
Whence last we spoke, I mentioned novels as a new, almost subliminal way, to promote fear and prejudice against the newly freed slaves. They weren't real stories, just hypothetical fiction, however, subconsciously, the readers would begin to fear and generalize all black men as uncontrollable and domineering against white women. [ Statistically, the African-American crime rate in the United States did not begin to spike until the 1970's... a good 60 to 70 years into the future, but we'll get into that much later.] For now, before the fiction started to become reality, we can look at the formulative time periods of mainstream perception.


As I said, novels were just one medium to convey this message. Hollywood, as a centre for "entertainment" is very culpable. What is entertaining today, isn't necessarily what would have been entertaining one hundred years ago. One "rag time" classic... blackface. Blackface is one of the most hated symbols of racism for African-Americans. In simple terms, similar to when women couldn't perform in plays, and men played all the characters, blackface originated as (former)slave characters being played by white men... as this picture so clearly shows us. I could just say... look at the picture, but I must point out that there was no attempt made at an accurate portrayal of a black man. Its meant to be exaggerated. It was another way to attempt to humiliate. Once again, everything about you (African) is wrong. So, the character isn't brown, his skin tone is pitch black. With the makeup, the white guy would do his best to exaggerate the fullness of black lips. If you're not African-American, it might be hard to understand the historical significance of slave owners open disgust for the skin tone, hair texture, lip size and nose width of the slaves... but the "lightskinned girls get in free" (symbolizing black men prefering light skinned women) party I mentioned in a previous blog is just one example of these same issues resonating (to this day) in the hearts and minds of many blacks. If you get bored one day, just do some google'ing and see the 100's of thousands of articles and blogs that will pop up, trying to address an issue that some(most?) non-blacks are unaware even exists.

The visual interpretation of the former slaves through blackface was just another indirect way to mock them. But, it wasn't just how he looked, it was what he did, and what he said... that really entertained the white audiences. The blackface characters were dimwitted and lazy. Cowardly, buffoonish. Lied often. Spoke horribly improper English. And, as the first pic shows, were... inherently inclined to musical talents. Perhaps the saddest thing, was that, in its latter stages, blacks started to reprise some of the roles themselves. (click here) There were female characters as well. As is the case on old cartoon reels of Tom & Jerry, there were the "mammy" type characters, who were loud, slow-witted, spoke slang, unappealing in terms of beauty and featured dominant male characteristics. And the other portrayal of black women was to be type cast as highly sexually provocative.
This is a sidenote of sorts, but knowing the history of blackface will bring more understanding of the Chappelle situation when he left his show. He had to question what he was doing... intentionally... or unintentionally. This is purely anecdotal, but I remember asking a(n older black male) coworker if he watched, and he expressed his dislike for Chappelle and his humor, and likened it to "chicken George" or blackface. Anyway, Chappelle had finished 2 successful seasons, and was working on production for season 3. One of the skits, which you can see on the three episodes Comedy Central aired (much to Chappelle's protest) was one where he played a miniature racial stereotype "pixie" of different races. White, black, hispanic (which isn't a race, but no time for that now) and asian. The black pixie was blackface. As an entertainer, there's no doubt that he knows the history of blackface. In Chappelle's words, he saw a white guy on the set that was laughing at the routine, but he thought he was laughing too hard. As if to say, he's not laughing with me... he's laughing... at me. The biggest problem with satirical comedy (Boondocks, anyone?) is that most people are too simple-minded to get it. As a comedian, trying to bridge the gap with racial humor, to one day wake up dressed as (of all things) blackface, and to see white people working for you laughing at you... I suppose that would drive anyone to Africa. Right...?
Well, as the 1930's rolled along, such... explicit forms of racism were beginning to become taboo. A "classic" from the 30's, that some percieve to have a racist undertone was King Kong. Its been said that the creator of King Kong was openly racist. Not a big stretch for the 1930's, I'd imagine. But what is the premise of King Kong? White explorers travel to an island inhabited by primitives. There, they find this giant ape like creature with some human emotions. They capture the beast and bring it to America in chains to put on display. The ape escapes its captors, grows unruly and uncontrollable, and has a dangerous affection for a helpless white woman, until the authorities can come and save her, by killing the savage beast. Though the 2005 adaptation received no mainstream criticism or inquiry about a possible racial undertone (because we're now beyond that?)... how would this movie have been recieved by a white American audience in 1933?

I mean... really... did you think I could talk about racism (implicit or explicit) in film and book form, and not mention (1915) "the Birth of a Nation"? (yes, thats a clansmen on the horse as the protagonist) Fear tactics at its best... or worse, depending on your perspective... The Birth of a Nation is a controversial movie based on the 1912 novel: Clansmen. Rather than the non-threatening, goofy blackface live action characters from broadway plays, the Clansmen book portrayed African-Americans in a more serious light: as the deadly "brute." The physically imposing, savage who was not intelligent enough to control his lusts and emotions. A neanderthal, of sorts. In the book, the black "brute" rapes a white woman. The woman and her mother are left so distraught after the assault, they both commit suicide. It is then that the clansmen, as the heroes of the story, come in and kill the black "brute" for his misdeeds. It promotes a different stereotype. Rather than dumb and funny, black men are scary and dangerous. Savage... deviant... violent.
I'm definately not excusing it, Im extremely judgmental of America's past... but is it any wonder that whites didn't want to have anything to do with blacks? I can just imagine some old white guy shouting "Not my daughter!". The movie was a way to explain away violence (lynchings) against blacks. [Remember Emmitt Till?] From the perspective of the novel and the movie... the Ku Klux Klan was the hero. Merely protecting their people from the savages. The American government isn't protecting white America from the brute Africans, so the KKK will do it themselves. And this (irrational) fear of black men, again, black crime didn't spike until the 1970's... would be drilled into the heads of white America... in various forms.... be it... novels... tv shows... flyers...