Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are attempting to rewrite history. No one argues that is WAS acceptable at one point, but it isn't any longer. Likewise, just because it was acceptable to society doesn't mean it wasn't racist back then as well. If anything it is just more evidence that American society has a very racist past.
Megyn even admitted that she was ignorant on the topic as evidenced by her attempt to use the term "white face" as an equivalency.
Megyn was fired because she wouldn't re-write history.
Of course it isn't acceptable today. A lot of past things aren't but that doesn't mean they weren't.
(There's quibbling about acceptable. Anti-semitic stuff was never acceptable to Jews, "What is an Irish dinner?" was never acceptable to the Irish. "How many Poles does it take.." was never...and so it goes. Blackface, likewise. It was never acceptable to the group of which it made fun (even if it wasn't meant to make fun).
But these were acceptable otherwise. This is what NBC is trying to airbrush: that at one time, racial (and ethnic) offenses and insensitivities were no big deal. People aren't to understand that their outrage at these discourtesies is of recent origin and at one time, weren't confined to an ignorant and racist fringe.
1. What is your background to know how all African-Americans felt about all entertainers who donned black face in the late 1800s and early 1900s?
2. Santa was based on an actual person who was Turkish.
I believe that Black folks did call out Megyn Kelly about what she said. The term itself seems to be hurtful, if I understand this correctly. Why would it be hurtful? Because white folks got themselves up as cartoonish Black folks and acted foolish and ignorant. I don’t have to have miraculous insight to figure out how this was hurtful.
I know who Santa Claus is based on. But for modern American children, he is a made up character who can be anything we want him to be. We decided that he lives at the North Pole, and that he reads kids’s letters and that he drives a magical sleigh pulled by reindeer. He is a made up person.
I believe that Black folks did call out Megyn Kelly about what she said. The term itself seems to be hurtful, if I understand this correctly. Why would it be hurtful? Because white folks got themselves up as cartoonish Black folks and acted foolish and ignorant. I don’t have to have miraculous insight to figure out how this was hurtful.
I know who Santa Claus is based on. But for modern American children, he is a made up character who can be anything we want him to be. We decided that he lives at the North Pole, and that he reads kids’s letters and that he drives a magical sleigh pulled by reindeer. He is a made up person.
I guess what I'm reacting to, in general, in this thread is what I refer to as the City-Data (and other forums) concept that all things are black or white (no pun intended), good or evil...either/or. And the idea that all people throughout American history who did this were totally evil people. Time doesn't usually make things moral or immoral, but time does change perspective.
In this day and age, a white person donning black face is at best pure stupidity and sometimes much more than that. But I can't go back to 1830, which is the date black face in entertainment seems to have begun (give or take a few years) and understand how anyone felt about it. I look at white entertainers over the years who did black face -- Al Jolson, Shirley Temple, Bing Crosby, Eddie Cantor, and many more (take a look at this whopping list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...d_in_blackface). Were they all cruel racists? I don't think so, although I think that some, perhaps quite a few, probably were.
I guess what I'm reacting to, in general, in this thread is what I refer to as the City-Data (and other forums) concept that all things are black or white (no pun intended), good or evil...either/or. And the idea that all people throughout American history who did this were totally evil people. Time doesn't usually make things moral or immoral, but time does change perspective.
In this day and age, a white person donning black face is at best pure stupidity and sometimes much more than that. But I can't go back to 1830, which is the date black face in entertainment seems to have begun (give or take a few years) and understand how anyone felt about it. I look at white entertainers over the years who did black face -- Al Jolson, Shirley Temple, Bing Crosby, Eddie Cantor, and many more (take a look at this whopping list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...d_in_blackface). Were they all cruel racists? I don't think so, although I think that some, perhaps quite a few, probably were.
20th Century entertainers who blacked their faces for whatever reason, did so because of a tradition that saw this as normal. I honestly do not know why the tradition was ever seen as normal; I do not have insight into what 19th Century entertainers were thinking. But apparently other whites saw no problem with what they were doing. I assume Black people were offended, but that did not matter to the people who used blackface to entertain.
We also had a lot of abusive, physical comedy. People hit each other and that was considered funny. We don’t like that as much now; we know that hitting is not kind to anyone, and really is not funny. The Three Stooges could never find mainstream success today.
Our understanding of racism and inflicted pain have evolved over time.
Kelly’s problem seems to me to be she has not understood how it might feel to be the brunt of abusive humor. It was “OK” for whites to blacken their faces and act stupid, but it was “OK” only to whites. It was lousy for Blacks. To me that is her problem.
20th century entertainers who blacked their faces for whatever reason, did so because of a tradition that saw this as normal. I honestly do not know why the tradition was ever seen as normal; i do not have insight into what 19th century entertainers were thinking. But apparently other whites saw no problem with what they were doing. I assume black people were offended, but that did not matter to the people who used blackface to entertain.
We also had a lot of abusive, physical comedy. People hit each other and that was considered funny. We don’t like that as much now; we know that hitting is not kind to anyone, and really is not funny. The three stooges could never find mainstream success today.
Our understanding of racism and inflicted pain have evolved over time.
Kelly’s problem seems to me to be she has not understood how it might feel to be the brunt of abusive humor. It was “ok” for whites to blacken their faces and act stupid, but it was “ok” only to whites. It was lousy for blacks. To me that is her problem.
I guess what I'm reacting to, in general, in this thread is what I refer to as the City-Data (and other forums) concept that all things are black or white (no pun intended), good or evil...either/or. And the idea that all people throughout American history who did this were totally evil people. Time doesn't usually make things moral or immoral, but time does change perspective.
In this day and age, a white person donning black face is at best pure stupidity and sometimes much more than that. But I can't go back to 1830, which is the date black face in entertainment seems to have begun (give or take a few years) and understand how anyone felt about it. I look at white entertainers over the years who did black face -- Al Jolson, Shirley Temple, Bing Crosby, Eddie Cantor, and many more (take a look at this whopping list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...d_in_blackface). Were they all cruel racists? I don't think so, although I think that some, perhaps quite a few, probably were.
No, they would not have all be "cruel racists." As you've pointed out, there is evidence that Al Jolson was not personally racist.
It lists Jack Benny, for instance. If you check out the wikipedia entry for Eddie Anderson (who played "Rochester" in the Jack Benny show), it's rather amazing how staunchly Benny stood up for Anderson in public. And I've long believed that the Rochester role itself was actually an ironic jab at racism. Unlike other minstrel-based use of blacks in entertainment up until then, the Rochester character was not the "fool" of the program--he was actually the only character that was not a fool. Rochester was the "everyman" character of the show. I don't think Benny did that by accident.
No, they would not have all be "cruel racists." As you've pointed out, there is evidence that Al Jolson was not personally racist.
It lists Jack Benny, for instance. If you check out the wikipedia entry for Eddie Anderson (who played "Rochester" in the Jack Benny show), it's rather amazing how staunchly Benny stood up for Anderson in public. And I've long believed that the Rochester role itself was actually an ironic jab at racism. Unlike other minstrel-based use of blacks in entertainment up until then, the Rochester character was not the "fool" of the program--he was actually the only character that was not a fool. Rochester was the "everyman" character of the show. I don't think Benny did that by accident.
20th Century entertainers who blacked their faces for whatever reason, did so because of a tradition that saw this as normal. I honestly do not know why the tradition was ever seen as normal; I do not have insight into what 19th Century entertainers were thinking. But apparently other whites saw no problem with what they were doing. I assume Black people were offended, but that did not matter to the people who used blackface to entertain.
We also had a lot of abusive, physical comedy. People hit each other and that was considered funny. We don’t like that as much now; we know that hitting is not kind to anyone, and really is not funny. The Three Stooges could never find mainstream success today.
Our understanding of racism and inflicted pain have evolved over time.
Kelly’s problem seems to me to be she has not understood how it might feel to be the brunt of abusive humor. It was “OK” for whites to blacken their faces and act stupid, but it was “OK” only to whites. It was lousy for Blacks. To me that is her problem.
I've understood that there was a need for blackface because blacks were not allowed as performers. Vaudeville troops did not have blacks in the South, for instance. That's what I heard. But there was a need for black roles so blackface filled the void.
"Mammy" was a popular song but due to the times, it couldn't be sung by blacks in many venues. Yet it had to be sung by popular demand, so blackface was used.
The reason I think blackface was generally OK in the past was that unflattering depictions of blacks were common and blackface was just one more of them. "Amos and Andy" was a very popular TV show when I was a kid. Johnie Weismueller's "Tarzan" movies were big hits in the 1940's and 1950's. Bill Cosby bought the rights to "Tarzan" so they couldn't be shown on TV anymore.
Megyn Kelley, though too young for those shows, was right in that blackface was part of an entertainment tradition that depicted blacks unflatteringly.
I've understood that there was a need for blackface because blacks were not allowed as performers. Vaudeville troops did not have blacks in the South, for instance. That's what I heard. But there was a need for black roles so blackface filled the void.
That's so wrong as to be silly.
There were plenty of black actors, singers, and musicians available. The fact is that they weren't allowed to perform before whites (although some were allowed to perform in blackface, as long as they did the same kind of racist parody of blacks as the white actors did in blackface).
Quote:
"Mammy" was a popular song but due to the times, it couldn't be sung by blacks in many venues. Yet it had to be sung by popular demand, so blackface was used.
The reason I think blackface was generally OK in the past was that unflattering depictions of blacks were common and blackface was just one more of them. "Amos and Andy" was a very popular TV show when I was a kid. Johnie Weismueller's "Tarzan" movies were big hits in the 1940's and 1950's. Bill Cosby bought the rights to "Tarzan" so they couldn't be shown on TV anymore.
By the end of the 50s that had been tucked under cover because everyone knew it wasn't cool. Disney and Warner Bros had already iceboxed their old racist depictions of blacks. No, it wasn't still considered acceptable in ordinary entertainment by the end of the 50s.
Quote:
Megyn Kelley, though too young for those shows, was right in that blackface was part of an entertainment tradition that depicted blacks unflatteringly.
For some reason we're not supposed to know that.
The problem was that she said, "What's wrong with it?"
I've understood that there was a need for blackface because blacks were not allowed as performers. Vaudeville troops did not have blacks in the South, for instance. That's what I heard. But there was a need for black roles so blackface filled the void.
"Mammy" was a popular song but due to the times, it couldn't be sung by blacks in many venues. Yet it had to be sung by popular demand, so blackface was used.
The reason I think blackface was generally OK in the past was that unflattering depictions of blacks were common and blackface was just one more of them. "Amos and Andy" was a very popular TV show when I was a kid. Johnie Weismueller's "Tarzan" movies were big hits in the 1940's and 1950's. Bill Cosby bought the rights to "Tarzan" so they couldn't be shown on TV anymore.
Megyn Kelley, though too young for those shows, was right in that blackface was part of an entertainment tradition that depicted blacks unflatteringly.
For some reason we're not supposed to know that.
Again, blackface was OK to whites. How could it have been OK to the people they were making fun of, or whose culture they were appropriating?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
