After watching Ethic Notions, I couldn't stop thinking about minstrel shows and the portrayal of blacks in entertainment and advertising. Maybe it's because I'm ignorant, but I had never heard the term "minstrel" prior to Ethnic Notions. And to be completely honest, I had never really thought about the role of blacks in entertainment and advertising during the 19th and 20th centuries. While I would like to say that I was surprised by the examples shown throughout the film, that just wasn't the case. White society didn't see anything wrong with they were doing, black face and mammy were just part of the culture.
Since these portrayals of blacks really piqued my interest, I've come across a few examples of minstrels outside those discussed in Ethnic Notions. The first, which of course I can't find a link to, was in the now-cancelled BBC show Copper. In one of the episodes of season two, there is a minstrel show occurring in the middle of the market, and of course the musicians are in black face. While this is a minor part of the episode, I think it's inclusion lends itself to the role of minstrels during this time.
A better example I've come across is an entire Thought Catalogue article dedicated to examples of racism in old advertisements. The article itself doesn't discuss minstrels or mammy, many of the 41 advertisements certainly do. Written by Nico Lang, 41 Mind-Blowing Racist Vintage Ads You Need to See is not at all mind-blowing. As a matter of fact, it's exactly what I expected it to be - tasteless and racist. Just look at the example below, a seemingly harmless ad for soap is implying blacks are dirty, but Pears' Soap can make them clean just like the whites. Shocking? No. Shameful? Absolutely.
Hi Maggie, as I mentioned to you in class your picture really piqued my interest and just as you mentioned in the close of your blog post, that pictures like the one you posted are "Shocking? No. Shameful? Absolutely." Could not have summed it up better myself.
ReplyDeleteYet, what is shocking for me, or at least truly unfortunate is the lingering effects it has now nearly 100 years later with respect to minority media representation. Which is disproportionately negative. So I ask myself why is this? And my answer is because of the colorblind racism frames/discourses.
You stated this and I quote, " Most I understand, some I agree with, and others - like Bonilla-Silva, I believe take the argument a little too far." Please correct me if I am wrong, I understand it as you are saying that the discourses as explained by Bonilla- Silva are a bit extreme, or too over the top? If this is your argument I respectfully disagree.
This is why, as you correctly noted," White society didn't see anything wrong with they were doing, black face and mammy were just part of the culture." You exactly give prudence to the colorblind racism frames. The frames are used as discourse to wipe/ explain away there is no racism. Things are just they way they are, no big deal, thus there is nothing wrong with depicting minorities in black face, or using an advertisement as the picture you included on your post. It is what it is no harm no foul. This attitude is the discourses working in full swing.
To conclude as you said shocking? Not really yet real consequences are present as a result of depictions such as the one in your post.