Talk:Minstrel show/Archive 1

I uploaded Image:minstrelsLondonc.1880.jpg, but do not know how to make it an appropriate size for this article. Can someone fix it? Tuf-Kat 04:21, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yup, done and included. Lupo 18:28, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No mention of the "R" word?

While this is a decent -- and I mean that -- beginning for article on minstrelsy, I am flabbergasted that there is absolutely no mention of the "r" word. (Did I miss it?) Not even under "legacy"? Some might want to visit the expanded article on blackface for comparison. Amazingly superficial. Were you purposely avoiding all mention of racism? How the hell can you ignore the huge, honking elephant in the room that just dropped a steaming load on the fancy oriental carpet? Looks like I'll have to revisit this one. Wikipedia really needs some more color up in here. Damn! deeceevoice 14:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While the article doesn't specifically mention the word "racism", it does give a sense that the minstrel shows were about perpetuating the black stereotype as "uneducated" and "foolish". It also mentions that they served as a sort of "release valve" for abolitionists. As always, you are welcome to expand the article. Jeff schiller 14:07, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Yep, I've already mentioned my intention to return to this -- sometime. But "uneducated" and "foolish" as a far cry from accurately characterizing the pervasive, racist and damaging stereotypes of blackface minstrelsy. Talk about sanitized! What? Are people afraid an honest discussion of race and racism is gonna bite 'em in the butt? (Rhetorical question.) deeceevoice 14:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No one can doubt that minstrel shows and blackface have their roots in a racist culture, but it may be that there is a reluctance to turn these pages into heated "discussions" about racism when there are already pages in Wikipedia that deal specifically with that topic. As I'm sure you're aware, racism can lead to heated debates which may end up obscuring the encylopedic nature of the article dealing with these specific topics. Jeff schiller 14:37, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

That's no excuse for completely ignoring the critical historical impact/relevance of a subject under discussion. Take a look at the recent changes to blackface from what it was before. I think it's a great piece -- not perfect, but solid and factual. So far, no firestorm. If the subject is well written and approached with intellectual honesty (sorry I can't say the same for this piece), it can stand on its own. Heated discussion? You know what they say. "If you can't stand the heat...." :-p deeceevoice 15:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Finally inserted a comment about the archetypes of blackface minstrelsy and mentioned the "R" word. And guess what? The world hasn't ended. (Day-um.) This article still needs major work. Something about how and why minstrelsy ended -- again, more about the damaging effects of the RACISM it shamelessly purveyed, about black minstrels, etc., etc., etc. -- deeceevoice

Origins?

I'm curious if anyone knows whether minstrel shows grew out of some form of Commedia dell'arte and pantomime with the stock characters replaced by racist stereotypes? I think the structure of the show (stock characters, songs, improvisations) show similarities that make me curious. Jeff schiller 21:08, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

There was a TV movie made back in the late 1970's (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076393/) called Minstrel Man. Maybe this is relevant to the article?

All but disappeared by 1900?

I find it somewhat puzzling that this article claims that "The minstrel show had all but disappeared by 1900" (I was under the impression that this crap survived into the 20's, but what do I know), but then shows a postcard at the top dated 1906. --Bletch 14:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I, too, question the date. As a child during the late 1940s or early 1950s, I remember seeing at least one amateur minstrel show, complete with interlocutor and end men. Lou Sander 00:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that line is no longer in the article. — BrianSmithson 00:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! But it DOES say "largely faded out by the turn of the century." I'm thinking that a 1940s or later sighting makes that statement a little strong. Lou Sander 01:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the revised version. Minstrel shows still pop up from time to time, but I think the important point is that they were nowhere near as influential in the 20th century as they had been in the 19th. — BrianSmithson 16:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Good work! (And I think you've got the important point correct.) I found just one Google reference to 20th century minstrel shows, and it talked about college and high school shows persisting into the 1950s. None of the other references mentioned this. I'm thinking that what happened is they were no longer commercially important in the 20th, but amateurs kept doing them (probably no royalties to be paid). If this is right, I think it's worthy of mention, but at this point I'm not real satisfied that it's right. If I can find an authoritative reference, I'll put it in. Lou Sander 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Your hypothesis sounds perfectly plausible. Please do add it if you can find the source to back you. — BrianSmithson 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Found it! Lou Sander 19:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I added a note to the "legacy" section, as well. — BrianSmithson 19:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Dan Emmett

The following section was part of Dan Emmett. I've moved it here to be mined/merged in this article since it has nothing to do with Emmett in particular. Possibly, some of this should go at Minstrelsy, turning it into a proper article, rather than a redirect. (In fact, if no one has a better idea in the next few days, that's what I will do with it, although at least the last paragraph deserves some edits first. Feel free to edit in place here.) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Origins of minstrelsy

Per discussion below, moving this to Minstrel

The term "minstrel" was derived from Old French menestrel, menesterel, menestral, French ménestral, Italian ministrello, menestrello, from Middle Latin ministralis, ministrel, "retainer," Latin minister, "attendant," "retainer," "minister," from minor, "less."

In Europe, before the Norman Conquest, the professional poet was known in England as a scôp (shaper or maker), who composed his own poems, and sang them to the accompaniment of a rude harp. Another type of performers, in a rank much beneath the scôp, were the gleemen, who had no settled abode, but roamed about from place to place, earning what they could from their performances. Late in the 13th century, the term minstrel began to be used to designate a performer who amused his lord with music and song.

In a complex way involving invasions, wars, conquests, etc., two categories of composers originated. Poets like Chaucer and John Gower appeared in one category wherein music was not a part. Minstrels, on the other hand, swarmed at feasts and festivals in great numbers with harps, fiddles, bagpipes, flutes, flageolots, citterns, and kettledrums.

As early as 1321, the minstrels of Paris were formed into a guild. A guild of royal minstrels was organized in England in 1469. Minstrels were required to either join the guild or to abstain from practicing their craft. Some minstrels were retained by lords as jesters who, in some cases, also practiced the art of juggling. Some were women, or women who followed minstrels in their travels. Trained animals, such as bears, were employed by minstrels in Europe: everywhere they were welcomed during the Middle Ages. Minstrelsy died out slowly in Europe by about 1700 (though isolated remnants of it in the person of single individuals were said to exist well into the 19th century).

In North America, the southern negro appeared on stage towards the beginning of the nineteenth century. Other actors sang and danced their way into public favor before the advent of Thomas D. Rice, the reputed founder of negro minstrelsy. His song, "Jim Crow," was the first big hit song in United States history. Rice went to England in 1836 and gained universal recognition for negro minstrelsy, thereby establishing himself as the founder.

<end moved material>

This material should be merged with Minstrel rather than Minstrel show. Minstrelsy should probably be a disambiguation page that points both of those articles. BrianSmithson 12:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Good thought; that's what I'll do. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Juba

The Juba Dance may have had "origins on the plantations of the South" (or, more likely, in Africa), but there is no citation given for the claim. I would expect that it owed more to Master Juba (William Henry Lane), a free black man from Rhode Island. The only thing that stops me from asserting this with complete confidence is that Juba was a moderately common name among blacks at this time. Barring citation, does anyone object to my changing this sentence to mention Lane, and northern black origins? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I googled "Juba dance" and got a few sites that partially support both claims. That is, both assertions are correct to an extent: The dance is ultimately derived from West African dances. Slaves brought these with them and altered it, then Master Juba popularized it. Info from here, here, and here. (Incidentally, I wrote the earliest version of this article and probably added that Juba assertion. Unfortunately, I had yet to grasp the concept of "Cite your sources", and now I can't remember what they were!) BrianSmithson 03:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

But would you agree that we should at least mention Master Juba? Feel free to rewrite the passage yourself if you want to strike a particular balance; my only concern is that one of the few individually famous black performers of the era is credited as a person, not as a racial abstraction. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:17, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Some possibly useful notes

I've written up some notes at Talk:Blackface/Lott. This is one of the articles where some of this might be incorporated. I'd be interested in User:BrianSmithson's or others' remarks on whether they see any of that material as potentially useful here. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:17, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I've merged much of what you posted there into the minstrel show article. Look over it and see what you think. It's getting late and I didn't have a chance to give it one last readthrough, so there may be some errors . . . . BrianSmithson 03:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured article

I just stumbled onto this article and it is fantastic! Has anyone considered nominating it to FA? Ganymead 04:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the article. As it sits right now, though, it's not comprehensive; there's just a lot more that needs to be said, particularly on the subjects of racist stereotypes in the show, black minstrelsy, and minstrelsy after the war. I've got pages of notes from three respected sources (Cockrell, Toll, and Watkins) that I'll soon be adding to the article, so I hope you'll come back and take another look in a week or so. BrianSmithson 11:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response! Your work on the article is quite admirable. I look forward to seeing the improved article. Ganymead 17:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I have an original photograph in my vintage theatre memorabilia collection of a community minstrel show, 1910. The photograph depicts the participants sitting in the typical circle with 6 blackfaced minstrels (Tambo and Bones?) standing next to them. It might be useful to show the traditional seating arrangement. I would be more than happy to scan this and upload it for the article. The photograph is original and I presume I own the rights to it (no photographer's name appears on it). In addition I have an original piece of sheet music for a song Lew Dockstader made famous. The cover has a picture of him in blackface. Let me know if you'd like me to scan and upload these for the article. Ganymead 17:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, both of those images (the photo and the sheet music cover) would be great additions, if not for this article then for a related one like Blackface or List of blackface minstrel troupes. Their age should put them in the public domain in the U.S., so there shouldn't be any copyright issues to worry about. I'd recommend scanning them at a fairly large size and uploading them to Wikmedia Commons; then they'll be accessible to users of any Wikimedia project. I plan to scan a good deal of photos and artwork from the minstrel books I'm using and to categorize everything in the (not-yet-existent) category Category:Blackface minstrelsy on Commons. Thanks! BrianSmithson 21:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Minstrel Shows Lived On

I watched Bamboozled some time ago and the style, characters and structure of the few snippets of the blackface minstrel show (Mantan) seemed somehow very familiar to me. Seeing something more recently about the American television Hee Haw made things click in my mind. I think the minstrel show structure (if not the racist stereotypes) evolved into shows like Hee Haw, Sha Na Na, and "variety hour" shows on television. Strip away the blackface and you have archetypal characters that are stupid, greedy, lusty, pompous, etc performing little skits and songs. One could even make a case that more recent traditional "skit" shows like In Living Color, Saturday Night Live, Dave Chappelle Show, Mad TV have strong minstrel background. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I'm tempted to add a note to the Hee Haw page about its minstrel show origins, but I need some feedback. Jeff schiller 19:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Just did some googling and found that very observation (Hee Haw similarities) in the Blackface article, so I guess it's already been mentioned ("rube-face"). I wonder if we can tie in the minstrel show legacy a little more in this article by mentioning some of its impact in more modern culture? Jeff schiller 19:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't find the exact Hee Haw quote in Cockrell; it's not indexed. Mel Watkins mentions this influence in his book On the Real Side: "Ernest Hogan, 'Pigmeat' Markham, Stepin Fetchit, Willie Best, Mantan Moreland, nearly the entire cast of the Amos 'n' Andy television show, and, more recently, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, and the TV variety show In Living Color, have faced" the delimma of deciding how to satirize black culture without "contributing to whites' negative stereotypes of blacks in general." (p. 114) However, he traces In Living Color to "anti-establishment humor of improvisational groups such as the sixties' Second City and TV shows like Saturday Night Live." (p. 308) "Anti-establishment" is the key term here, as minstrelsy was largely for the status quo. Nevertheless, it's probably worth mentioning that the variety-show format is descended from minstrelsy, and the Hee Haw connection. I'm working on a major expansion of the article offline, so I'll try to dig more up. BrianSmithson 22:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Minstrelsy wasn't necessarily "for the status quo". Early minstrelsy (1830s, early 1840s) before the minstrel show took a fixed form could often be pretty subversive in getting the audience to identify with the black character, and even later this strain sometimes came through. Later minstrelsy was sometimes other than "status quo", though not in a way I, for one, would wish to embrace: it forged a new breed of racism, encouraging the identification of a class of "white people" by defining that against blackness. Part of how the Irish, Jews, etc., "became white", at the expense of the Blacks. Not being status quo is not always necessarily good, there can be worse things than a status quo. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on the early minstrel performances (roughly pre-Virginia Minstrels). Toll, though, makes a good case that leading up to the Civil War, the minstrel show was largely a supporter of the status quo: Keeping the Union, upholding slavery, keeping women in their place, etc. There were still subversive messages that got through with some troupes, but we're talking generalities. Then during the war, minstrels, like many conservatives today, shifted to a "support our troops and our president" kind of message. They rarely if ever talked ill of Lincoln, though they disagreed with the concept of Emancipation. Then after the war, there was a period of gloating over the defeated South, followed by a wave of material decrying urbanism's negative impact on society. So, maybe you're right: The later minstrel show wasn't necessarily for the status quo. It was, however, a conservative institution. Whether SNL and In Living Color are "conservative" is another matter. BrianSmithson 14:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

In general, I'd agree with what you just said, as long as we remember that minstrel shows were never a monolith, and their politics varied a bit within any era. And I don't see SNL and In Living Color as "conservative", SNL can be pretty subversive (and certainly was in its early years). I don't see it as particlularly similar to a minstrel show, either, whereas Hee Haw was. Jmabel | Talk approx 14 Oct 2005

Expanded article

I just posted a greatly expanded version of the article based on research I've been doing the past couple of weeks. I have only added footnotes to direct quotes, paraphrases of another author's analysis, and potentially controversial material. Please let me know if you think something that isn't footnoted should be; I've got everything noted on my home computer. Also, the article's quite long now. We may need to prune by moving sections into new articles and summarizing here. BrianSmithson 03:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like mostly good stuff, but two things at a quick glance: (1) citing Othello as an example of blackface seems dubious: blackface is not just a matter of a particular type of makeup. Othello is a Moor, not an African American, and the character has nothing to do with the blackface tradition. (2) It looks like you also removed a good bit of material, and in that massive an edit it is very hard to identify what was removed. Can you please summarize the removals? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I just read through the pre-expanded article and highlighted the parts I deleted. Here they are, with explanations: (EDIT: I've crossed through those things I've since re-added to the article.) BrianSmithson 22:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Introduction: In the 1850s, minstrelsy was at least partially absorbed into the many "Tom shows", melodramas based at least loosely on Uncle Tom's Cabin. This phenomenon is discussed later in the article, and my sources did not place nearly as much importance on Tom productions "absorbing" the minstrel show. Instead, Tom-themed material replaced other plantation material for a time, but the minstrel show stayed mostly the same.
  • I wrote some pretty extensive material on "Tom shows" at Uncle_Tom's_Cabin#.22Tom_shows.22. It all came from Lott's Love and Theft chapter 8, "Uncle Tomitudes: Racial Melodrama and Modes of Production" (p. 211-233); I didn't cite individual page numbers, because I was writing from notes I'd taken earlier and didn't have a copy at hand. You might want to take a look at that. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added a bit back into the section on Uncle Tom's Cabin, under "History". Please let me know if I'm misrepresenting the facts or understating the case -- I haven't read Lott's book. I also think that Tom show deserves its own article; it currently takes up a large portion of the main piece on Uncle Tom's Cabin. BrianSmithson 13:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • What you have now is accurate, to the best of my knowledge. I'm kind of inclined to keep Tom shows within the Uncle Tom's Cabin article: it's estimated that 10 times as many people saw the shows as read the book, the icon of Uncle Tom is based more on the plays than the book, the total length of the article is not so great as to merit splitting, and the comparison between the two casts light on both. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Lewis Hallam was probably the first actor to perform in blackface when he did an impression of a drunken black man in a 1769 staging of The Padlock. A common minsconception, but false according to Watkins, Toll, and Cockrell. Blackface characters had appeared on stage in America and abroad much earlier. We can and should debate whether Othello or something else was the first, but The Padlock was one of many at the time.
  • I'll readily believe Hallam as originator false, although a "common misconception" is usually worth mentioning if only to debunk it, and it still should probably be mentioned as a much-cited early instance. I do think Othello is beside the point, or marginal to the point: actors playing Othello may have influenced some blackface makeup techniques, but tracing minstrelsy back to that is like tracing science fiction back to Lucian of Samosata. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added a footnote on Hallam. As for when blackface begins, I plan to add some material to Blackface on the subject, and I hope you'll participate in the inevitable debate on that talk page . . . . BrianSmithson 13:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• The river cities of the Appalachians and West figured significantly in early blackface minstrelsy; T. D. Rice first performed in the West, and Dan Emmett got his musical education there. Pittsburgh songwriter Stephen Foster got his first exposure to African-American music from a house servant who sang religious songs. Removed for lack of a place to put it. The part about Foster could be merged with the paragraph describing the mixture of black and white music. Suggestions for somewhere to merge it back in are welcome.
  • No immediate suggestion where to put it, but it's citable to Love and Theft, p. 47. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• However, blackface minstrelsy served as a sort of fool's mask, allowing the performers to lampoon virtually anything without offending the audience. Accidental removal, I think. Should probably go back into the section on early social commentary, or earlier, into the paragraph about "working man's nativism" and all that.
• Minstrels took on a much more decidedly abolitionist stance, and performers such as The Fighting Hutchinson Family became popular advocates of abolition, women's rights, and the temperance movement. False, or at least misleading. The minstrels were largely reluctant to support abolition, but did so for what they felt the best interests of the nation. The Hutchinsons were not blackface performers.
  • Agreed. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• The black groups often featured women performers, as well. Accidental deletion. Should probably go back.
• This first section usually had a northern or geographically indeterminate setting; the character of the black dandy figured prominently. Not supported by my sources, but not contradicted by them. The setting bit could go back, but I'd hesitate to add back in the part about the dandy without seeing it in print -- minstrels and stump speakers talked about a lot of stuff in the first act.
  • That's from Lott, though I don't have a specific page citation and I don't have the book at hand. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how to reconcile this with Watkins' info about the plantation number. When I get home, I'll post a quote from Watkins here. Can you do the same with Lott when you get the chance? BrianSmithson 13:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, I don't have current access to a copy of Lott, and I didn't write the key passage verbatim. My notes on page 140 say: "Early structure: 2 acts. Northern dandy, Southern slave. Both w/ 'ensemble songs, solo banjo songs, witticisms, ripostes, shouts, puns, and other attempts at black impersonation.' Frequently at least one female impersonator. Within a few years, first part sentimental songs (not always in blackface), olio (including a stump speech), skit set in South. Eventually added a genteel interlocutor, also in blackface." So that bears this out in terms of the early form, but perhaps not so much the later form. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• I removed the mention of the "pickaninny" character from the "Characters" section. None of my sources discussed the subject. Could go back if sourced somewhere else, though.
  • Agreed. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• William Henry Lane, a free black man from Rhode Island, earned fame as Master Juba with his rendition of the Juba Dance, for example. Lane and the dance are still mentioned, but for space concerns I removed the explanation of this particular connection.
  • I think the current mention of Lane is not accurate. You put him on the minstrel stage in the 1850s and 1860s, but he died in 1852 after having lived for a time in London. I'm pretty certain that Lane was on the minstrel stage in the 1840s. Our own article on him says "In 1845, Juba was the first black performer to get top billing over a white performer in a minstrel show." The individual statement unfortunately lacks a citation, but the article seems generally careful. I'm almost certain that a source for that could be tracked down in its references. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Fixed. In moving information about, I somehow appended Dilward's dates to both him and Lane. BrianSmithson 13:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• One paragraph describing the content of the minstrel music was removed from the "Music and dance" section and merged with similar discussions in the "History" part. I've tried to keep the music part of "Music and dance" focused on the musical structure itself, and the content of the lyrics up with other discussions of minstrelsy's content and social commentary.
• The character Buckwheat from the Our Gang series of films is one example. Didn't think we needed so many examples.
• . . . the closest of which was Hee Haw (essentially a "rube-face" minstrel show). Accidental deletion. Can go back in with SNL and ILC. BrianSmithson 15:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Thank you very much for the list. I'm at work now, but I'll try to look through this more closely some time in the next few days. Offhand, I agree with some of these removals, disagree with others. Question: when you say (for example) things like "I'd hesitate to add back in the part about the dandy without seeing it in print", are you doubting my citations? Or do you not consider Lott an appropriate source? or what? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

If some of what I removed was of your addition, I apologize -- I don't doubt Lott as a reference, nor your judgment. Because my sources didn't back some of the claims up (particularly the "tom show" bit), I took them out assuming they were false -- though well intentioned -- contributions from others. BrianSmithson 20:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've now interspersed my remarks; I hope they are helpful. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Minstrelsy's effect on today's choreography

I removed the following section from an anonymous contributor:

Show dancing today, especially on Broadway, is created from many different sources. One such source is the dance traditions of blacks in America and minstrelsy. On plantations and city blocks, blacks danced to the accompaniment of drums and chants, challenging each other for pride of profit, and so began a dance tradition whose elements are visible still on Broadway. On their trip from Africa, blacks brought with them a unique form of movement that involved the entire body, with the pulsating torso as base and center for movement and extension. Along with this black dancing came minstrelsy: a simple, unsophisticated form of song, dance and comedy entertainment that dominated the public entertainment scene at that time. The source of minstrel show material was the Old South. Many troops of black-faced minstrels popped up all over the country exploiting the movement heritage of the black slave. It is during the minstrelsy era that we first encounter the names by which steps and dances still evident in modern repertory, like the cakewalk and the wing, came to be known. A perfect example of minstrelsy used later is Bob Fosse’s staging of Pippin, particularly in the number “War is a Science.” Minstrelsy is very closely related to musical comedy technique, affirming the statement: “We stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us.”

Kislan, Richard (1987). Hoofing on Broadway. Prentice Hall Press. ISBN 0-13-809484-5.

My reason is that the article is already overlong, and this new section adds very little that isn't already covered (look under "Music and dance" and "Legacy"). It's possible that the link between minstrel dance and modern choreography could perhaps be emphasized more under "Legacy", but I don't think the background on Broadway is particularly relevant here, nor information like "Along with black dance came minstrelsy: a simple, unsophisticated form of song, dance and comedy entertainment that dominated the public entertainment scene at the time" with its accompanying rehash of material covered elsewhere. Moreover, The background on slave dance would better fit into an article on African American dance.

In short, I hope the author of this new passage will read the article thoroughly to determine what, if anything, needs to be added from Kislan's book. BrianSmithson 17:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Brian on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The good stuff

Is this to say that there is none? —BrianSmithson 15:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm just guessing but I would take this as a high compliment. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Something is missing here, is it not? - Kamagurka 13:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The original poster simply added the title "The good stuff" with no message. So, arguably, something is missing. But perhaps the anonymous contributor simply clicked on "edit this page +" and typed his or her message where the section title was supposed to go. That should be, as Ganymead suggests, taken as a compliment, I guess. — BrianSmithson 13:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"distinct" vs. "distinctive"

From dictionary.com,

A thing is distinct if it is sharply distinguished from other things; a property or attribute is distinctive if it enables us to distinguish one thing from another. The warbler is not a distinct species means that the warbler is not a clearly defined type of bird. The pine warbler has a distinctive song means that the pine warbler's song enables us to distinguish it from all other birds, including other warblers.

I can see how both might apply, but I agree that "distinct" is the better choice here. Good catch. (And don't forget to sign your comments with four ~ symbols.) — BrianSmithson 14:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Brian that both apply; I don't really care which we use. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Blackface Minstrelsy

I think this page should be merged with Blackface minstrelsy. Zargulon 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a lot of overlap, but blackface is a phenomenon that both pre- and postdates the minstrel show. Blackface is a form of racial impersonation and ridicule; the minstrel show is a form of entertainment that utilizes blackface. Merging would be similar to merging electronica with rave; one's a style, the other's an event that utilizes that style. — BrianSmithson 22:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)