Tag Archives: Betsy Phillips

Who Did You Meet On That Road?

Posted on by

This is part of a roundtable on The Best Band No One Has Ever Heard Of. The index to the roundtable is here.

Editor’s Note: Betsy Phillips had a comment on her post this week in which she speculated on Sleepy John Estes’ influences. I thought I’d reprint it here, along with examples.
____________

[Sleepy John Estes’] first record comes out in 1929. There’s not much recorded music before he gets his start. Certainly, there wasn’t recorded music on the radio at the time. So, his influences would all have been live musicians.

I wish someone would do a good biography of him while people who remember him are still alive. But, it’s interesting, just in the little bit we do know of him, how linked in he was with other West Tennessee black musicians. He played with Yank Rachell (who wrote “She Caught the Katy” among other things) from Brownsville and Hammie Nixon, also from Brownsville, who came straight out of jug bands and who recorded with a lot of folks in Memphis, as well as Son Bonds, who was hooked in with Sonny Boy Williamson out of Jackson.

 

 

 

So, I have a guess at an answer to who’s influencing him, just based on how far apart towns are. But let me be clear that I am purely guessing. Rural West Tennessee has a large African American population. Like the Mississippi Delta, it’s cotton-growing country. Before the Great Migration, the population in the country would have been predominately African-American. My guess is that there was a small chitlin circuit that ran out of Memphis, over to Jackson and back–again, my guess, is that performers went up 51, first night in Millington, second in Covington, third in Ripley, fourth in Dyersburg, etc. with a stop in Brownsville at some point. My guess is that West Tennessee musicians would take to the circuit when they could and that’s how they were all meeting each other. Because Brownsville is near Memphis now–with a car–but it certainly wasn’t then. There had to be some mechanism that was bringing these guys into contact with each other.

I also suspect in a song like “Milk Cow Blues” that we’re hearing the heavy influence of black minstrel show music (obviously, music from the larger chitlin circuit).

Two things make me think that. We know that performers at the minstrel shows were, obviously, not amplified but needed to be heard above a crowd and we know that every minstrel show featured a marching band. If you listen to the song with those two things in mind, a few things jump out–you could march to that song, the guitar rolls in the song could be nods to the drum rolls you would have heard in a marching band, and you can bellow the lyrics (in fact, Robert Plant regularly did). Estes isn’t bellowing on the record, but, thanks to Plant, it’s not hard to imagine how you could project “Hey, sweet mama, let me be your kid” over the noise of a crowd.

So, that’s my guess–that his influences were the live performers he saw there in Brownsville, but that he probably had the ability to see a lot more good musicians coming through Brownsville then than we realize.

Going to Brownsville? Take that Right Hand Road.

Posted on by

This is part of a roundtable on The Best Band No One Has Ever Heard Of. The index to the roundtable is here.
___________

There’s not much to Durhamville, Tennessee, where Sleepy John Estes (born John Adam Estes, January 25, 1899 according to his grave/born John Adams Estes, January 28, 1900 according to his World War I draft card– June 5, 1977) was born and buried, with a life in nearby Brownsville sandwiched between. To get there, you drive narrow, mostly straight, country roads. The speed limit is 50, but that’s only to encourage the locals who could certainly drive faster to watch out for the rare stranger who has to take the roads much slower. For Tennessee, the land is flat, though, being Tennessee, that means it has some gentle rolls to it. It’s mostly farmland, interrupted by wavy lines of trees in the low spots where the creeks lay. I’ve always come into Durhamville from the south, so it’s one farm after another, then a cemetery on the right, more farms, and then the cemeteries surrounding the Elam Baptist Church on the left. Maybe a quarter mile up the road is “downtown” Durhamville, which is four empty wooden buildings at a crossroad—three brick store-ish looking buildings on one side of the street and one wooden building on the other that gives off a kind of post-office-ish vibe. They are obviously no longer safe to enter.

Once tractors were cheaper than sharecroppers, there wasn’t any need for even as little of Durhamville as there was.
But the Elam Baptist Church is still something of a tourist destination, kind of, if I, going out there every year or so to Sleepy John Estes’s grave, count as a tourist. The church you can see from the road sits on a slight rise, surrounded by graves and a fence. This is the old white Baptist church. Down the lane that runs next to the church is another church, the old black Baptist church. According to the people I found at the church, it has a white congregation now. It has a smattering of graves near it. And then, the next lot south, is an enormous cemetery, one that seems to be made up of one-third Esteses, none of whom are Sleepy John. If you’re looking for him, he’s buried next to his sister in a kind of no-man’s land where the three cemeteries come together.

Sleepy John’s grave, taken by itself, isn’t actually that interesting. You can see it on Find-a-Grave and spare yourself the soggy shoes and the bug bites. But standing in the cemetery full of Esteses is totally worth it. For one thing, it’s hard to think of Sleepy John Estes as some isolated lone bluesman when you’re standing among fifty of his family members. Most of the Esteses have Masonic symbols on their graves—even Sleepy John’s sister—so it’s easy enough to imagine that he probably also was a Mason, which, in rural Tennessee in his lifetime would have been part social club, part survival strategy. Mostly, you get the feeling of Sleepy John being a part of a large family in a close-knit community that sat in a place fundamentally rigged against them. Just looking at the dead Baptists, Durhamville must have had three black people for every white person, and yet who got the nice church and the churchyard burial? Not the Esteses.
 

 
The most important thing you can see by going to Durhamville, if, for some reason, you actually would want to go there is that, if you are going from Durhamville to Brownsville, perhaps to see the girl you love, with her great, long, curly hair, you do, indeed, take the right-hand road.
 

 
Now we’re getting at the interesting thing about Sleepy John Estes. Mr. Hugh Clarke, of “Lawyer Clark Blues,” was a real person in Brownsville. “Vasser Williams” who gets what amounts to the world’s best auto-shop commercial in “Brownsville Blues” was likely Vassar Williamson, who was living in rural Lauderdale County in 1930 with his wife, Morene, and their son, Verlon. (I base this both on the fact that this is the only Vassar living in Lauderdale County and that Sleepy John drops the last syllable in a lot of words in this song—Durhamville gets shortened to Durham, Brownsville to Browns. No reason “Williamson’s shop” couldn’t get truncated to Williams’ shop.) I couldn’t nail down a Martha Hardin, but there are a couple of possible women (A Martha Ewell, whose father was Jim Hardin died in Dyer, just northeast of Brownsville, in 1956 at the age of forty. Right name, right general area, right general age. And there are a couple of older Martha Hardins buried south of Brownsville, possibilities if we imagine John taking up with 50 year old women when he was a young man. And that’s assuming her last name isn’t Harding or, considering John’s mumble, possibly Hardeman—both last names you would have found in Brownsville or the surrounding county before the song was recorded.). The streets Sleepy John refers to are real streets you can drive down in Brownsville—Wilson and Bradford.
 

 

Now, I’m trying to walk a tricky line here because I, personally, find the backstories of songs in most cases rather tedious. I don’t care how many songs Pattie Boyd inspired, for instance. But I don’t think that what Sleepy John was up to was quite that simple. Steve Leggett over at All Music calls Brownsville Sleepy John’s Spoon River, as in Edgar Lee Master’s Spoon River Anthology, and I think this gets as close to Sleepy John’s artistic project as I’ve seen anyone bother to come.

Sleepy John wasn’t attempting to literally or figuratively seduce anyone by writing a song about them (at least, not in the way George Harrison or Eric Clampton were Boyd). He was, I think, transforming the ordinary people and places that surrounded him into something aestheticly meaningful. He wasn’t writing a song for, say, Hugh Clarke that would curry favor with him (or at least not that alone). He was trying to do something to Clarke through that song, to make Clarke valuable to Estes’ audience not because he was a good lawyer, but because the song about him was good.

Sleepy John was what we might these days call “adding value” to the place he lived with and the people he lived among by making them subjects of song. Think about how powerful it is, even though we all know it’s corny, when we go to a concert and the performer says, “Hello, [whatever place the performer is in tonight]!” That feeling of “Where we live matters to this artist we like!” Now imagine what that must have been like to have Sleepy John singing songs about the people in these little unknown towns, being able to go to record shops, or at that time, probably furniture stores, and finding records with people you knew mentioned on them.

I just finished Steve Johnson’s chapbook, Obscure Early Bluesmen (Who Never Existed), which, in a brief nineteen pages manages to mercilessly skewer every single thing about white people and our long, problematic love of old, obscure blues. One of the jokes of the book is that almost all of these fake bluesmen, of course, recorded a version of Stagger Lee. It’s just expected—of course every blues singer, even those that don’t exist, would have a version of Stagger Lee.

But “Stag” Lee Shelton was a real person. Billy Lyons was a real person. And we still sing about them. We don’t know who first wrote that song, but that song made those men immortal, after a fashion.

You listen to enough Sleepy John Estes and you start to suspect that he is deliberately up to something similar. He is, by god, going to write songs so catchy about these people and this place that they live on and become mythological. They are real and more than real.

I debated a long time about whether Sleepy John Estes was obscure enough to write about. Take three seconds to type “Sleepy John Estes” into Google and you’ll be able to read about what an enormous influence he was on Bob Dylan, how Ralph Peer recognized his talent, how Led Zeppelin “borrowed” heavily from him.

Sleepy John hasn’t been lost or forgotten—even if the people in the church near where he rests have no idea who he is—and he’s likely someone you’ve heard of. His music, even the old stuff, isn’t that hard to get into because he had such impact on the gods of 20th century popular music. You’ll recognize songs and phrases and vocal approaches, even if you think you don’t know him. And a lot of his songs are just flat-out fun. Try “Milk Cow Blues” which somehow sounds like a person wound three music boxes all playing the same song and set them off to playing that song at slightly different times. There’s no reason the song shouldn’t shake apart into nonsense, but somehow it doesn’t. It’s genius, awesome, and makes clear his jug band roots.
 

 
But I think what’s been obscured about him is that he wasn’t just the musical progenitor of songs we love. He had an artistic drive, an aesthetic sensibility. He was up to something in that place with those people. He wasn’t just writing about them—his songs aren’t three-minute documentaries. He was trying to do something to and for them.
But, I’ll admit, I’m struggling to even find the words to talk about what that something is. And I want to get at it. To put it into words that would make you appreciate what it’s like to stand next to someone’s grave, to see his people in the dirt there with him, and to listen to those songs and hear him singing about them like they mattered, not just to him, but to the larger world.

So, this is the thing about Sleepy John Estes: he had a goal and it wasn’t just to write the best songs he could or to be the best guitarist he could, though those are fine goals. He knew music could do something and he wanted it to do that something for and to the people he knew.

And when you stand in those places, among those familiar names, looking at how the real world maps onto Sleepy John’s artistic world, it feels like he may have done it, may have brought those two realms close enough together that some of his ordinary world was able to escape and live on.
______
Editor’s Note: One of Betsy’s comments on this thread has been turned into a follow up post with youtube examples here.

Superman Isn’t Jesus, He’s Moses

Posted on by

Let me say up front that I loved Man of Steel. Unabashedly. I didn’t realize how much I missed a well-done Superman, someone who is just genuinely a good person, not all broody and conflicted like Batman, nor snarky like Iron Man, but someone who wants to do the right thing, until I was watching the movie and I loved it.

But even in the middle of my love for it, I felt like something wasn’t quite right. The movie was so good, but it wasn’t great. The movie seemed both to love Superman and not quite understand him. Take the ending, where so much of Metropolis is destroyed, so many lives lost, but without any emotional consequences for Superman. I didn’t buy that Superman wouldn’t have at least attempted to move the battle out of town and I surely didn’t buy that Superman wouldn’t have been devastated by those deaths.

But the biggest indication I found that the movie didn’t get Superman had to be when we saw Superman in the church, his head right next to Jesus. This wasn’t the only Jesus reference. Richard Corliss in Time points out the obvious others:

Man of Steel takes its cue from Bryan Singer’s 2006 Superman Returns, which posited our hero as the Christian God come to Earth to save humankind: Jesus Christ Superman. [Script-writer, David] Goyer goes further, giving the character a backstory reminiscent of the Gospels: the all-seeing father from afar (plus a mother); the Earth parents; an important portent at age 12 (Jesus talks with the temple elders; Kal-El saves children in a bus crash); the ascetic wandering in his early maturity (40 days in the desert for Jesus; a dozen years in odd jobs for Kal-El); his public life, in which he performs a series of miracles; and then, at age 33, the ultimate test of his divinity and humanity. “The fate of your planet rests in your hands,” says the holy-ghostly Jor-El to his only begotten son, who goes off to face down Zod the anti-God in a Calvary stampede. You could call Man of Steel the psychoanalytical case study of god-man with a two-father complex.

All these New Testament allusions — plus the image of Superman sitting in a church pew framed by a stained-glass panel of Jesus in his final days — don’t necessarily make Man of Steel any richer, except for students of comparative religion. And as Goyer has noted, “We didn’t come up with these allusions of Superman being Christ-like. That’s something that’s been embedded in the character from the beginning.

Whoa, doggy. That’s just flat out wrong. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster weren’t patterning Superman after Jesus. They were patterning him after Moses. A woman has a baby she cannot keep or he’ll die. She puts him in a small ship, of sorts, and sends him off, hoping some other woman will take him in, raise him, and keep him safe. He grows up to save people.

Pharaoh's Daughter Finds Moses Exodus 2:3-6It’s not a perfect match. Moses’ mom lives. He has a sister and a brother who he hooks back up with later. His culture of origin isn’t lost.

But losing sight of Superman’s origins in a basket in the bulrushes means the filmmakers miss the importance of some of the very things they’re depicting. And they miss opportunities to make Man of Steel into a richer story, because they’re drawing on the wrong archetype.

Let’s be frank. Jesus makes a bad Superman. There are a lot of reasons why, starting with the fact that no one wants to watch Superman standing around lecturing people, being tortured to death, and then scaring the shit out of his friends by appearing to them after he’s dead (okay, maybe I would want to watch that Superman movie, but it doesn’t scream summer blockbuster) and ending with the fact that Jesus, though a really compelling figure, is compelling for his ideas, not his action adventures.

But the most important reason Jesus makes a bad Superman is that, unlike the other men in the “hidden special child” genre, Jesus’ story has a specific arc and a definite end. And I’m not talking about his crucifixion. What I mean is that Jesus has one battle with his arch-enemy, he wins, and the world is over, the end.

Jesus’ story can be retold and reimagined—a crucial component for a good superhero story. But there is no “Tune in next time for another exciting adventure.” Jesus is a one-and-done hero. When Jesus accomplishes his mission, the world is at its end. If Superman is Jesus and we saw his huge fight with his dad’s nemesis, what’s the plot of the next movie?

But, as luck would have it, even if the filmmakers thought they were making a Christ-allegory, there’s enough of the Moses tale still present to suggest some possibilities for further storytelling. We saw Lara, like Jocabed, entrusting her son to a woman she could not know. There’s not a lot about the Pharaoh’s daughter in the Christian Bible, but both Jewish and Muslim lore flesh her out a whole lot more and, though the lore differs somewhat, both traditions show her radically changed by raising Moses, to the point where she throws her lot in with the Jewish people trapped in her country and forsakes the Egyptians.

It would be interesting to see how Martha Kent might throw her lot in with the superheroes, even though she’s not one, in order to keep supporting her son and his cause. Superman stories tend to leave Martha at home, but the Moses archetype suggests bigger possibilities for her.

I think we unintentionally saw the destruction of the Golden Calf when Superman destroyed the drone. And we saw, constantly, Superman surrounded by people who didn’t quite trust him. All this just serves to remind us that Moses has continuing adventures. He does have a good arch-nemesis in the Pharaoh, with a great backstory that ties them both together in a compelling way that adds to their encounters. Is Moses rejecting the culture, and thus the Pharaoh that saved him? How can the Pharaoh retain his power and authority in his own community and deal with a community with God on their side? Moses has a murder for a righteous cause hanging over his head (and really, the death of Zod in Man of Steel is alarming because the movie has spent so much time arguing for Jesus-Superman. And Jesus doesn’t kill people. But there’s no such problem with Moses.). And then there’s the 40 years in the wilderness. There’s a lot of ground to cover, stories to be told. Things you could add or take away or retell in countless ways. The fact that at least three religions already do so proves it’s a rich story that stands up to the type of reuse our superhero stories get.

The biggest difference between Moses and Jesus, one with important implications for the Superman story is that, while Jesus can go anywhere people are—earth, Heaven, Hell—Moses never entirely fits in with the people he’s leading. He wasn’t raised with them, he wasn’t an adult among them at first (remember, he runs off and lives in Midian for forty years), and he can’t go with them into the Promised Land. It’d be interesting if these were the people of Earth. But imagine the story you could tell if these were the Justice League. What would it mean if Superman were leading them toward a goal he could never meet?

I saw referenced multiple places that Man of Steel was yet another movie that attempts to tell 9/11 with a happy ending. Okay, so if Superman can be used to talk about big tragedies people are still trying to grapple with, why not more explicitly let Superman grapple with the unimaginable tragedy of the destruction of his people in ways that mirror how Jewish people have wrestled with the Holocaust?

I’m not arguing for a one-to-one mapping. Obviously that wouldn’t work. But there are writers who could pen a compelling story—because they know that story—about a guy who, as far as he knows, is the only person in his culture left, who must wonder if he resembles his grandfather or whether he got his love of science from his aunt, who must wish he knew old folk songs or what the people in his family’s neighborhood ate at holiday meals, and who can’t ever get complete answers to those questions.

And then, what happens when Kara shows up? Do you rejoice in the found family member? Do you find her presence a sharp reminder of the rest of your loved ones’ absences? Of their ultimate fates?

-1

Superman can have hope because he’s corny Jesus-dude made of hope or he can have hope because the alternative is to give into despair. The second choice makes for a more real movie, and one that, I’d argue, is truer to Superman’s roots, both mythically and in the lived realities of his original creators.

But the thing I find most fascinating and appalling about taking something with its roots in Moses and declaring that its roots were in Jesus all along is that this is such a common approach—not to superheroes, but to theology—that there’s a word for it: Supersessionism.

The belief that the new covenant between Jesus and his followers supersedes the old covenant between God and the Jewish people is fundamental to most forms of Christianity. Even if Christians don’t know the term, it’s the reason we eat cheeseburgers. And it’s an incredibly tender sore spot among Jewish people, who aren’t that excited to hear all about how, when God said he was keeping a perpetual covenant with the children of Israel, he meant “perpetual until some better people come along.” Jewish scholars and theologians have argued—and rightly so, I think—that the Christian belief that Christians now have the special relationship with God that supersedes the Jewish relationship is an important part of the foundations of anti-Semitism (because, in part, it implies that God’s fine with whatever terrible things Christians want to do to Jews, because God doesn’t love them best, or at all, any more).

Superman isn’t a Jewish myth, but he’s a cultural figure with strong Jewish roots—created by two Jewish guys, given an origin story that draws heavily from one of Judaism’s central figures. Neglecting those roots and grafting on Christian ones instead is problematic. It makes for a less compelling story (like I said, if Jesus/Superman has defeated Satan/Zod, what can happen in the next movie that still keeps Superman a Christ-figure?), it neglects the rich mythology Superman’s creators drew from, and it perpetuates a troubling theological stance.

But I think the worst thing is that it indulges its majority Christian audience in this country in a lie we often tell ourselves without realizing—that Jesus is the center of all things and we, being close enough to the center, should be the people around which the whole country revolves; all stories are our stories or can be taken and made to be. In the end, using Superman to reinforce Christian supremacy in the United States probably isn’t going to ruin Superman. But it is a lie that comes from and leads to ugly places. And it’s a shame to see it at the heart of Man of Steel.
______
Betsy Phillips writes for The Nashville Scene‘s political blog, “Pith in the Wind.” In her spare time, she makes up spooky stories. Her fiction has appeared in Apex Magazine and Qarrtsiluni.

First illustration unknown artist; 2nd from Grant Morrison/Frank Quitely All Star Superman”

 

A Theory of Why the Two Iron Men Became One

Posted on by

The index to the Comics and Music roundtable is here.
__________________
 

I’m just going to say up front that I find Black Sabbath’s “Iron Man” to be one of the creepiest songs in the history of the world. I knew I was going to have to listen to it to write this post and I picked the brightest part of the morning to do it in. And even then, I kept catching myself moving to stop the song, so I wouldn’t have to keep listening to it. I don’t think I’m alone. That song is just objectively, deliciously, scary.

It’s creepy from its opening moments, starting with just the thud of the bass pedal. Now, you can’t possibly know that there’s something just a little bit off about the timing of those thuds—since there’s no other accompaniment to compare it to—but even with nothing else going on in the song, those thuds don’t sound right. It’s hard to tell right at the beginning if Bill Ward is hitting each beat in a very slow four beat measure or hitting every other beat in a rather quick four beat measure (though later on, when you hear some actual quarter notes four in a row, I think it’s apparent that he’s doing the latter). But it leaves me feeling like the beats are somehow coming too fast and not fast enough.

Then comes the dissonant guitar riff, with the notes that refuse to differentiate themselves from one another, but just slide all over the place bearing bad news. And I don’t even have to tell you what comes next—that creepy voice, sounding like it’s rattling out of a metallic graveyard. It never fails to scare the shit out of me.

The lyrics themselves adhere to the first rule of good horror—don’t let your audience get a clear look at what’s going wrong. The longer the audience can’t tell what’s happening or why, the scarier the thing remains. Once there are clear answers, the scariest part is over.

There aren’t really clear answers in “Iron Man.” A man goes to the future to save mankind, though we don’t know from what. There’s some kind of accident and he’s turned to iron—somehow—in the magnetic field. And then he comes back to earth, gets propped up somewhere, and plots his revenge, though what he needs revenge for is also unclear. A third of the song is just unresolved questions about the iron man. And then there’s the killing.
I think this song is brilliant and I love it. But it is, to me, scary as hell.

Which is why I find it baffling that it’s kind of been adopted as the unofficial anthem of Iron Man, the superhero. “Iron Man” plays in the last Iron Man movie. Tony Stark wears a Black Sabbath t-shirt in The Avengers. When you look at lists of songs adapted from or influenced by comics, every single one of them both includes “Iron Man” and concedes that it doesn’t originally have anything to do with Iron Man.

They share a name, but that wouldn’t necessarily seem to lead so many people to connect the two, especially when they’re otherwise so diametrically opposed. But it’s that opposition that I wonder about. After all, if you think about it, “Iron Man” would make the perfect nemesis for Iron Man. “Iron Man” seems to have had some great scientific skill—since he travelled through time—which Stark could appreciate. But “Iron Man” is isolated from people where Tony Stark, though somewhat misanthropic, is in community. We know Iron Man by his intellect and quick wit. It’s not even clear that “Iron Man” thinks about much but revenge. And, of course, Stark is looking to save humanity while “Iron Man” is bent on destroying it.

I’m not a Jungian, but it seems like we’ve, weirdly, decided that Tony Stark needs a pseudo-Jungian shadow, a part of himself that he doesn’t acknowledge, but which we, as the audience, all know is there—and that shadow is “Iron Man.” It’s not him, it’s not even about him, but, in our minds, it can’t be separated from him. Now, the thing that makes this weird (and not Jungian) is that it is us, the audience, who has given Stark this alternate “Iron Man.” And yet, of course, if he’s going to have one, we have to give it to him. Who is there who can give a fictional character a shadow aspect if the artist creating him has not? It has to be the audience.

We have linked Iron Man so closely to “Iron Man” that it would, then, seem to be Tony Stark’s most secret identity—even though we’ve never seen it acknowledged in the Marvel Universe, we suspect he’s the lonely tin man slowly going crazy enough to destroy us all. He just doesn’t know it.

It’s kind of like fan fiction in which we’ve merged these two characters to see what would happen. But no stories have come out of this merger. Except that, clearly, the narrative of “Iron Man” itself is different, even though nothing changes, when it’s Stark who didn’t come back through the magnetic field the same guy he left Earth as.

Here’s what I wonder: Even now, is “Iron Man” so strange and terrifying that we link Iron Man and “Iron Man” not to improve Iron Man, but to give “Iron Man” some context, some way of being easily known and understood? Now, instead of asking, “What the hell happened? Who is this thing and why is it killing everyone?”, we get to pretend that it makes a certain kind of sense—“Oh, it’s Tony Stark! And he’s gone mad, finally.” If figuring out what’s happening makes a horror story less frightening and more manageable, I think the Iron Man/”Iron Man” merge is about making “Iron Man” less terrifying. It gives the song a context in which to understand it that the song itself refuses.

Linking “Iron Man” and Iron Man gives Tony Stark a much darker subtext, but it also gives “Iron Man” a less-frightening context. And more than a darker Stark, I think we crave a less-scary “Iron Man.”
 

Tales_of_Suspense_39

Tales of Suspense #39 (March 1963): Iron Man debuts. Cover art by Jack Kirby and Don Heck.

 

Attempting to Answer the Questions Darkest America Doesn’t

Posted on by

 

images
Bert Williams in blackface.

 
Let me say up front that I really liked Darkest America: Black Minstrelsy from Slavery to Hip-Hop by Yuval Taylor and Jake Austen. It does one very important things you don’t often find in books about American minstrelsy (I’m looking at you, Love & Theft)—it describes what a minstrel show was like in clear and engaging language that conveys some of the charm of the art form without making you feel like you’re drowning in boring overly-academic prose. For that alone, it’s worth reading.

There’s also this really, really nice moment where Taylor and Austen describe Flournoy Miller and Johnny Lee, both black comedians, doing a blackface comedy routine in the movie Stormy Weather. Then they give a whole paragraph to the history of the routine, which Miller had been doing since at least the Twenties. And then the paragraph ends in this: “By the estimation of black comedy historian Mel Watkins, it was as familiar to black audiences as Abbot and Costello’s ‘Who’s on First?’ was to white audiences.” (p. 292) This bit of contextualizing is so amazing—you get the bit (or a bit of the bit), the bit’s history, and then a sense of the bit’s reach.

But I don’t think that Taylor and Austen ever quite satisfactorily address why blackface minstrelsy was so popular among black people—both performers and audiences. They brush up against it in the chapter on the Zulu parade in New Orleans, when they say, “Zulu history has been largely whitewashed, scrubbed clean of its origins in caricature, parody, and stereotype. Instead, blacks paint their faces out of respect for a tradition that, like the rest of the black minstrel tradition, has always been focused on entertaining its audience. For the Zulus, as for many black and white minstrels in the nineteenth century and earlier, blackface simply stands for a very good time.” (p. 106-107).

Tradition and pleasure are strong motivating factors and I wish Taylor and Austen had wrestled more with the implications of this insight. We like a lot of things because they’re familiar and because we find their familiarity pleasurable. I kept waiting for them to make this explicit—black people didn’t/don’t enjoy black blackface minstrelsy or its popular culture descendants because (or only because) they recognize some truth of who they are on stage; it’s pleasurable because they recognize the performance.

Or let’s look at it it from a slightly different angle. In 1993, Alan Jackson took “Mercury Blues” to Number 2 on Billboard’s country chart. It’s a cover of K. C. Douglas’s 1949 song, which is sometimes called “Mercury Blues” and sometimes called “Mercury Boogie.” “Mercury Blues” contains a line, which, in Alan Jackson’s version goes, “gal I love, stole her from a friend, he got lucky stole her back again” and in Douglas’s version goes, “girl I love I stole from a friend, the fool got lucky stole her back again.” But the line also lives in other songs. In Robert Johnson’s “Come on in My Kitchen” (1936) it goes, “the woman I love, took from my best friend, some joker got lucky, stole her back again.” Back in ’31, Skip James, in “Devil Got My Woman,” sings “The woman I love took off for my best friend, but he got lucky, stole her back again.” But it goes back further to at least Ida Cox’s “Worried Mama Blues” back in 1923—“I stole my man from my best friend, I stole my man from my best friend. But she got lucky and stole him back again.”

There’s a real power in recognition. When I learned about this repeated verse, I felt as if some great secret history of America had been revealed to me in a lightning flash, as if I had learned a way pop culture connects through time. It pleases me to recognize those same words in all those very different songs and I trust that at least some of you will be delighted to recognize them too. And it’s not because all of us have experience passing a loved one back and forth with our best friend. We take pleasure in recognizing the familiar bits. Of course, this kind of recognition of familiar bits can also be disturbing. When you know Walt Disney took inspiration from The Jazz Singer when he made “Steamboat Willie,” how do you ever look at Mickey Mouse’s white gloves the same way again?

So, when J.J. Walker makes his entrance, or later, Flavor Flav, isn’t there a delight in recognition—not of that type in the community, but of that type in entertainment?

Which brings me to the thing that I think Taylor and Austen fundamentally misunderstand. It’s up there in the Zulu quote, but they also state it explicitly on the third page of the book, “The minstrel tradition, as practice by whites in blackface, was a fundamentally racist undertaking, neutering a race’s identity by limiting it to a demeaning stereotype. But what Chappelle and other contemporary performers draw upon is the more complicated history of black minstrelsy.”All this is true. But, it misses an important and complicating component of white minstrelsy—a lot of white minstrel performers thought they loved black culture (I say “thought they” because any kind of black culture white men could have observed in the 1800s would have been carefully performed by those black men, because of the incredible danger the black men would have been in had it been misinterpreted).

In Love & Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class, Eric Lott says that, for these white minstrels, “To wear or even enjoy blackface was literally, for a time, to become black, to inherit the cool, virility, humility, abandon or gaité de coeur that were the prime components of white ideologies of black manhood.” (p. 52) (I don’t want to get sidetracked from my point, but I also feel like it’s important to state explicitly how terrible this belief of white men—that they could know black men through mimicking them—was for black men. It is at the heart of why white men could justify all the terrible things they did to black men. White men believed they knew the secret motivations of black men, because some of the white men, white men believed, had literally been black men briefly through imitation.) And this is the hard thing to accept, but the only thing that makes sense of minstrelsy, both black and white: it is racist and demeaning AND it is about a deep fantasy of how awesome it is to be black. Those things are both true, and, in fact, in a racist society like ours, you rarely have an admission of the latter without the former firmly in play.

Once you get that, the power and attraction of blackface minstrelsy—not just the components of the minstrels show, but the actual wearing of blackface makeup—for black people is obvious. If every single thing in the broader popular culture is either explicitly racist or does not mention black people at all (and is therefore implicitly racist), of course the racist art form premised on white people finding so much value in black culture (even if the value they find is not what black people would have called valuable themselves) is going to be incredibly popular with black people. And is it so hard to imagine the appeal of standing on a stage dressed as the object of desire of people who systemically hate you?

But as easy as it is to see the appeal, it’s also then easy to understand why the most egregiously racist components of black minstrelsy fell out of favor as black people gained control of their own representations in popular culture. After all, it is racist and relies on demeaning stereotypes. Of course, when other, less problematic, representations of black people became available, people preferred them.

Still, for a time, it was incredibly popular, both because the bits were funny, the songs beloved, and the insult of blackface muted by the twisted confession of envy that it represented. Yes, it was racist, but what popular culture wasn’t? Blackface was demeaning, but in the hands of black artists, it was also more than that. Black performers in blackface recognized that the culture portrayed by performers in blackface was black culture (or a fantasy of it)—which meant that culture had value, was something worth looking at, even to the very white people who, when they weren’t sitting in the audience, were denying that black people had any worth.

It’s little wonder, then, that its remnants linger on. Blackface minstrelsy was the popular culture for most people for at least half our country’s existence —where our comedy came from, where we heard and learned our favorite songs, and where a type of fundamental “American” sound in music was codified (including banjos and later the Blues)—and there’s still a lot of cultural resonance. And it’s little wonder that those remnants continue to be a source of controversy and pain—because it was racist and demeaning. That’s the legacy of blackface minstrelsy—a source of great pleasure that still resonates in our time AND a source of great pain, which we are still grappling with.