Talk:Minstrel show

Louis Wright lynching

Deeceevoice removed the Louis Wright example from the following paragraph with this edit summary: "Deleted as inaccurate. The man was killed for defying white supremacy--which existed before and after minstrelsy."

Minstrel-show characters played a powerful role in shaping assumptions about African Americans. However, unlike vehemently anti-black propaganda from the time, minstrelsy made this attitude palatable to a wide audience by couching it in the guise of well intentioned paternalism. Black Americans were in turn expected to uphold these stereotypes, or else risk white retaliation. Some were even killed for defying their minstrelsy-defined roles. Louis Wright, himself a black minstrel, died after being lynched and having his tongue cut out for cursing at some whites who had thrown snowballs at him.

I put it back, as it's an example straight out of Watkins about how defying minstrel-defined roles could be fatal for African Americans at this time. And defying the darky stereotypes is a form of defying white supremacy, so it seems that Watkins's and Deeceevoice's interpretations are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, Wright was a black minstrel, so the example is pertinent here. Had he smiled and said something obsequious and in dialect to the whites, I doubt he would have been killed. Am I missing something here? — Amcaja 12:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice reverted with this edit summary: The objection is to "minstrelsy-defined." Black people's "place" was well-defined long before minstrelsy came along.

I understand that any black man would probably have been lynched under the circumstances of the anecdote, but the point that Watkins is making (and that the article is quoting) is that Wright was a black minstrel who was expected to act off-stage how he did on. He didn't, and he was killed for it. I've tried for a compromise position that makes this clearer; hopefully this will be satisfactory. — Amcaja 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If any blackman would've been killed for speaking up for himself -- and that almost certainly would've been the case -- then the passage, while somewhat improved, still isn't quite on target. If any black person likely would have met a similar fate under the circumstances, what's the real point of the passage? The fact that he was a minstrel was mere happenstance. 05:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Watkins seems to be arguing that Wright was killed either directly or indirectly from dropping his stage persona; you are arguing that the stage persona is beside the point; any black person would have been killed under those circumstances. Watkins's point would be stronger if Wright had not cursed the whites but had, say, tried to perform Shakespeare and gotten lynched for that. I'll remove the anecdote for now, but if anyone else is monitoring this page, I'd appreciate your views, as well. — Amcaja 12:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that no one else has chimed in in 2 weeks. As another sometime participant in this page, I hate to be wishy-washy, but I can see both sides of this. I undertand the point Watkins was trying to make, and while I don't think it is completely invalid, I also tend to agree with deeceevoice that the matter would have been overdetermined, and that Watkins may be reading into the circumstances something that was not really there. The lynching of an African American blackface minstrel might merit a mention on this page (though I don't think it is crucial), and Watkins remark may be worth reporting as Watkins' opinion/interpretation, but I'm not at all sure Watkins was on the mark. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I suppose it's best to leave it cut for now. The page is overlong anyway. — Amcaja 13:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Entry of Black performers

The lead now suggests that Black performers first began performing in minstrel shows after the Civil War. I believe that is wrong. There is no citation. The obvious exception that leaps to mind is Master Juba, who died in 1852. Our article on blackface says, "By 1840, African-American performers also were performing in blackface makeup. Frederick Douglass wrote in 1849 about one such troupe, Gavitt's Original Ethiopian Serenaders: 'It is something to be gained when the colored man in any form can appear before a white audience.' Nonetheless, Douglass generally abhorred blackface and was one of the first people to write against the institution of blackface minstrelsy, condemning it as racist in nature, with inauthentic, northern, white origins." I see no reason to doubt it. I am editing accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 03:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't even notice that an anon had rewritten much of the lead until I saw your post here. I've changed back a few other things here and there. Over all, his or her edits were not bad. — Amcaja 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No vote and no land means no Americans

Negroes could not vote or own land in the 19th century, therefore they weren't "Americans." Please refrain from the use of the fakery: i. e., "African Americans" and "free blacks." Velocicaptor 01:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So by your standards, the entire civilian population of the United States (i.e. Americans) was male until 1920? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Velocicaptor has a point of sorts. I generally tend to refrain from referring to slaves as "African Americans" or "black Americans" -- because they were not Americans; they were captive Africans. I refer to them as "slaves," "enslaved Africans," "blacks," etc. They were not considered Americans/American citizens; they had no rights -- no right to the fruits of their labors, no right to their own offspring, no right to their own bodies, no right to freedom. The right to vote was the least of their troubles! Let's not put a current label on something that didn't apply/was not accurate to characterize the past. deeceevoice 20:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, in the case of slaves I agree with you: "African American" is dubious. I think it is more reasonable for free Blacks, even in the slavery era; it certainly does not strike me as an odd way to refer to Frederick Douglass, for example, or even Ira Aldridge. What are your thoughts on this? We could say "free Blacks"; I can't readily think of a third possibility. Certainly not "Free Negroes". What else is there?

Also, is there a point in history after which you would specifically say African American becomes appropriate? I see no problem with it post-Emancipation, do you? - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Heya, Joe. After Emancipation, though blacks suffered discrimination and all sorts of reprehensible treatment, at least we were no longer property, or subject to kidnapping and enslavement, so I'd say that sounds about right. I agree with you on all counts. deeceevoice 23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through and adjusted the terminology in a couple of places so that now African American is used only for free blacks before the Civil War or for blacks after the Civil War. Thanks for the feedback, folks. — Amcaja 09:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, African American also appears in the following phrases that refer to both the antebellum and postwar periods: African American folk culture and African American spirituals. Do people think these should be changed? — Amcaja 13:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. You see, actually being called American depends on the nationality status of the person involved. If they happened to be a captive black, they are not an American but rather a captured African. So yes, they were not citizens until they could vote, basically. They should be changed. .V. 13:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Most definitely. It's one of the reasons I use the old term "Negro Spirituals" or simply "Spirituals." And as I've said before, "black" (and sometimes "African") is always a perfectly serviceable alternative. deeceevoice 13:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This should be sorted now. It sounds like V is arguing that free blacks before Emancipation should not be referred to as African American, but I'm siding with Joe and Deeceevoice here and keeping the term in the passage about Thomas Dilward and William Henry Lane. Even after African Americans gained the right to vote, it does not mean they were able to exercise it. See Snowden Family Band for one example. — Amcaja 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Shoot from the lip articles

What a crock! Free negroes could not vote or own land, therefore they weren't "Americans." 71.240.17.138 11:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you said pretty much the exact same thing when you signed in as Velocicaptor. Why don't you try to join the discussion above rather than just drive-by complaining? — Amcaja 11:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I erred by previewing my "edit" prior to logging in. After I logged in, I clicked "save" without previewing (again) as Velocicaptor. That was a mistake which displayed the IP number instead of my user name. I was disappointed, however it was my first "save" of the day, so I forgave myself. Velocicaptor 14:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's a "crock" to claim that one isn't an American if one can't vote or own land. (I'd change my mind if there were a citation from a reliable source, though.) Lou Sander 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a tremendous difference between being a slave born in or residing in the U.S., with no rights whatsoever -- neither civil rights (a term which speaks to citizenship and government) nor human rights (a term which speaks to innate or, God-given rights) -- and being an "American." Birth and death records of African slaves, as well as records of slave sales transactions often were kept in ledgers detailing similar events in the lives of livestock along with the disposition of other material goods/assets. Let's be perfectly clear here and not muddle the facts with outrageously inappropriate terminology/labels based on some misguided or sentimental view of world/American history or modern sensibilities. Slaves were chattel -- property -- not citizens. Many whites didn't even consider my ancestors human. A slave was no more a citizen or an "American" of any kind than was a horse, a mule, or a plough. To paraphrase Malcolm X, "Just because a cat has kittens in an oven, that doesn't make them biscuits." deeceevoice 12:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are a gentleman and a scholar, Velocicaptor. (And there are damned few of us left <smile>). Lou Sander 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (The gremlins are active today--the first time I posted this, I forgot to save it.)

People do not realize that each State in the Union determines who may vote. Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution (about 1870), some States' requirements restricted voting to people who owned at least 50 acres of land. That requirement kept some white men from voting, as well as "Free negroes." Even in 2006, each State may enact laws related to voting which differ from the laws in every other State. The same rule applies to laws relating to the consumption of alcoholic beverages, etal. Velocicaptor 14:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly made freedmen "citizens" -- this seems sufficient to use the term "African-Americans." Using the label doesn't diminish the prolonged and horrible racism flourishing in the American South for over a century after the close of the Civil War; instead, it just reflects the usual convention that citizenship defines the label "American." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.194.8.70 (talk • contribs) 1 December 2006.

So women were not Americans until they could vote? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.6.214 (talk • contribs) 18 December 2006.

Women were citizens, but didn't have the vote. The slaves weren't even citizens. Quite similarly to the situation of the slaves, few would refer to the unemancipated Jews of the 19th century Pale of Settlement as "Russians", but we would use that term for ethnically Russian serfs. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman women could not own land, were they not Romans? I think i hear an axe grinding.

Music samples

I think that two or three music samples might be a good addition to this article; minstrel music was the popular music of its day, after all. Can anyone suggest where clips might be useful and of what songs? There's a public domain recording of "Dixie" on that article's page; it could be placed here with no concerns for fair use. However, other songs may have to be sampled from modern recreations of minstrel music. Where might fair use justification be applicable? — Amcaja 03:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that plenty of minstrel music was recorded and issued before 1923, so it should be public domain. I can't think exactly what to look for, though. The blackface performers who I know were recorded (Bert Williams, for example) weren't really doing minstrelsy. Does someone know better just what is out there? I don't think we should need to resort to fair use. - Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, using the same source as the one from which "Dixie" comes, we have versions available of "The Arkansas Traveler" (1916, early country); "My Old Kentucky Home" (1918, soprano woman), several here (1898–1906, piano accompaniment); a couple here (1900, 1901); several here (1899–1911); several here (1909–20; includes blackface comic sketches, too); "The Whistling Coon" (1911; not sure if it's from minstrelsy or after); "A Coon Wedding in Southern Georgia" 1903; ditto); one here; 1903; piano); several here; 1901–03; piano); "Dixie" band arrangement (1905); several here (1896–1901); several here (1915–6; includes blackface sketches); several here (1900–02); several here (1898–1920); and "Old Folks at Home" (1898; piccolo) and (1914) (sounds like Alvin & The Chipmunks).

So, lots of blackface songs to choose from, but none of these is really played in the style of minstrelsy (fiddle, banjo, bones, tambourine). Everything's accompanied by piano or full orchestra. This may actually be representative of very late minstrelsy, though. — Amcaja 09:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of these are coon songs, a later genre than minstrelsy (and one for which Wikipedia needs an article). -- Amcaja 06:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't listened to any of the recordings yet (I'm at school), but this site looks very promising for recordings of minstrel fare. -- Amcaja 05:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman women could not own land, were they not Romans? I think i hear an axe grinding.

I reverted this as SPAM but maybe I should ask for other opinions. 24.36.35.188 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Topsy and pickaninnies

I removed a bit that claimed that the minstrel depiction of Stowe's Topsy character was the basis for the pickaninny stereotype. First, it needs a source. Second, I doubt it's true. Pickaninny characters are much older than blackface minstrelsy or Tom shows. Charles Dibdin was using the term in his black caricature pieces as early as 1788. (Nathan 28). It's possible that Tom shows were the first to present the fully realized stereotype, and that's worth noting, but, like I said, it needs a source. None of the major works on blackface minstrelsy (that I've read) mentions pickaninnies as a significant stereotype present in the form. — Amcaja 22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Baker quote

By 1840, the minstrel show had become central to the culture of the Democratic party (Especially in the northern US). These shows gave whites of the Democratric party the images they needed to suggest that blacks should be governed more harshly and closely. "In holding the public infantilism of blacks constant, Northerners denied what was allowed in white aliens and male children-the possibility of political maturation-and thereby rejected environment as the source of the black debasement. According to popular culture, the Negro was not the creature of his circumstances ... In this way the popular arts and especially minstrelsy provided symbolic justifications for keeping the Negro in his place." <ref>Jean H. Baker (1983) p242.</ref>

I removed this quote from the lead section of the article. This information is already covered in the article (see the third paragraph of the "Height" section). It may need to be summarized somewhere in the lead, but I don't think the long quoted passage is necessary for this purpose. — Amcaja 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles Knipp

I removed this image.

thumb|left|250px|Charles Knipp, a white gay man who dresses up in blackface as a character he calls "Shirley Q. Liquor," whom he describes as an “inarticulate Black women on welfare with 19 kids". In spite of Black protest, Knipp routinely performs his minstrel show for a predominately white gay audience in West Hollywood. 2007

This seems beyond the scope of this article, which is about a theatrical form that has died out rather than blackface in general, which persists. Instead, the image would probably be a better fit for our blackface article. There are also fair use concerns, but perhaps those can be sorted. -- Amcaja 02:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions

The stuff about hokum and W.C. Handy needs to have a source citation. Can one be provided in the next couple days? If no, the material should be removed. — Amcaja 03:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rap Music

How about a discussion of the similarities to how today's pimps and hoes entertainment industry plays a similiar role to minstrelry: reinforcing stereotypes such as a perpetual adolescence.

Please sign your contributions by striking the tilde key four times. If you have any good printed or Internet source for that statement, you might want to add it, although it seems a bit off the subject. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Rap wasn't around at the time of Minstrel Shows, so I don't see how it's relevant putting that here. Also, that's a rather generalizing opinion of rap and subject to your opinion of the genre, although I do agree with you regarding much of mainstream hip-hop but I think it's unfair to put that side of an argument on wiki 24.114.255.83 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)KDilla

A song by Cartel - A Minstrel's Prayer

This song could represent symbolism between men and when and the act of minsterlry [1]There are the lyrics to the song. Could be added as just a "pop-culture" quick refrence. MikelZap 01:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, thanks. Minstrelsy is, by definition, popular culture. Long lists of trivia and "popular culture" sections in articles are usually frowned upon. See WP:AVTRIVIA. — Amcaja (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Rabbit's Foot Company

I've added a new article on the Rabbit's Foot Company / Rabbit Foot Minstrels, which it seems to me should be linked into this article as a post-1900 development of the black minstrel show tradition. There is a reference here in the Legacy section to Ma Rainey, one of the most prominent performers with the Rabbit Foot Minstrels, but I'm (uncharacteristically!) reluctant to edit this article as it's getting well outside my areas of knowledge. Can anyone help here, eg by putting in a clearer reference to how the black shows developed from the late 19th century into the first half of the 20th ? Ghmyrtle 11:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. From the article you wrote, it seems to me that the Rabbit's Foots were more of a variety troupe of the kind that replaced minstrelsy rather than a minstrel troupe per se. However, Watkins mentions the company as signficant for beginning the careers of several notable black performers, while noting that they added lots of other stuff to the standard minstrel fare. Feel free to add something to the Legacy or History section. — Amcaja (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a sentence or two. Ghmyrtle 14:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A small thing

"Performers told nonsense riddles: "The difference between a schoolmaster and an engineer is that one trains the mind and the other minds the train.""

Maybe not a great joke, but not nonsense.MarkinBoston 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Othello, and referenced material

It is stated that the tradition of blacking up goes back to Shakespeare's Othello (1604). This is backed up by reference. However, Shakespeare's earlier (1590s) Titus Andronicus also has a 'Moorish' character who would have been played by a white actor in blackface. My amendment was removed, with the comment "that's not what Watkins says; please don't change referenced material". Might I suggest that although the tradition does go back to 1604, it goes back even further as well - so Watkins is right, and so am I. Widmerpool 02:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the sentence you changed draws from material in Watkins. If you have a source that pushes the blackfaced Shakespeare characters back further, not only the prose needs to be changed, but the reference to Watkins needs to be changed to reflect the source from which the material was drawn. In other words, I'm just trying to make sure the references in the article continue to say what the article says they say. — Amcaja (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

international side

Good article but needs stuff on minstrelsy in Britain Canada Australia and elsewhere. IN Britain it was massively popular in the second half of the nineteenth century Johncmullen1960 (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw your note here. You're right, but for the most part, the performers in Britain and other places were mostly Americans on tour. — Dulcem (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not much work has been done until recently on British blackface, butthe recent 2008 book by Michael Pickering corrects this. There was a massibely popular British minstrel tradition. It was different, in particular it was not dealing with a white audience who had met many Black people. Many important British music hall stars started in blackface, such as Harry Champion, Little Tich and Dan Leno.

The last famous blackface minstrels in the Music Hall in Britain were GH Eliott and G H Chirgwin. When I have time I'll add a section on British blackface, now I've read the bookJohncmullen1960 (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Minstrel shows were also quite popular in Shanghai, Singapore, and southeast Asia until at least the late 1920s. For example, Wilbur's Black Birds, a group of African-Americans from L.A., toured across the Pacific in 1928 performing a mixture of minstrel and vaudeville shows. For example, see "Wilbur's Black Birds." The Straits Times. 4 December 1928, p. 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.181.116 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"One source"

Why was this article tagged as relying on only one source? It cites quite a few. — Dulcem (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree - it is far better referenced than the vast majority of articles - what is the problem? If no-one comes back with a good argument, I suggest that the tag should be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and counted the citations. The article has a total of 115 footnotes, which break down by source like this::

50states.com: 1

Cockrell: 14

Jackson: 1

Lenz: 1

Lott: 16

Marc: 1

Malone and Stricklin: 1

Nathan: 1

Oliver: 1

Paskman and Spaeth: 1

Sacks and Sacks: 1

Smith: 1

Stark: 1

Sullivan: 1

Toll: 52

Watkins: 22

Perhaps the page tagger meant to say, "This article relies too heavily on the book by Robert Toll", but even that work is cited in fewer than half of the footnotes in the article. I think there is more to be said in this article (particularly from books by William Mahar and Hans Nathan), and I'm actually preparing some material to be added here in the not-too-distant future. But even without this material, I don't see how this article qualifies for having a tag on it saying it only has one source. — Dulcem (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One final note: 11 of the citations are quotes from other sources (many of them from the minstrelsy period) and further serve to diversify the article's sources. — Dulcem (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jar Jar Binks and Transformers 2

I believe that the controversies surrounding the Star Wars character of Jar Jar Binks and the Transformers 2 characters of Mudflap and Skids merit a brief (maybe 2 sentence) mention in the middle of the Legacy section, perhaps after the paragraph that mentions Spike Lee's Bamboozled. In the cases of both The Phantom Menace and Transformers 2, a number of mainstream critics accused the films of practicing thinly-veiled minstrelsy. Though the characters (in both instances, CGI animated creations) were not extraterrestrial aliens and therefore obviously not explicitly African-American, these critics alleged that their characterizations were "coded" as black, trading heavily on long-standing stereotypes, "borrow[ing] heavily from the genre of minstrelsy." Links for possible citation: Racial Ventriloquism, Jive-talking twin Transformers raise race issues. Whether or not one agrees with the critics' allegations, they certainly provide good examples of the NEW forms charges of minstrelsy have taken, and that the tradition's legacy remains highly controversial.76.90.175.151 (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Frank

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Minstrel show/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 19, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • There are a large number of citation tags on the article and a large number of un-cited statements, sufficient to de-list immediately. REfrences present as bare URLs should be formatted correctly, using citation templates. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • References appear Ok, I assume GF for print sources.

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • OK, I am delisting this due to the large number of uncited statements. This decision may be appealed at WP:GAR or improvemnets may be made and the artcile submitted to WP:GAN for review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation tags

I have added tags as requested. Many of these are likely to be repeats of passages already cited, but it is best to support statements about popularity, style history of performers and troupes, etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've added references for things I had at hand from my own notes for the Blackface article. I'll try to get to the rest of this some time in August (2009) if no one beats me to it. User:Dulcem added most of this material, so I've left a note on his user talk page hoping he might have more of this at hand. I'm pretty sure all of the statements are accurate, and should not be difficult to cite for. - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've now addressed more than half of what was asked for. I'm still trying to track down good sources for the rest. - Jmabel | Talk 01:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Overlapping material

One of the problems here is that the article deviates from Minstrel Show, and slops over into vaudeville, which may be understandable, but then into radio show (Amos and Andy). While this could be addressed in a higher level "Negative portrayal/stereotypes of African Americans", it seems out of place at this article. Off WP:TOPIC IMO. Student7 (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

outside the US

Although originating in the US, the minstrel show was popular and influential and knew its own specific development in other countries, notably the UK. 90.61.81.191 (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Minstrel show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140927230547/http://black-face.com/minstrel-shows.htm to http://black-face.com/minstrel-shows.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140927230547/http://black-face.com/minstrel-shows.htm to http://black-face.com/minstrel-shows.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313225042/http://www.iath.virginia.edu/utc/onstage/films/mv03hp.html to http://www.iath.virginia.edu/utc/onstage/films/mv03hp.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Minstrel show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910112327/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/railton/enam358/minstrel.html to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/railton/enam358/minstrel.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326133827/http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-03312006-171940/unrestricted/pds_dissertation.pdf to http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-03312006-171940/unrestricted/pds_dissertation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minstrel show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109044327/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1978/3/1978_3_93.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1978/3/1978_3_93.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Pre-emptive argument for the word "racist" in the lead sentence

I recently added the word "racist" to the lead sentence of this article. It's already garnered its first removal (and restoration). Anticipating more removals, here's a pre-emptive argument for why the word more than just belongs there, it needs to be there:

FACT 1: The lead paragraph should summarized the article. (see MOS:LEAD)

FACT 2: The lead sentence should tell people what the topic is. (see MOS:LEADSENTENCE)

Multiple sections establish the racist content of these shows and current lead:

The minstrel show, or minstrelsy, was an American form of racist entertainment developed in the early 19th century. Each show consisted of comic skits, variety acts, dancing, and music performances that depicted people specifically of African descent. The shows were performed by mostly white people in make-up or blackface for the purpose of playing the role of black people. There were also some African-American performers and black only minstrel groups that formed and toured. Minstrel shows lampooned black people as dim-witted, lazy, buffoonish, superstitious, and happy-go-lucky.

does a decent job of summarizing what the article later describes. However, read the lead sentence in isolation without the word "racist":

The minstrel show, or minstrelsy, was an American form of entertainment developed in the early 19th century.

A person reading just this lead sentence is simply left with the impression this was a type of entertainment. How lovely! I like entertainment too!

Sarcasm off now, the bland description as "entertainment" is so generic as to not summarize the article appropriately. I'd go so far to say that intentional or not it'd be a whitewashing of the history of minstrel shows. A person might argue that the rest of the lead paragraph repairs the deficiency but we must remember, the first sentence does often get shown in isolation. For example in search results or mobile apps. In other words, our lead sentence really is important and ought to summarize the topic appropriately.

The article > lead paragraph > lead sentence structure often works best when the each is written as a "condensed" version of the former. The lead sentence without the word "racist" was breaking this chain because it contained no hint of the racist nature of the shows that was established by the lead which in turn was established by the article. If the description of a form of entertainment revolves around making fun of a specific group of people yet the description doesn't acknowledge this, this would be an editorial failure. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems commonsensical and clearly in line with policy. Thank you Jason Quinn got this detailed explanation. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

As I suspected might happen, this change is causing repeat removals from anonymous editors unwilling to engage in discussion about the removal. As a precaution to further disruption by editors unwilling to discuss their edits, I've gone ahead and semi-protected this article. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The wording of the lead had been in place for many years, and changes should have been discussed here first, rather than imposed. The addition of protection for the new wording, and the inclusion of HIDDEN TEXT (in capital letters, no less!) simply gives the appearance of an unwillingness to discuss alternative wordings. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A discussion, which was made contemporaneously with the first edit, is literally right here at the start of this thread topic. If you think all changes to Wikipedia require consensus first, you have a misunderstanding how things work. The problem with the old lead is enumerated in my discussion above. That discussion began three weeks ago and nobody has provided a single counterargument to its inclusion, either here or in the edit summaries since. Beyond "that's the way it's been", you didn't provide a good reason to restore the word either. If you believe so, you are warmly invited to provide a counter-argument to the above and provide an argument why removing the word "racist" makes a better lead. I fail to see how it would given the current text of the article. As for the hidden text with capital letters, this form of source note is ubiquitous on Wikipedia and nothing unusual so don't make it out to be something nefarious when it's not. Further, as the text prompts people to go to the talk page and to establish consensus, a process which necessitates discussion, saying it shows an "unwillingness to discuss alternatives" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I accept I misread the date of your first post in this thread, which I wrongly assumed had also been earlier today. (01:50, 2 January 2021 > 04:36, 2 January 2021 > 07:14, 23 January 2021) I missed it first time round. Had I got that right, I probably wouldn't have intervened. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There are several problems with using the adjective "racist" in the lead description.

1) It improperly inserts a moral conclusion into a factual description. Whether or not the entire genre of minstrelsy, as such, can or should be regarded as racist is a point that must be argued. Arguments for or against that conclusion should be listed as such, under "Criticisms" or some such header.
2) It imputes a particular motive to the creators, writers, composers, producers, performers, and/or audience members of minstrelsy without evidence.
3) It is inconsistent with the overall information presented in the article. The body of the article lists many different respects in which the genre is or was regarded relative to depiction of blacks, so singling out one sweeping conclusion in the first sentence is divergent.
4) It elevates this one alleged aspect of the genre to the status of an essential defining characteristic by citing it as one of only two adjectives modifying the genus (the other being "American.") Even if it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that the genre has racist elements or effects deleterious to blacks, it doesn't follow that "racist" is an important enough qualifier, given all of the diverse cultural, musical, literary, and theatrical elements involved to essentially define the genre.--Markalanpeter (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I saw that my edit was reversed, with this note from Jason Quinn: "Thank you for initiating a discussion on the talk page. If a consensus is reached among editors, your edit can be restored." This is the first time I've engaged in a "talk page" debate. Just so I understand, how is it determined what the default entry is? That is, if no consensus is reached (which will be the case if none of my arguments are ever addressed) why would the "racist" entry stand, when it was not part of the original description? --Markalanpeter (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If no consensus is reached, the status quo is usually retained. See WP:NOCONSENSUS. In this case, that would be to keep the word "racist" since at least somebody agreed with my argument and a decent amount of time had passed for objections, long enough for a new status quo to be established. (As for your personal litmus test, I note you didn't respond to my argument so the word would still stand by your own criteria.) I've read your arguments. I was waiting for others to reply but your new comment forced to me to chime before I wanted. I think your points have only superficial merit and completely miss the forest for the trees. Feels to me you are arguing to a conclusion for the lead rather than making sure the lead reflects the rest of the article. Ultimately, Wikipedia depends on reliable sources for the information contained in its articles. There are numerous statements in this article that note the racist nature of the shows that are already either directly sourced or supported by surrounding material that is directly sourced. Unfortunately a lot of the books are not available for preview on Google Books. It would be nice to add |quote= to these references because they help for these kinds of disputes. A search has found many websites however that would be used for sourcing in the article that attest to the racist nature of the shows. I haven't been editing much lately for lack of time but I intend on adding some references to do just that when I get a chance. Perhaps taking a step back will help you. These shows were basically made to depict African Americans by whites in blackface often for cheap laughs based on stereotypes. That was the bread and butter of these shows and that is what you are arguing cannot be called racist. Yes, there's elements of a "moral conclusion" here. Yes there may have been acts that were sometimes parts of these shows that were not racist. But none of your points convince me these shows cannot be called racist in a way that passes solid editorial judgement. In my opinion, removing the word "racist" from the lead would make the lead sentence inconsistent with the rest of the article. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Since the article originally didn't have the word racist in the lead sentence, I thought the "status quo" would be to not have the word in it? Since you started the discussion, and then proceeded to edit the article before a consensus was reached. Maybe I'm missing something. At any rate, I would think the lead sentence is supposed to indicate its intended purpose, and explain its effective result later on. For example, all articles I find that talk about dictators tend to lead with "...the former president of X nation...", and the fact he is a dictator is buried very far down in the article. While my knowledge of history is limited, and I encourage anyone to educate me if I'm mistaken, I believe the primary purpose of minstrel shows was entertainment, one of the foremost sources of entertainment in 19th century America, and quite a lot of pivotal actors of the early 20th century started their careers in minstrel shows (such as Al Jolson and Bing Crosby). Minstrel shows were absolutely racist, which majorly contributed to its decline, but my understanding was that was more of a byproduct of the culture it originated from, not its primary purpose. Of course, I understand that that kind of argument can also be used for whitewashing history, for example, the statement that "The CSA's primary purpose was state rights", which we know is false. However, it was my understanding that wasn't the case for minstrel shows, so that is why I would not have been in favor of keeping the current lead sentence LutherVinci (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Please change "racist" to null. Omit the word racist. So I come to this article because of the film "White Christmas." In that movie, they do a small bit called "minstrel show," tell a few cheap laughs and have a nice song. Someone watches that movie and they go to Wikipedia and they find out that :gasp: it's racist. Not Bing! What are they to make of that? The movie is not a racist movie. The movie is using "minstrel show," because it was a popular form of entertainment that people would understand. They likely would not have chosen that bit in the movie if it was perceived as controversial at the time. To say that they didn't know it was racist back then only supports the argument that, at the time, minstrel shows were not perceived as racist. We are saying it's racist. We are appropriating that term and applying it to something from our perspective of time. I don't disagree with the evidence. I think there should be a part of the article that explains the racist nature of the shows. To announce/determine in the first sentence that these were sine qua non racist shows, objectively so, is to ignore how they were perceived by the broader culture in their historical setting. Furthermore, LutherVinci above makes the accurate point that when there is no consensus it should be reverted to the status quo. Racist was added later, it should be revised out. If it's not going to be revised out, the article should be re-titled to indicate the racist nature of minstrel shows. I prefer not to do that because, again, we're applying OUR cultural norms onto something from history. I don't think we can say with any degree of accuracy that people of the time perceived minstrel shows to be racist. By that logic we'd have to change the opening line of every piece of cultural heritage we have here. What if cultural norms change in 50 years and people look at the sitcoms of the 80s and 90s with the father being the butt of the joke? Would the opening line then read, "Sitcoms were an early feminist form of entertainment in the later 20th century." Maybe they should! The point being: we're taking our definition of racism and applying it to a word that most people today won't understand because the only time they're going to bump in to this term is in the movie White Christmas.75.172.43.215 (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: edit request template removed. IP, please reach consensus before using the edit request template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I did indeed come here while watching “White Christmas”, to see exactly what “minstrel show” meant. And, yes, I was surprised to see it being referred to as “racist” entertainment. At this current time, when there is deep division concerning things like racism, sexism, and anti-trans, I’d recommend extreme caution in applying those charges. The risk is that the credibility of Wikipedia is undermined. That is certainly the case for myself, on seeing this “racism” reference. Having read the WP article on racism it’s not at all clear that the word can be applied to an entertainment genre, and trying to do so may well be a category error. Nevertheless, that is relevant when considering whether the charge of racism should be in the article itself, not the lead. Whether the word should be in the lead is largely, as the original commented argued, down to whether it is in the article. In other words, claiming racism in the article may or may not be valid, but while it’s there, mentioning it in the lead (modulo weight considerations) is not unreasonable. In summary: I strongly object to a charge of racism in the article, at very least without counter arguments also being there. HOWEVER, as long as it is there, it’s hard to object to it being in the lead. 45.51.100.70 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Same person as before, different IP. It seemed like the edit request was to draw attention to the post so that consensus could be reached? No? Did I misunderstand? EDIT: OK, I answered my own question. However, how are we going to draw attention to this since we cannot edit the article itself? Ganbaruby didn't even engage in the conversation. If we're going to "build consensus" there has to be more discussion. 96.69.223.117 (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

As of today, "racist" is not in the lead, although I don't see from discussion that a decision was clearly made. Perhaps everyone lost energy for the debate. Just thought I'd throw in my two cents... My vote is to leave it out, and for the reasons previously stated. In the context of the times, it was not considered racist. To say it was racist is to state that audiences in large numbers were participating in a form of entertainment they knew was damaging to African Americans, which simply wasn't the case. Anyway, later in the paragraph it states, "The shows were performed by mostly white actors.... There were also some African-American performers and black-only minstrel groups that formed and toured." (Emphasis mine.) It can't inherently be called racist if the people it is purported to be denigrating were engaging in it. I do see later the decline was tied to the civil rights movement, but it's a questionable statement and uncited. I'm starting a separate entry for that. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm putting the edit request back in per this note from the "semi-protected" article (click on the lock). "Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the "Edit semi-protected" template if necessary to gain attention." Last phrase emphasized: to gain attention. I realize we haven't gained consensus yet, the "edit semi-protected" tag is being called on to gain attention. Remove the word "racist" from the first line. I'd also argue that "semi-protected" wasn't the right move at all in the first place, they could have chosen "pending changes". 75.172.43.215 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2021

Remove last sentence of Music and Dance paragraph 3: "This was the first large-scale appropriation and commercial exploitation of black culture by American whites."

Minstrelsy was not the first large-scale commercial appropriation of black culture by American whites. The development of plantation rice agriculture in South Carolina and Georgia during the 17th and 18th centuries was the first large-scale appropriation. Fideanimo (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fideanimo:. I'm hesitant to perform this edit as the current statement is sourced. Do you have one or more reliable sources to support claim your counterclaim? I'm also worried that the sentence and your counterclaim are using "appropriation" in a differing sense of the word or how plantation rice agriculture was black culture and how it was appropriated. Please re-activate the edit request when you've replied. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"white slavery"

The conclusions drawn from a reactionary attitude and misunderstanding of the term should be removed as original research, as should all the original research in the article. White slavery does not refer to the race of the enslaved, but the manner of their enslavement. As I've said before, Slavs have very pale skin and American attitudes about slavery are very ignorant of world history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.228.219 (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Citation formats

This article contain examples of many citation formats, from the simplest ref tags to short citation templates. I have fixed a number of the latter which were not working due to mismatched between the inline tags and the listed references. A consistent format would be beneficial.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2021

This page is all opinion from one source, the news York times. Which is not news. The entire page should not be on Wikipedia 2601:1C2:1700:31E0:CD29:7A3C:125D:FAF9 (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The article is well sourced, with references to dozens of sources (none of which are the New York Times). Danski454 (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2022

Although it's hard to imagine that anyone would disagree, calling it racist in the opening line is an opinion not a fact. People can draw that almost inevitable conclusion by reading the definition. They do not need editorializing forcing it upon them from the opening line. 2601:8C3:4001:9220:154A:DCFE:A56:3096 (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Minstrel Potpouri.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

'racist'

Calling it 'racist' is a value judgement that is just one example of the utterly laughable nature of Wikipedia claiming to be an 'encyclopaedia'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.154.173 (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree. Just nauseating sanctimoniously judgmental propaganda that has no place in something purporting to be an encyclopedia. To think that I used to actually make donations to Wikipedia. 2001:8003:1C26:DC01:1A2:EBDB:D257:D89C (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Consensus for use of "racist"

We have to reach a consensus for either use or not use "racist" in the lead sentence. Otherwise the original version - w/o "racist" - must be reestablished.

Albeit eliminating "racist" would be a shame. since it does unveil (some!) truth. Still - it's unacceptable for WP to have someone insert a loaded word in a lead sentence; get into a diverse discussion (see below from 2021 and onwards); and finally lock the door for further changes.

Me being a professional jazz musician, amateur historian and philosopher, honorary city council member of a definitely "left" party - I have several questions and finally a solution to this to sketch out.

1) Were minstrel shows considered racist in the 19th century? 2) Besides being "american" and "entertaining" - is "racist" the appropriate and third adjective to define minstel shows? Is it possible for something be racist and entertaining? 3) In sight of racist crimes - like e.g. Belgians cutting arms of black workers in Congo contemperaneous - calling mostly amateur theatres from travelling people "racist" is sort of relativating Organized Crime backed by racist ideology, isn't it? 4) Would one call the likes of Josephine Baker, Greta Garbo, Brigitte Bardot, Madonna, Elvis Presley, Mick Jagger, Janelle Monaie, James Brown, David Bowie, Lady Gaga "sexist"? Or rather a Culture Industry (Adorno, Horkheimer) fostering sexist and racist stereotypes? A future generation might do so, still would have to admit it was not considered to be fully dominating at the time being.

That brings us to a sketch of a solution: Since it all seems to come down to a cultural and moral Century-Bias, I would strongly advise to keep "racist" in the leading paragraph however not in the first sentence. After the (felicitous) description including the ridiculization of stereotypes, something like:

"Nowadays this is (clearly) considered to be racist - however at the time being theatrical (entertaining) aspects dominated."

From there move on.... Haegar's (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

As with most Wikipedia articles, the content should reflect how reliable sources view a topic, not how our editors view it. While I personally find blackface performances to be much less disturbing than racial segregation and lynchings, the long-term view on minstrel shows should be determined by the available sources. Dimadick (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I put this up above under the original discussion, but I'll add it here as well since it's a more recent section:

As of today, "racist" is not in the lead, although I don't see from discussion that a decision was clearly made. Perhaps everyone lost energy for the debate. Just thought I'd throw in my two cents... My vote is to leave it out, and for the reasons previously stated. In the context of the times, it was not considered racist. To say it was racist is to state that audiences in large numbers were participating in a form of entertainment they knew was damaging to African Americans, which simply wasn't the case. Anyway, later in the paragraph it states, "The shows were performed by mostly white actors.... There were also some African-American performers and black-only minstrel groups that formed and toured." (Emphasis mine.) It can't inherently be called racist if the people it is purported to be denigrating were engaging in it. I do see later the decline was tied to the civil rights movement, but it's a questionable statement and uncited. I'm starting a separate entry for that.

I will add that "in or out" is a very narrow argument that is going nowhere. Adding language that includes context would resolve the issue. I'm not going to because for now it's fine, but if the word goes back into the lead sentence then I probably will. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

POV

The inclusion of the word "racist" in the first sentence of this article -- in combination with the lock against editing -- would seem to be a violation of the alleged Wikipedia fundamental principle of NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Ten years later there still is so much repetition

I suggest condensing the article by one third - eliminating all the repetition. The same ground is covered over and over. Anna (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2024

on the first few lines please change theater to theatre. 100.12.99.228 (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:ENGVAR, the choice of American or British spellings should be kept consistent throughout an article. PianoDan (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Motion pictures with minstrel show routines

Disney’s Song of the South should be added. Superherosaturday (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Why? There are no minstrel shows or blackface in the film. Dimadick (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Timing with civil rights movement?

There's an uncited statement, "Generally, as the civil rights movement progressed and gained acceptance, minstrelsy lost popularity," that I've requested a citation for-- I suspect it's speculation. Earlier in the section it states, "The form survived as professional entertainment until about 1910; amateur performances continued until the 1960s in high schools and local theaters. The genre has had a lasting legacy and influence and was featured in the British television series The Black and White Minstrel Show as recently as the mid-1970s." This indicates there was little influence from the civil rights movement, and IS cited. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Minstrel Show

Minstrel show date back hundreds of years before America, and were typically music and poetry.

The type of show described certainly existed, but the definition tries to show that this was the main and or only form.

It's as wrong as saying all music is classical and no other forms of music exist. 74.221.150.96 (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree 74.221.150.96 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)