A separate article on ''darky''?  Inclusion of Amos 'n' Andy and a darky image

message: 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)
thread_title: Darkie toothpaste and Conguitos

message: 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)
thread_title: Useful background ideas for this article?=

message: 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)
thread_title: Expansion of info on blackface iconography around the world and reordering of information

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  References and headings 

message: 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)
thread_title: Notes to self

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blackface/Entertainment laws 

message: 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)
thread_title: What is this quote saying?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Censorship of blackface cartoon scenes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pretty long article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mae West, Frank Sinatra 

message: 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)
replies: text: nothing wrong with a short mentioning of the controversy there. Even the Dutch version mentions it. Andries 17:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Emancipation of Zwarte Piet

message: 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)
thread_title: Categories?

message: 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)
thread_title: A photo montage?

message: 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)
thread_title: And another thing (about references and featured article status)

message: 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)
thread_title: About cartoons

message: 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)
thread_title: Other traditions involving blackened faces

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  appropriation vs. blackface 

message: 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)
thread_title:  R&B and country 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lewis Hallam 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  lead paragraph in "in U.S." section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Othello 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Zwarte Piet in the lead section?

message: 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)
thread_title:  shirley q. liquor 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: This article is overwikified

message: 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)
thread_title:  World popular culture section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bert Williams 

message: 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)
thread_title: Cape Coon Carnival Whiteface not Blackface

message: 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)
thread_title: A general comment

message: Informative and balanced.  Well done! --- Mike 05:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For myself and everyone who worked hard on this piece -- gee, thanks. :D deeceevoice 12:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent article on a tough subject 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusing paragraph? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Blacking-up" materials 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Format 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bugs Bunny? 

message: 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)
thread_title: pop references have beginnings in blackface?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Re: [[Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cape Coon Carnival Whiteface not Blackface