CALM DOWN ABOUT BLACKFACE, ALREADY

Listening to the recent shrill social justice calls about blackface being a horrific past racist mark in 100% of cases continues to grate on me, as I observe yet another dumbing-down of society and crime against historical truth taking place in the name of political correctness for current political ends.  What is most abhorrent to me is observing those who ought to know better doing the work of the Marxist America-haters as they jump on the revisionist band wagon in a forlorn quest to appear as racially "woke" as any leftist in demonizing any instance of blackface, no matter the lasting consequences.

This writer is old enough to remember a time when Mark Twain's Huck Finn was widely read in the original, and Joel Chandler Harris' Brer Rabbit was still thought to be a fine series for children.  (I also had a "Little Black Sambo" book when a small child, though later I was in a group sponsored by the post-1960s restaurant Sambo's that had whitefaced its public image.)  I am not here to defend Ralph Northam's college antics by any means, as that photo with the post-Simmons era KKKlansman would have only been funny had his buddy been a genuine student of color.  (I will admit being personally amused at the nonsense directed against Virginia governor primary candidate Corey Stewart for being pro-Confederate monument and pro-Virginian heroes (of whatever skin color), only to be defeated by race-baiting, South-hating RINO propaganda, and the irony that Gillespie was then defeated by Northam.  Gillespie would have done better to check Northam's yearbook rather than worrying about Stewart -- but RINOs worrying most about conservatives is another topic.)

The truth of the matter is that skin color - by itself - means nothing.  If a particular character - like Othello, or like the Watermelon Man who changes from white cracker to a black man - has a particular skin color or other attributes, then the makeup must follow.  Any prejudice, hatred or demeaning intentions - and yes, admiration, love and/or praise - should and will be adjudged by the objective and wise critic.  Shakespeare is under enough attack as a DWM (dead white man) and - mostly - for being so emblematic of the achievements of Western Civilization and Elizabethan England that the hard Left would love to add the demonization of blackfaced characters to the list of false charges.  While there would be a certain ironic justice in seeing today's politics demonize THE Master of political spin (circa 1590-1611), anyone seeking any wisdom whatsoever must rise above simplistic and revisionist definitions of details such as blackface or words.  The hard Left works diligently to redefine such things (i.e., pre-1950 usage of the word 'gay') such that current and future readers must resist the devil's temptation to become distracted.

It's now the same with blackface.  There's a fine little video on YouTube posted by "Today I Found Out" called Al Jolson - Misunderstood Hero or Villain?   Despite a couple of quibbles about the post-Simmons era KKK (i.e., the percentage of members in Indiana was one-quarter of voting-age men, and that heyday of that era's KKK was over by 1925 and D.C. Stephenson's trial - before talkies), they do a great job reminding us that there was a time in segregated America when blackfaced entertainers were a POSITIVE - because it was one of the few ways persons of color COULD be portrayed to the white audiences of the time.  Many people (of all skin colors) realized this was a part of the civil rights struggle of their times and done in order to get to that better, brighter future.  (Personal note - please enjoy I Love to Singa - with Al Jolson & Cab Calloway - I only discoverd this after a cartoon about the song.)

Another reason that Jolson is less offensive to me than some other blackfaced characterizations and performances is that minstrelsy was itself an American art form - at one time, celebrated throughout the world. 

 (Demonizing American history is, after all, what the hart Left does, as America-haters cannot allow the possibility of a positive American heritage and history.)  Minstrelsy was not dependent upon using blackface.  Minstrels could be any skin color.  The Georgia Minstrels were one of many such groups - one which toured internationally, and which was not bound by stereotypes.

Most people today have no idea just how popular throughout the world Thomas Dartmouth "Daddy" Rice's "Jim Crow" character was.  After 25 years of being celebrated throughout the world, it was Rice's blackfaced character who originated the Uncle Tom character in "Life Amongst the Lowly" in the first performances of Uncle Tom's Cabin.  And whilst this writer is no advocate for antebellum Yankee abolitionist agitation, I would think most who remember Lincoln's comments to Harriet Beecher Stowe might well credit a blackface performance as being an effective tool in her propaganda.  It is a nod to the power and influence of Rice's Jim Crow character - as well as the Uncle Tom character - that those names have been so reused and redefined through subsequent cultural applications.  Just a reminder to those unfamiliar with the actual history:  the character of Uncle Tom was a beloved, respected man, just as the original Jim Crow persona was more of a Will Rogers social critic - much more meaningful and worthy than SJWs would have us believe.

I think of all these who now demonizing blackface one day coming across Gene Wilder in Silver Streak.  Of course, 1976 was - just as with these current politicians and their photographs - a time when Richard Pryor was recognized as a star, a genius AND actually funny (unlike most of today's political comedy).  It was post-segregation-era, either actual or de facto.  Spike Lee's Bamboozled Blackface Montage intersperses scenes from Jolson and Stepin Fetchit (Lincoln Theodore Monroe Andrew Perry - his real name - became a millionaire, by the way) to emphasize the stereotypical aspects.  But I must argue that one could make similar montages concerning any stereotype.  I grew up with many of those images.  I guess - given this montage - that we are being told that we MUST demonize Gene Wilder AND Richard Pryor as being racists, hmmm Mr. Lee?

Entertainment is not real life.  The problem with the images that Spike Lee presents is not that they existed.  The problem is that there weren't enough Paul Robesons and Sidney Poitiers (for two examples) doing fine performances to balance them.  It is also important to remember that such performers were out there, albeit in more limited venues.  Valuing what people do in challenging times is often one of the ways we document progress - even if it is in noting what people do in order for their children to have those opportunities.

No one but a racist sees any of those images and thinks such is what all persons of color are, just as no one but a racist thinks that this is what all one group perceives of them.  And no one but a Marxist divider seeks to perpetuate either view.  Sometimes a character is just a character.  In John Ford's Judge Priest, for one example, Frank Melton's barber Flem Talley is more offensive a character than Stepin Fetchit's Jeff Poindexter.  The barber is a hateful jerk, whilst Jeff is Judge Priest's friend and helper.   The viewer today will not know that Will Rogers and Lincoln T.M.A. Perry were friends in real life, nor that chicken thieving was a great virtue amongst Confederate veterans.  But Spike Lee tries to ensure that his audience knows that Judge Priest is a racist pro-Confederate movie and nothing more - and this deeply concerns me.  What else shall the Left destroy, along with Mark Twain's and Joel Chandler Harris' works?  Now, every movie with a blackface scene must be hatred and nothing more if the Left has their way.

And here's the rub...  Every blackface scene or mention of the Confederacy - for two examples - begs the script, of apologies for slavery and racism.  And yet, as a woman, all that happened prior to 1919 doesn't beg a script for apologies over depriving women of the vote.  For another example... Many of the same people promoting social justice these days tend to be those who are feeding anti-Semitism, quite the opposite of apologies for both slavery and hatred - and genocide, given how the WWII Holocaust is rarely taught whilst fantasies of the antebellum South are largely mis-taught.

We have far bigger issues than historically outdated makeup applications.  It's not as though there is much threat of racists wearing KKK hoods and blackface today.  Of course, there is apparently far greater threats of infanticide and late-term abortions, whether or not performed by doctors - which is another Northam controversy.  It is a great sadness that to all too many people, the blackface controversy is drawing more calls for Northam's resignation than his comments on killing babies of whatever skin color.

AGITATION ISN'T 'SOCIAL JUSTICE' OR 'RAISING AWARENESS'

 -- IT'S RACE-BAITING BY AND FOR RACISTS --

If slavery is offensive & hurtful (feelings vary by skin color) and cotton is racist, why aren't alcohol, sugar & tobacco
just as offensive, hurtful & racist?  <Triangle Trade of slavery-goods-raw materials image> <cotton image>

     I've been viewing some excellent episodes on our 1st 41 presidents on YouTube entitled "Life Portrait" from C-SPAN.  There's much good history shared in these programs from the 1990s.  Unfortunately, from time to time, some callers (particularly) bring up revisionist commentary regarding slavery (antebellum decades) and "the Klan" (post-bellum).  I wouldn't have minded so much had there been intelligent discussion of the issue, either from an historical survey standpoint or opinion. 
     But I frankly don't credit anyone who tells me what I must think and feel based upon my skin color, nor tells me what I must think others think and feel, based upon their skin color.  Skin color BY ITSELF MEANS NOTHING.  I was completely amused when a lady who self-identified as having mixed-race individuals as parents called in and spoke about how discussions of historic slavery (of SOME of her ancestors, not identifying which ones) INSPIRED her with the endurance and progress of (some of) her people.  More people than her, I would assume, wonder why instead of inspiring others such as is done in the writings of Booker T. Washington, who speaks of the virtues and qualities of his people, their achivements and their character, seek reparations, excuses, affirmative action for the (as we are now told by Left-wing activists) PERMANENTLY disabled.
     The callers are - with the hindsight of two decades' distance now, as well as the convenience of watching all the episodes successively - rather obviously working from rhetorical talking points and strategems to replace discussion of the men and the times with agitation of social justice views depending upon one's skin color.   If we continue to stand by for their division of history and society by skin color, America becomes permanently accursed - because the facts of history cannot be changed.  It's a sad fact about these agitators who claim to be for the "advancement" of their people and against "hate" - to be advocating a philosophy that can only lead to an inevitably permanent second or third-class status.  Their choices either proclaim more loudly than any of their programs that they themselves are racists OR they have nothing better to offer, and ought not be patronized in any way.  This "virtue signalling" is ultimately offensive and hurtful to all future generations, and kicks the can of any discrimination more down the road - thus excusing America's Founders of kicking the emancipation can down the road as they did.
     The result of such "discussions" can only be to set racial divides into stone.  Such people aren't seeking a color-blind society measured by merit and character, the traditional aims of civil rights groups.  Their goals are advancing mediocrity with nothing more substantive to offer than slogans (and one-upmanship depending upon the skin color(s) of the combatants - which one-upmanship is never an issue depending upon other factors).   Political correctness increasingly requires us to view certain words - like "lynching" and "cotton" - as always racially-connected.  Class division has never - thus far - been able to take hold in America, thwarting the methodology of class division which is still current in Europe and most successful in Bolshevik-era Russia. 
     This goal is made more apparent when such callers start discussing reparations or other current topics without any knowledge of the people and issues of the times.  This is a strategy to agitate not only the War of Northern Aggression but the issues and personalities of those times - of course, without any real grasp of issues and the then-current personalities which our ancestors of over 150 years ago would have been familiar with.  We see in the here and now with #FakeNews how political operatives attempt and intend to deceive with lies of commission and omission.  How much easier is it for such people to deceive and manipulate over the events of 150+ years ago (particularly when neglecting the events of all the interim years).
     We are pretty far along the Road to Perdition with regard to revisionist historical narratives misused for political purposes.  What is important for the reader/consumer of such to note is, which side is the one promoting such lies?  Once you determine who has chosen the pathway of lies and self-serving manipulation of history, run away from such people and their pet projects.  You are headed down the path to ruin and waste, with people who care for nothing but to use you.  We already have the example of the Bolsheviks and Stalin, who starved and shot people once they were done using them.  The very same thing happened in the South - where freedmen who didn't toe the Union League/Freedmen Bureau line post-Appomattox found themselves even less valued than the disenfranchised former Confederates, no matter how dark their skin color was.  But these decades following Appomattox - that never get the attention that the four years of the war do, and are negated - shall have to await a further post.  And this is why certain decades must be negated - because our ancestors (of ALL skin colors, who are being dishonored by these manipulations and lies) already went through all this once before.  It is most unfortunate that the achievements of free people AND freedmen are being dishonored so that (largely) criminals, liars and con-men can "wave the bloody shirt" to the ignorant.  But such is what is really going on.
     Many lament the fact of these social changes, and the vast ignorance of the decades and our culture that - forgotten - permit some people to become gullible and stupid with regard to seeing lies and liars for whom and what they are.  As for me, I see something very different - that such are building their house upon sand.  When that sand begins to shift, the houses of lies builded thereon shall crash like mansions on California cliffsides after heavy rains.  And I and others shall be there to write the narratives. 
     In the interim... When you hear about cotton, ask about sugar and tobacco.  Ask those who complain about slavery why it is they complain about legal slavery when the agitation about alcohol began alongside it, as part of the trade as well as a part of the mindset of the abolitionist (Lincoln was a temperance man, for one example - and if you did not know that, WHY NOT?).  The 20th Century revisionist ("2nd era" or "Simmons-Evans) Klan - for one example - was more about temperance/Prohibition than anything else - and in large part it was their allegiance to this issue that is the reason for their rise and fall in the early 1920s than any other reason (also another clear reason why they had nothing to do with the Reconstruction-era legitimate KuKlux).  Prohibition followed abolitionism, both causes leading to Constitutional Amendments.  What happened to all that motivation and political involvement?  And finally... why is race agitated today, but for reasons of "social justice" - and not the past "reasons" of class struggle or the "science" of eugenics?
     I submit that slavery and slaveholders of the antebellum South cannot be indicted or accused without indicting or accusing all those (largely Northerners, since the South was shut out and rebuilding for 50 years).  Y'all can blame Jim Crow all you like - but y'all know where THAT thread leads, doncha?  Yep, Yankee liberals and Lefties have built completely on sand...
#DeoVindice