Blackface: The Use of Whites

Blackface: The Use of Whites to Portray Non-Whites in Popular Culture

As cultural norms have evolved, one of the most interesting things that minority groups have done is to reclaim things that have typically been evocative of racial stereotypes and use them for empowerment. There are many examples in popular culture, with perhaps the most obvious and controversial one being the reclamation of the word "nigger" by African-Americans in certain forms of popular culture, particularly hip-hop music. What is seen as liberating to some is seen as continuation of centuries of racial subjugation by others, so that the African-American community is starkly divided about that issue. Not all vestiges of racist practices are considered quite as offensive and controversial in modern times. However, one that is considered extremely offensive is the use of blackface in entertainment so that whites can portray non-white characters. An examination of the use of blackface throughout the history of modern entertainment reveals that it can be an effective means of using satire to highlight racial inequality and the fallacy of racial stereotypes, but that, because of its racist history, its ineffective use can actually perpetuate the very stereotypes it attempts to satirize.

This paper explores how the use of blackface has evolved over time, from an initial way to have whites fulfill negative stereotypes about minorities to a way for entertainers of various cultures to use color as a means of making commentary about racial relationships in America. First, it begins with a historical investigation into the use of blackface in American entertainment, including vaudeville and the early film industry. Next, it looks at how blackface fell out of favor as civil rights evolved. From there, the paper examines how blackface expanded to other cultural groups outside of African-Americans. Then, the paper looks at more modern versions of blackface, where the fact that an actor was portraying someone from a different ethnic group has become an intentional part of the message the entertainer is attempting to convey. Finally, the paper focuses on the most recent revival of blackface, which occurred in the late 2000s and continues to this day.

In order to understand what blackface means in modern popular culture, it is important to examine what blackface meant in historical popular culture. Blackface was a part of minstrelsy, which was a type of entertainment that came to popularity in the early 1800s. Minstrelsy combined two types of entertainment genres: black musicians who sang on the streets and white actors who portrayed blacks, generally during smaller performances at larger shows. This evolved into its own type of entertainment, so that a minstrel show was one that featured performers, either blacks or white people disguised to portray blacks. It is almost impossible to overstate the impact that minstrelsy had on the formation of American popular culture. "The history of blackface minstrelsy does not just 'touch' every form of popular music; it is linked to the very formation of antebellum popular culture" (Mahar, p.1). The minstrel was the least expensive, most widely available form of popular entertainment available in antebellum America, and, as such, helped shape the nature of popular culture, so that one can see elements of minstrelsy that remain, today, in most types of purely American forms of entertainment. The time context is important when one considers that the early 1800s saw a rise in negative public opinions about slavery, although not necessarily a rise in the belief of the inherent equality of man. Therefore, the minstrel show evolved to feature two types of African-American characters: "the urban black dandy [and]…the southern plantation slave" (the Center for American Music). These representations "featured stereotypes caricatures rather than genuine depictions of blacks, and were usually demeaning" (the Center for American Music).

Blackface was not just part of the minstrel show; it was the defining element of the minstrel show. "The primary convention that identified the minstrel show as entertainment was burnt cork makeup" (Mahar, p.1). The effect of this makeup was not only to give performers darker skin, but also a dirty look, which contributed to existing racial stereotypes. "The combination of burned, pulverized champagne corks and water (sometimes petroleum jelly or a similar substance) served as a racial marker announcing that a single act or an ensemble offered what were selected aspects of (arguably) African-American culture to audiences interested in how racial differences and enslavement reinforced distinctions between black and white Americans" (Mahar, p.1).

However, blackface served a role beyond demeaning African-Americans. Even at its youngest, blackface was sometimes used as a means of satirizing the dominant, conservative social norms, while, at the same time, appearing to reinforce those norms. After all, the burnt cork not only served to make white actors appear African-American, but also to disguise them, so that they could use "parody and burlesque as techniques to satirize majority values while still reinforcing widely held and fairly conservative beliefs (Mahar, p.1). The use of the makeup also allowed the actors to place some distance between themselves and the material they were portraying, which helps highlight the uncomfortable nature of racial tension and race relations in the U.S., even in the antebellum period (Mahar, p.1).

In the antebellum period, minstrel shows evolved into a standard three- part structure. The first part began with a walkaround, which featured the performers singing and dancing on the stage. The troop then sat in a semicircle, performed musical numbers, and exchanged jokes (Padgett). Part two was like a variety show and was "a precursor to vaudeville. It included singers, dancers, comedians, and other novelty acts, and parodies of legitimate theater" (Padgett). During this part of the act, a blackface character would often engage in a pompous oratory that revealed him to be a fool (Padgett). The final part of the show as a one-act play, which would frequently focus on plantation life, portraying the life of a slave as carefree. This was such a critical part, not only of a minstrel show, but of the slaveholding culture, that after Uncle Tom's Cabin was published in 1852, "minstrel shows appropriated the major characters for sketches that changed the abolitionist themes in the original into an argument for the supposedly benign character of slavery" (Padgett).

While the point of the minstrel show was entertainment, it is critical to keep in mind that the themes of the minstrel show were intentional. "Prior to the Civil War (1861-1865), pro-slavery Whites used the racist stereotypes as a way of countering the abolitionist movement." (Padgett). This was because minstrel show perpetuated two of the myths that were commonly used to defend the practice of slavery: that blacks were unable to care for themselves without white intervention, and that life on plantations was happy for slaves (Padgett). Therefore, when slaves were emancipated, and it was no longer necessary to defend the practice of slavery, one might have anticipated a decline in the demand for minstrel shows. On the contrary, the end of slavery actually increased demand for minstrelsy, as many whites, confronted with a changing social dynamic and a world in which African-Americans were beginning to be able to assert some person and political powers, desperately clung to any cultural fixtures that would reinforce their racist ideals.

Moreover, emancipation brought racial issues to areas of the country which had previously not experienced the type of racial tension that existed in the antebellum South. This was, in many instances, due to a total lack of familiarity between whites in some areas and African-Americans. Rather than lead to a decline in demand for minstrel shows, emancipation actually led to an increase in demand. "With the dramatic increase in the popularity of minstrel shows in the years following emancipation, Whites continued to wear the blackface mask in performances that would serve to define the meaning of blackness for many Americans who by choice or geography had little contact with Blacks" (Padgett). Therefore, for many, the minstrel show and blackface served, essentially, as their only real introduction to African-Americans, which helps partially explain why some race-based stereotypes have been so difficult to erase.

While minstrel shows and blackface performances were generally lighthearted and comedic, their underlying racial stereotypes and messages about the inherent inferiority of non-whites had a negative impact on the perception of blacks in society as a whole. Moreover, not all uses of blackface were even superficially benign. Perhaps the most hateful use of blackface in the 20th century was in D.W. Griffith's movie the Birth of a Nation. The film was unapologetically racist, built upon a storyline featuring a predatory African-American male who seeks to rape and ruin a white female in the days following the Civil War. The film was considered the catalyst for the revival of the Ku Klux Klan, which continues to use the film as a means of recruiting new members. In the film, Griffiths employs blackface in an interesting manner. Background African-American characters were portrayed by actual people of color, while the main African-American characters were portrayed by white actors in blackface (Griffiths). The fact that he chose to use real Black people in the background, but white actors in the lead roles highlights the idea that Blacks were still supposed to be subservient to whites; even lead characters who were supposed to be Black were portrayed by whites. However, it also points to one of the reasons that whites chose to employ blackface: the perpetuation of racial stereotypes. While many minstrel shows focused on less frightening aspects of Black stereotypes, the Birth of a Nation focused on a fear that people would use to drive anti-Black sentiment in the period following Reconstruction: the image of the Black male as dangerous rapist. Although many people protested the racist elements of the movie, it became an instant success, and remains a controversial but constant member of most critics' best film lists.

Blackface persisted as a staple in American entertainment throughout the early part of the 20th century. While minstrel troops themselves, declined, blackface became part of the other emerging forms of American entertainment: movies and television. The most famous movie actor to work in blackface was Al Jolson. "If blackface has its shameful poster boy, it is Al Jolson. Many other 20th-century performers -- from Shirley Temple to Bing Crosby -- donned the makeup for various roles, but Jolson adopted it as a core part of his public persona" (Gioia). Jolson was one of the most successful performers of his time period and the movies in which he performed in blackface were successful.

Gradually the demand for blackface subsided, but the demand for minstrel shows that promoted negative stereotypes about African-Americans did not. One of the most successful of all early television programs, Amos 'n Andy, is an example of a production that, while performed by Black actors who were not wearing blackface makeup, continued the tradition of reinforcing negative stereotypes about the Black community. However, just as earlier minstrel shows had provided African-American entertainers with some of their first mainstream entertainment opportunities, it cannot be ignored that Amos 'n Andy was also a cultural ground-breaker for African-Americans. "It was the first television series with an all-black cast (the only one of its kind to appear on prime-time, network television for nearly another twenty years)" (Deane). Although it was eventually removed from the airways because of its offensiveness sand did not feature any characters actually in blackface, the TV show helped signal the beginning of a transformation in the way that blackface would be used in popular culture.

Americans were growing intolerant of blatant racial stereotyping, and blackface began to become increasingly less acceptable. That does not mean that blackface died in the 1950s. On the contrary, "amateur minstrel shows continued to be performed in the 1960s and high schools, fraternities and local theater groups would usually perform the shows in blackface" (Padgett). While the practice of blackface has largely disappeared in mainstream society, it is interesting to note that minstrel shows remain as themes for amateur theater productions (Padgett).

As blackface began to fade as a method of entertainment, it began to gain some legitimacy as a means of socio-cultural exploration. During the Civil Rights movement, journalist John Griffin dressed up as a black man in order to fully understand the experiences of a black man in the South. This true-story is detailed in the 1964 movie Black Like Me. Although the movie's main character, John, does not employ traditional blackface makeup, but relies on some type of skin-darkening treatment, he is still a white man acting like an African-American man. Moreover, even though John is not attempting to provide entertainment or reinforce stereotypes, he quickly discovers that his safety and well-beings as a man who appears African-American are largely based on him complying with existing racial stereotypes. The film reveals the extent and everyday prevalence of racism during that time period, which helps highlight the need for legal and cultural racial changes (Lerner).

In rapid succession, race-based laws, if not attitudes, changed in the United States, and the country was left trying to determine how to incorporate changing racial norms and rules into existing social institutions. Not surprisingly, popular culture began to toy with the idea of blackface as overt political commentary in the early 1970s. The 1970 movie Watermelon Man featured a spin on traditional blackface storytelling, because the main character was a portrayed by an African-American actor who, for some parts of the movie, was in white makeup to portray the racist white man Jeff Gerber. Gerber wakes up one day to discover that he has turned black. While a black actor portrays both the white and black Gerber, the idea makeup is being used to portray race is a central driving point of the story. The racist Gerber must come to terms with being a black man, just like the people against whom he previously discriminated (Van Peebles). However, the mainstream use of blackface was considered taboo by most people, who saw it as an insensitive way of reinforcing racial stereotypes. Blackface might appear in movies or other forms of entertainment, such as 1983's Trading Places, but when it did appear, it was generally used to highlight racism rather than evoke racist thoughts and stereotypes (Landis).

By 1986, Hollywood seemed to think that using blackface as a way of satirizing black culture was once-again culturally acceptable. In the movie Soul Man, a white college student Mark, pretends to be African-American in order to get a scholarship to go to Harvard. Mark is the epitome of the spoiled white male, and he chooses to pretend to be African-American because of the availability of scholarships limited to African-Americans (Miner). Although this film does not play into traditional African-American stereotypes, it does reinforce the stereotypes that began to emerge in a post-Civil Rights Era America. One of those fears was that affirmative action was resulting in African-Americans receiving privileges that whites were unable to receive. Thus, the new blackface portrayal did not invoke ancient black stereotypes, but, instead relied upon new stereotypes.

In 1993, actor Ted Danson was widely lambasted for his use of blackface at a Friar's Club roast of his then-girlfriend Whoopi Goldberg. Goldberg had frequently employed racial themes in her own stand-up routines and the fact that he was a white man and she was a black woman had been an issue for them in a press. Therefore, for Danson to use race as a theme in his roast was not unexpected. However, he appeared in blackface with emphasized white lips and told a number of racially-themed jokes. His appearance was deemed offensive by some of the guests present, but defended by other guests including Goldberg, who helped him plan his material, and the African-American model Beverly Johnson. However, the backlash against his appearance led to a public relations debacle, with Danson largely being vilified in the press as racist. Furthermore, the Friar's Club issuing an apologizing for the racially offensive tone of his appearance at the roast (Inquirer Wire Services). Following Danson's appearance at the Friar Club's roast, there were reported isolated incidents of individuals or groups appearing in blackface at a variety of different events, each of which was met with disapproval by the public. Even the intentional use of blackface in a satirical manner was considered inappropriate, and it seemed as if the 1990s may finally have seen the end of blackface as a legitimate form of artistic expression.

However, in 2001, Spike Lee, a director known for his racially insightful films, decided to tackle the issue of blackface in a full-length feature-film, Bamboozled. The plot of the film revolves around an African-American writer who works for a major television network. He pitches a show that focuses on a successful African-American family, but the network rejects that idea (Lee). The writer, in an effort to get fired, then pitches a traditional minstrel show to the network. However, instead of featuring white actors in blackface, the television program will focus on black actors in blackface, which was, at times, an element of traditional minstrel shows. The television program, which emphasizes black stereotypes, becomes a tremendous success. The point that Lee tries to convey in his show is that society continues to make money off of the stereotyping of African-Americans. However, the film was subject to significant critiques when it was released, largely because many audiences felt that Lee's use of satire was incomplete, so that he was perpetuating the very stereotypes that he was trying to challenge. The film was not considered one of Lee's best and it appeared that even a director like Spike Lee, who had established his reputation as a director by tackling challenging race-based themes, could not legitimately employ blackface as a plot device in modern art.