racist lyrics - race1.txt [1/1]
Lyle Lofgren
Rather than respond to any individual posting in this interesting thread on
racist lyrics, I'm going to try to be more general. Our band, of necessity,
has given quite a lot of thought to this, and, although I'm not speaking for
the other band members, I think we have arrived at a sort of semi-
comfortable compromise in our public performances of old-time white
Appalachian music.
From a performer's standpoint, the worst tactical error you can make is
to come across as an ignoramus who doesn't know what the issues are
(and, remember that you're a performer, even if you're playing for your
children or plunking along with the old-time or bluegrass jam at your local
record store or music club). An example of the ignoramus is J. E.
Mainer, who, in the 1960's, was booked as part of a series intended to
expose the upper middle class to American folk music, and presented at
a prestigious Minneapolis theater. When he arrived with his band, he
asked for the local theatrical supply store: they needed some burnt cork
in order to perform their favorite skit, RASTUS SUES LIZA FOR
DIVORCE. "No," we lied, "the theatrical supply stores are closed on
Saturday" My advice is that, if you must do a song with controversial
lyrics or title, whether racial or sexual, be sure to place it in its historical
perspective. This is easiest to do with "darky", because it's been so long
since it's been used that it has a 19th century flavor that comes across
as less insulting. We've felt comfortable performing "Year Of Jubilo" and
"Those Agonizing Cruel Slavery Days", both anti-slavery songs, without
spending a lot of time explaining ourselves. The songs essentially do it
for us, even though we sing of Darkies. If you express some
understanding of the racial subtleties involved, but still get attacked, you
are dealing with the sort of person who strongly approves of the use of
the term "People Of Color," but strongly disapproves of talking about
"Colored People," and there's nothing to be done about it.
I think it's clearly OK to change the titles of instrumentals: most of them
have other traditional titles, anyway. Why insist on NIGGER IN THE
WOODPILE, for example, when there's a fine old Alabama tune called
COOSEY COUNTY that is identical (and you don't even have to run to
W.C. Field's infamous ETHIOPIAN IN THE FUEL SUPPLY). Similarly, I
don't see why COLORED ARISTOCRACY can't be shortened to just
ARISTOCRACY. Nothing is lost, and you don't have to explain yourself.
I'd prefer BIG-FOOTED FELLA IN THE SANDY LOT to BIG-FOOTED
MAN IN THE SANDY LOT, just for its rhythm, but I don't think the
difference is all that important. There are no lyrics involved with these
pieces, anyway. Also, in the 1960's, we booked, in the same series as
Mainer, Clarence Ashley, who brought along Fred Price, Clint Howard,
and Doc Watson. Ashley, the old trooper, was sensitive enough to the
northern sensibility to call their song RUN, JIMMIE, RUN, and, when you
think about it, that's OK -- if you know what the song is about, Jimmie is
a specific slave, not a generic one. If you don't, it won't make any
difference one way or the other. At about the same time, though, I heard
of another old-time musician, who exclaimed, with some puzzlement,
"you can't sing a song about a nigger north of the Ohio River."
The comic songs from the minstrel tradition were only intended to
entertain, so I believe they're fair game for modification, because, after
all, the definition of "humor" changes fast -- there's not a stable tradition
to preserve. So, we've felt OK, without any explanation, performing such
songs as:
Two little hippies, lyin' in bed,
One of 'em sick, and the other 'most dead;
Call for the Shaman, the Shaman said,
"Give those hippies some short'nin' bread."
or
Two little lawyers, goin' far,
Tried to get to heaven on a 'lectric car.
The 'lectric car went off the track,
And the little lawyer said, "I want my nickle back."
or
Give that beggar a ham,
Give that beggar a ham,
Stew 'em and fry 'em good and sweet,
Give that beggar ham meat.
or
Went to town the other night,
I got drunk and had a fight;
Kicked a Narco up so high,
He fell down on Hatta-Marai.
But it gets really hard if you want to do some of the serious stuff of our
tradition. I don't know of anyone who has revised LORD THOMAS AND
FAIR ELLENDER, for example, even though the Brown Girl murders Fair
Ellender in a fit of jealousy. The unspoken subtext of the ballad is that of
course Lord Thomas would prefer beautiful, poor Fair Ellender to the
ugly, rich Brown girl. This idea (expressed by the very word "fair", which
means "blonde" as well as all the other good things usually associated
with it) is endemic in European thought, not just folk songs. And some of
Grimm's tales are horridly anti-Semitic. Interestingly, Nelstone
Hawaiian's FATAL FLOWER GARDEN (on the Folkways Anthology of
American Folk Music) already has changed the Jewish lady to a Gypsy
lady -- perhaps because the Appalachians were so isolated that no one
knew what a Jew was. Similarly, when singing more modern "serious"
songs, it's difficult to know how to avoid offending people while
authentically expressing the conflict between the poor whites and the
poor blacks, both exploited by the rich white, as in the Georgia Cracker's
RILEY, THE FURNITURE MAN (OK 45111):
Riley came to my house,
These were the words he said:
"I told that nigger driver,
Pick up your rosewood bed."
Riley's been here,
Got my furniture
And gone.
I think the song's an important one, but I don't know what to do with it
that wouldn't lose the point of the song.
I've probably already wasted too many of your electrons, but let me
present a parable: suppose you have run across your grandfather's
diaries: he was a prolific old gent, and wrote a lot of material that is
really great: words of wisdom that are certainly worthy of being passed
on to your children. But, apparently without taste, he also wrote some
really bad pornography: not just soft-core like Harlequin novels, but really
awful stuff, including cruel domination, rape, torture, murder: the sort of
thing that would turn the stomach of a producer of snuff films. Now, you
could decide that this material proves that your grandfather was beyond
the pale: that nothing good he wrote could compensate for the trash, so
you burn all the diaries. Or, you could say that, although you disapprove
of some of the really offensive material, you have no right to judge the
tradition, and pass on to your children the virulent material without
comment. Or, you could edit out the material that you find horridly
offensive, at the risk of being called a censor by a future generation.
The choice is ultimately up to you as a carrier of the tradition. But, if
you decide that it's really important for the new generation to be exposed
to a performance of EVERY RACE HAS A FLAG BUT THE COONS, I
hope you'll understand if I don't attend your funeral.
Jo Rihan
Snippity snippity snip (though it was very interesting)
>And some of
>Grimm's tales are horridly anti-Semitic. Interestingly, Nelstone
>Hawaiian's FATAL FLOWER GARDEN (on the Folkways Anthology of
>American Folk Music) already has changed the Jewish lady to a Gypsy
>lady -- perhaps because the Appalachians were so isolated that no one
>knew what a Jew was.
More snipping
We do have a slightly different viewpoint of this side of the water.
Even allowing for that I don't understand the justification for the
substitution (in this type of song) of one (often seen as rich)
oppressed minority with another even more oppressed. The Jews may
have been unpopular (and discriminated against) in our history, but
the Gypsies were even more so, and currently - over here - their
entire way of living is being threatened. Maybe you don't have any
true Romanies over there, it is difficult to cross an ocean in a horse
and cart.
Cheers
Jo Rihan
-------------------------------------------------
ri...@tcp.co.uk
http://www.tcp.co.uk/~rihan
-------------------------------------------------
John Garst
...
> We do have a slightly different viewpoint of this side of the water.
> Maybe you don't have any
> true Romanies over there,
Perhaps not, but 40 years ago, or so, some sort of Gypsies would travel in
caravans (of black Cadillacs, perhaps). They would set up camp in some
locality and stay a while, then move on. I haven't witnessed anything
like this, however, in a long time, and within my memory, they have never
been limited to horse and buggy here.
*********************************************************************
John Garst ga...@sunchem.chem.uga.edu
*********************************************************************
Laws of Tradition: (1) Nothing is ever lost.
(2) Nothing ever stays the same.
ghost
>
>We do have a slightly different viewpoint of this side of the water.
>substitution (in this type of song) of one (often seen as rich)
>oppressed minority with another even more oppressed. The Jews may
>have been unpopular (and discriminated against) in our history, but
>the Gypsies were even more so, and currently - over here - their
>entire way of living is being threatened. Maybe you don't have any
>true Romanies over there, it is difficult to cross an ocean in a horse
>and cart.
>
>Cheers
Oh, here we go again. "Often seen as rich"?
By whom, you?
"May have been unpopular (and discriminated against)"?
The Jews have not only been "unpopular" in English history, the entire
community in York was massacred by the local peasants after a particularily
rousing series of sermons delivered by the local clergy. I believe there's
a plaque on the Tower of York, where they were all holed up when the last
mob arrived, which you can go look at. At least one virulently
Anti-Semitic bona-fide folksong, stemming from that period, remains in
collected annals, but I'm told everyone who's covered it in the current
folk-revival era has cleaned up the lyrics, making it just another, though
particularily nasty, murder ballad.
Any Jews remaining in England were then expelled & barred from returning.
This all happened around 1100-1200 (I've got my dates packed away again).
Probably this all happened before your time, but that's no excuse for your
ignorance. Cromwell lifted the ban in 1700-whatever. Got to look up his
dates too.
As far as I know, there's been no parallel English massacre of Gypsies, but
lack of that knowledge might just be *my* ignorance. There've certainly
been loads of evictions, & there's certainly lots of prejudice.
There are plenty "True Romanies" over here. Mostly, these days, they
live in concentrated neighborhoods in cities. I believe they arrived by
boat, as did everyone except those folks who walked over the Bering
strait, before the invention of faster means of travel. Its easy to put
both horse & cart on a boat, if you wish, but probably more practical to
buy both when you get here.
"Cheers" yourself.
ghost
When my mother was a child, she could listen to (a more accurate description
is "her neighbors chose to listen, & she couldn't help but hear") a
weekly radio broadcast of virulently Anti-Semitic garbage by an entity
known as Father Coughlin. He was broadcasting under the auspices of the
Catholic Church. Eventually the Catholic Church was embarrassed enough
by the public outcry against Coughlin's broadcasts to relieve him of this
privilege, but private sponsers enabled him to continue to broadcast.
(The Church eventually defrocked him for disobeying orders {not for being a
racist bastard}, which didn't slow Coughlin any; he started his own branch
religion.) Only when America entered World War II did Coughlin get taken off
the air; his proudly pro-Fascist broadcasts were then officially considered
seditious.
This didn't take place in the deep south; Coughlin broadcast in Detroit,
Michigan.
If you play *anything racist* over the radio, you're a racist; mouthing
a lot of nonsense 1st about "historical value" is just that, nonsense.
Someone tuning in this broadcast will very likely have missed your
introductory disclaimers. I know how I would feel about hearing Coughlin
rebroadcast for "historical value".
I discovered most of the folk/old-time/bluegrass programs
I listen to by dial-twisting (back when they had dials on radios) & was
caught by the music. I've heard many a piece of music on the radio without
being given anything about its historical significance til the piece was
over (& the damage, in the case of racist music, would have been done).
[Just for the record, I feel anything broadcast on TV with racist,
pornographic, or gory content should have a diagonal banner across the
screen *at all times* saying "Warning; <list kind of> content". I'm
tired of stumbling across this stuff accidentally. I don't even want to
watch it for the 2 seconds it takes to identify it & turn it off.
I *always* seem to miss the introductory disclaimers.
I don't think this stuff should be on the radio *at all* unless you're
willing to have a clearly audible voice giving that warning non-stop.
These are public airways & I see no more reason why they should be usurped
by private interests any more than why live demonstrations of racism,
pornography or violence should be given by the side of the road to scare
(or is that "historically inform"?) innocent passers-by. Of course, if these
rules were in place I wouldn't get to hear some of the best murder ballads
without that annoying voice-over, but fair's fair. These technologically
possible disembodied voices & intangible moving figures we've all grown up
with are a media potent beyond belief, & a form of influence unparalleled in
the history of the world. It used to be that only crazy people heard bodiless
voices or saw visions they couldn't touch.]
If you're performing before a voluntary audience, with no late walk-ins who
haven't been clued-in as to the nature of the material, & what you choose
to perform, out of all the music available to you, is music with racist lyrics,
or, more perverse yet, perfectly innocuous instrumentals with racist titles
(I've heard the piece Dewey Balfa played introduced many times, by Dewey,
as "I saw the fox, the wolf & the bear {or whatever} dancing" without
having a clue that this was, in, fact the {Cajun version of} the notorious
"Run, Nigger, Run". I was happier not knowing.), you are only doing it out
of racism yourself, but at least your audience has had fair warning as to
the sort of person you are.
If you are teaching an historical course, by all means include all the
racist material you feel necessary. People can read it on paper & hear it
on records; they don't need to be hit with live demonstrations.
The certainly don't need to be hit without warning.
Mike Murray
Reference:
From: j...@endor.harvard.edu ( ghost )
Subject: racist lyrics
<<...I feel anything broadcast on TV with racist,
<<pornographic, or gory content should have a diagonal banner across the
<<screen *at all times* saying "Warning; <list kind of> content". I'm
<<tired of stumbling across this stuff accidentally. I don't even want to
<<watch it for the 2 seconds it takes to identify it & turn it off.
<<I *always* seem to miss the introductory disclaimers.
<<I don't think this stuff should be on the radio *at all* unless you're
<<willing to have a clearly audible voice giving that warning non-stop.
<<These are public airways & I see no more reason why they should be usurped
<<by private interests any more than why live demonstrations of racism,
<<pornography or violence should be given by the side of the road to scare
<<(or is that "historically inform"?) innocent passers-by.
<<they don't need to be hit with live demonstrations.
<<The certainly don't need to be hit without warning.
After jmf's musings on Father Coughlin, he ought to reflect
on Senator Joe McCarthy, since he appears to share many of
the late senator's values.
Jmf wants to protect us from hearing an offensive
program on a neighbor's radio? From walking into
the middle of a concert and being surprised by
offensive lyrics or tune titles? From hearing a
rebroadcast of a 1930s demagog for historical
purposes? From hearing songs presented as they
were actually done in the 1850s? Is he going to
shred all the copies of "Birth of a Nation"?
He wants to have voice overs and diagonal lines
across the TV screens, when he doesn't like the
programs, eh? NO ONE could watch or listen under
those conditions, which is obviously just what
jmf wants. So why not just have some husky
brownshirts come in and beat up the entertainer
or trash the station? And, hey, people
can be surprised by books in libraries. How about
"Huck Finn"? Imagine some kid innocently browsing for
entertainment and finding all this racist language.
Better stamp "WARNING" on every page. In big, black
letters so you can't read the text.
Some right wingers would find any accidental exposure to
"creeping socialism" (remember that one, from back when
radios had dials?) very offensive. Some religious folks
find discussion of abortion or even contraception
offensive and obscene. I remember a lot of talk from the
far left about "no free speech" for "enemies of the people"
And the fatwa on Rushdie is still in effect.
Here you have folks who believe just as strongly, and are
every bit as offended, and every bit as self-righteous,
as jmf. Oh, yeah. I forgot. jmf is right, and most
of these folks aren't, so that makes this whole discussion
irrelevant. And he's not advocating killing people, just
shutting them up, so he's a reasonable guy.
Yes, even in a free society, some lines have to be drawn,
especially regarding what's presented to children.
But period-piece folk songs, offensive or not, don't seem
to me to be the place. Naturally, an effective entertainer
will show common sense about what material to perform, and when.
If you don't like the content, don't go. If you are surprised
by content you don't like, walk out, don't go again, tell your
friends.
Free expression is often hurtful and offensive. But I'm much
more threatened by those who would 'protect' me from it.
Neil Rossi
>ghost (j...@endor.harvard.edu) wrote:
>: [Just for the record, I feel anything broadcast on TV with racist,
>: pornographic, or gory content should have a diagonal banner across the
>: screen *at all times* saying "Warning; <list kind of> content". I'm
>: tired of stumbling across this stuff accidentally.
>"offensive" are you going to adhere to? Are documentaries about Castro
If it's any consolation, our friend jmf has been dropping similar
literary grenades in the Fasola list. After much discussion, the
consensus seems to be that if everyone ignores him/her, he/she will go
away and bother someone else. Apparently they came here to bother
us. Some people live for confrontation.
Bob Norton
>I want to be warned when the giant, unaviodable TV in the place where I'm
>waiting for my pizza suddenly shows someone being dismembered in a
>swimming pool. Lots of blood. Of course I turned away, but not fast
>enough. I'll remember it forever. Don't think I ate the pizza.
Let me see if I got this straight. You saw a real dismemberment in a swimming
pool on televeision while waiting for a pizza? Or did you see a fictional
dismemberment. Can you discern between fiction and reality? Your posts seem to
indicate that you have some trouble with this.
ghost
>
->>I want to be warned when the giant, unaviodable TV in the place where I'm
->>waiting for my pizza suddenly shows someone being dismembered in a
->>swimming pool. Lots of blood. Of course I turned away, but not fast
->>enough. I'll remember it forever. Don't think I ate the pizza.
->Let me see if I got this straight. You saw a real dismemberment in a swimming
->pool on televeision while waiting for a pizza? Or did you see a fictional
->dismemberment. Can you discern between fiction and reality?
I don't know why I should even bother to answer this, but the answer is:
Intellectually, yes. Emotionally, no.