Working on my literature review, I have
dived in my book titled Blacking it up: The Minstrel Show in
Nineteenth Century America by Robert Toll. The purpose of this
book, as the author explains, is to look at the questions that most
scholars have about this time period, such as where did this type of
minstrelsy come from, why was blackface minstrelsy so popular for so
long, and of course why did entertainers see the need to perform
blackface in the first place. While blackface minstrelsy began twenty
years before the civil war, it hit it's height during the war itself,
where it was able to feed off the efforts of the abolitionist in the
North, and the slaves and their owners in the South.
One of the areas I am looking at looks
at whether or not the minstrel performers were for the South, as one
might imagine, or whether they could have been for the North. Some of
the music expresses that there might be have been a mixture, some
performers portraying and aiding the South against the emancipation,
some supporting the efforts of the Northerners for emancipation. Toll
believes that there might have been a shift in belief, and that many
of them were simply supporting the one who was winning at the time.
For the most part, he believes that a
shift occurred, stating that “Although they were completely opposed
to emancipation at first...had to admit that blacks were earning
their freedom by fighting and dying for the Union and the American
Creed. Furthermore, as the frustrating war dragged on...they became
increasingly vindictive of the South, gloating over each victory and
delighting in the news of Sherman burning his way across the
confederacy” (117). The rest continues, using the example of the
famous piece “Babylon is fallen” to portray that not only did the
minstrelsy performers support the emancipation of slaves, they also
had allies with several of them, even though they didn't fully
support every idea that the Northerners had.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.