Fundamentals of American Instability

The United States became an unstable society the minute Donald Trump caught fire among Republican primary voters in the Fall of 2015.

Or was it when Obama was elected in 2008.

Perhaps both.

The furious right-wing response to Obama’s election as the first black president overshadowed the extent to which an urbanized, multiracial and socially liberal coalition coalesced behind Obama.

By 2015, white conservatives caught on and Trump ran against “Obama’s America” almost as much as he ran against Hillary Clinton. Caught up in long-term Clinton grudges and Bernie v Hillary drama, the Democrats were incapable of mounting a unified defense of their emerging culture and Trump as able to squeak by despite losing the popular vote.

After Trump took office, it was a now unified Democratic coalition that mounted a furious reaction and kept the heat on Trump all four years. But that overshadowed the extent to which the GOP voting base and Trump were shaping each other into a fascist movement that is animated by a cult of personality, longing for political violence, and opposed to American democracy.

The Democratic coalition increased its vote by 16 million in the 2020 presidential election and is unified around Biden. But the Trump cult has solidified in the Republican Party and local Republicans have been inspired to pass legislation seeking to rig future elections and put protesters in jail.

At this point, the quickly evolving dynamic of American instability is the opposition between multicultural democracy and Trump-centered fascism.

A Different Kind of Otherness

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 220px-Jimcrow.jpg

With the “Jim Crow” act of T. D. Rice, black people became one of the dominant figures of “otherness” in popular culture. Before 1830, black people in Philadelphia were not acknowledged as having enough status to be defined as the other. Women were defined as a physically weak, vulnerable, and penetrable “other.” Seducers, drunken sots, and immigrants could also be portrayed as the “other,” but black people were portrayed primarily as being outside the “self-other” relationships by which society was constituted.

That changed with Rice and Jim Crow.

In the picture above, Rice’s “Jim Crow” includes many features that whites at the time viewed as “degrading” about black men. That includes their dark skin, the worn hat, “wooly” hair, rumpled jacket and shirt, pants ripped in several places. and shoes so worn that his left foot was sticking out the front. Jim Crow also s+poke in “black dialect” and had the “loose” kind of gait associated with black people.

In the idea of women as the “other,” any association with female qualities was felt to be deeply humiliating and strenuously avoided. The workingmen had felt especially degraded when representing their own bodies as feminine in the sense of being seduced or subject to vampires and incubuses.

Rice’s version of “Jim Crow” was a full figure of black “otherness” to white men. But instead of avoiding association with the “degradations” of blackness, Rice completely “embraced” blackness, eagerly “displayed” himself as a full black man for his performances and sang songs, told jokes, and danced as a “black” man. The performances of Rice were “displays of degradation.”

Black “otherness” in “Jim Crow” was more complex than previous forms of otherness in the popular culture of white laboring men. Otherness in the case of both women and black people was created out of stereotypes, but instead of avoiding “blackness,” Rice internalized the full range of black stereotypes and employed those stereotypes to transform himself into a different kind of man and performer–“Jim Crow.”

Given that Rice built the “Jim Crow” character out of racial stereotypes, he internalized “fantasies of blackness” rather than the diverse reality of black people in cities like Philadelphia and New York. At the same time, blackface fantasies of blackness became important enough to the popular culture and identity of white laboring people that the blackness existing outside the fantasy became a serious threat to white stability.

Beginning Next Week

The picture below is from a performance of “Jim Crow” by T.D. Rice

My goal for next week through May 2 is to write 2000 words mostly on Rice with my main points being that:

  1. Rice engaged in a cannibilistic consumption of folklore, dance, and other elements of 19th century black culture to create “Jim Crow; ”
  2. In the process, Rice re-shaped black culture into a fantasy of blackness that addressed the heightened cultural needs of white laboring men during early industrialization.
  3. Beginning with Rice, fantasies of blackness became a bedrock element in white popular culture and white identity.

Because I’m retired, have health problems, and am obligated to do much of the housework, I have trouble organizing my time. But that’s nothing compared to the mental health problems I experience while writing. Some sort of early trauma is always triggered while I’m writing and I’m not sure what it is because my infants brain surgery, abusive father, and mother going through 5 childbirths in six years provided so much identifiable trauma. I also feel that all my memories of these things are being reconfigured in terms of the traumas being inflicted on black people as the enjoyment of black suffering became crucial to white identity and cultural practice.

More observations on the picture of Rice as “JIm Crow” tomorrow.

The Vulnerability of White Male Bodies in Philadelphia, 1785-1850: An Absurdly Concise History

The core dynamic in the white popular culture of Philadelphia was about the increasing vulnerability of male bodies and how popular culture was transformed in response.

I have book outlines but wanted to capture the dynamic here in short, sharp formulations.

Traditional Culture

1805, “Spanking Jack”: Artisans represent difficulties in terms of attacks on their bodies, i.e. sudden death, dismemberment, and torture.

Failure of Traditional Culture

1792, John Fitch: portrays his own sense of bodily vulnerability in terms of being “burned alive” as he worked on his steamboat project.

1829-1837, Workingmen: shift from treating difficulties as threats to portraying themselves as having vampires and incubuses attached. This is start of laboring men portraying their bodies as “occupied” and “feminized” in the sense of an intensified vulnerability and subjection.

1828-1850, Delirium Tremens: Sense of body being under threat changes to terror of the total environment. Only refuge is hallucination of attacks.

Cultural Transformation

1832-1842, Occupied. The minstrelsy of T.D. Rice counter-acted body anxiety through transgression: i.e, adapting blackness, embracing the degradations associated with blackness, and displaying that degradation. Leveraging these transgressions, Rice represented his “Jim Crow” character as having an enhanced and invulnerable masculinity.

After 1835, minstrel performers still adopted and displayed blackness, but also articulated an idea of black people as “comic substance” whose absurdity and suffering could enjoyed by white audiences. Projecting their sense of their own bodily vulnerability onto black people created some symbolic distance and created a leering, sadistic experience of whiteness.

1841-1842. Feminized Male Bodies. Just as minstrelsy embraced and displayed blackness, the Washingtonian temperance movement created a cultural practice that relied on the embrace of feminized male bodies. But the Washingtonians were not able to generate the collective temperance identity craved by their members and ultimately served as a bridge to the Sons of Temperance and their intense focus on collective identity.

1837-1850. Honored Felons. The volunteer fire companies also represented themselves in terms of displaying vulnerable, feminized, male bodies. But they were more successful because they were able to translate rioting into a strong sense of group identity.

1843-1850. Blackface Bands. The blackface bands continued to embrace the degradations associated with the ideas of black people as “comic substance,” developed songs and entertainment techniques that heightened the white enjoyment of black suffering, and added the sentimental enjoyment of black suffering to the minstrelsy repertoire.

Theft or Cannibalism

Long quote from account of T.D. Rice performance as “Jim Crow” in Pittsburgh from Eric Lott’s Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class, 18-19.

“Rice prepared to take advantage of his opportunity. There was a negro in attendance at Griffith’s Hotel on Wood Street, named Cuff–an exquisite specimen of his sort,–who won a precarious subsistence by letting his open mouth as a mark for boys to pitch pennies into, at three paces, and by carrying the trunks of passengers from the steamboats to the hotels. Cuff was precisely the subject for Rice’s purpose. Slight persuasion induced him to accompany the actor to the theatre, where he was led through the private entrance, and quietly ensconced behind the scenes . . . . Rice, having shaded his own countenance to the “contraband” hue, ordered Cuff to disrobe, and proceeded to invest himself in the cast off apparel . . . . [Onstage] the extraordinary apparition produced an instant effect . . . . The effect effect was electric . . . .

Now it happened that Cuff, who meanwhile was crouching in dishabille under concealment of a projecting flat behind the performer, by some means received intelligence, at this point, of the near approach of a steamer to the Monongahela Wharf. Between himself and others of his color in the same line of business, and especially as regarded a certain formidable competitor called Ginger, there existed an active rivalry in the baggage-carrying business. for Cuff to allow Ginger the advantage of an undisputed descent upon the baggage of the approaching vessel would be not only to forget all “considerations” from the passengers, but, by proving him a laggard in his calling, to cast a damaging blemish upon his reputation. Liberally as me might lend himself to a friend, it could not be done at that sacrifice. After a minute or two of fidgety waiting for [Rice’s] song to end, Cuff’s patience could endure no longer, and cautiously hazarding a glimpse of his profile beyond the edge of the flat, he called in a hurried whisper: “Massa Rice, Massa Rice, must have my clo’se! Masa Griffif wants me,–steamboat’s comin!”

The appeal was fruitless. Massa Rice did not hear it, for a happy hit at an unpopular city functionary had set the audience in a roar in which all other sounds were lost . . . . [Another appeal went unheeded, when, driven to desperation and forgetful in the emergency of every sense of propriety, Cuff, in ludicrous undress as he was, started from his place, rushed upon the stage, and laying his hand upon the performer’s shoulder, called out excitedly: “Massa Rice, Massa rice, gi’ me nigga’s hat,–nigga’s coat,–niggas’s shoes–gi’ me nigga’s things! Massa griffif wants ‘im,–STEAMBOAT’S COMIN’!!

The incident was the touch, in the mirthful experience of that night, that passed endurance.”

Like W. T. Lhamon, Jr. in Raising Cain, Eric Lott is fascinated by the way Rice, other blackface performers, and white audiences were drawn to ante-bellum black culture. Lott sees blackface minstrelsy as a “theft” of blackness but views whites as having a “love” for black culture that powered the impulse to steal.

My argument is somewhat different.

Two points

Lott’s idea is that Rice stole from black culture when he put burnt cork make-up on his face, hands, and feet, donned a “woolly wig” to simulate black hair, spoke in dialect, and delivered a blizzard of malapropisms in his “Jim Crow” character.

But I view T. D. Rice much more as creating a white fantasy of blackness and insisting it was the reality of black people despite black churches, taverns, businesses, and artists of the 1830’s. The imperative that white fantasy have social and symbolic priority over black reality has been an element of practical white supremacy ever since.

Also, there’s a strong element of cannibalism as well as theft in blackface performance. In other words, T. D. Rice wasn’t just influenced, borrowing from, or stealing black culture when he put on “Jim Crow,” he was consuming fantasized blackness in a process that transforming his person and audience into a different, less anxiety-ridden kind of white person. This process of white identity having powerful roots in the consumption of racial fantasy went far beyond Rice and remains an element of white racial identity today.

The Recoil

I’ve always been an ambitious person and I’m still ambitious even though I’m 67 and retired from teaching at Morehead State.

But I also punish myself for any progress toward those ambitions and really for any good idea that I have. That’s much of what makes writing so hard.

That’s the case even after writing something as short as the last post. I want to cry, have a pain rolling from the back of my head into my eyes, and want to throw up.

This has been the case with my writing since I was 23 back in 1977.

But writing about blackface makes the usual situation of my writing worse because of the disgust and shame I feel as an ambitious white person writing about the topic. The shame was visceral when I was doing research in 2010 at the Library Company of Philadelphia. Blackface materials were not only disgustingly racist, they had a polluting quality that made me want to take a shower after every day at the archives.

Anyway, I have to stop here.

Comic Substance

Two important points for my argument on minstrelsy:

  1. Blackface performers adapted a concept of black people as “comic substance” whose humiliation, torture, and dismemberment could be enjoyed.
  2. The shared enjoyment of black humiliation and suffering became an anchor point for white identity.

There’s an example of the concept of black people as “comic substance” in “Lucy Long” which was written before the formation of the Virginia minstrels but was the most popular minstrel song of the 1840’s

Yes Lucy is a pretty girl/Such lubly hands and feet/When her toes is in de market house/Her heels is in Main Street,/Take your time, etc.

There was a stereotype that black women had large heels and feet–in this case that her feet extended 30 feet or more. The stereotypes themselves are what Patricia Hill Collins called a “controlling image” but minstrelsy multiplied the stereotypes concerning black hair, size, lips, and noses to the extent that they conveyed a general idea of black people as comic monstrosities, or “comic substance.”

A Contemporary Note:

When conservatives complain about being condemned for racist language, they express a longing to treat black people as comic substance and rage over current taboos on the n-word, racist jokes, etc. The ability to use and enjoy racist language has long been a significant part of being white and they feel the loss.

The State of Things

This is a journal blog on writing the two chapters on early blackface minstrelsy that I’m writing for a book manuscript entitled Displays of Degradation: Cultural Transformations in Philadelphia, 1785-1850.

When I started hunting down sources for these two chapters, I had overwhelming feelings of disgust for the topic of blackface minstrelsy, so overwhelming that I can’t really discuss in other places. So, these seemed like the place to express myself.

I may also use this blog for my short-form political commentary and have yet to determine how the two things will balance.

Why Two Chapters on Blackface

Most writing on early blackface treats popular blackface minstrelsy as changing little between the emergence of T.D. Rice’s “Jim Crow” act in 1829 and the early 1850’s.

To the contrary, I view blackface as changing rapidly and divide the early development of blackface minstrelsy into three periods–

1. 1830-1835, the early years of T. D. Rice and “Jim Crow”;

2. 1835-1842, Marginal Performers and Comic Substance;

3. 1843-1850, Blackface Bands

The two chapters will cover the periods from 1830-1842 and 1843-1850.

Thinking About

Here’s the chapter titles for my Displays of Degradation manuscript:

Ch 1: Intro

Ch 2: Blustering Brags

Ch 3: To the Convivial Grave

Ch 4: Taking the Man Out of the Workingman

Ch 5: The Man with the Poker

Ch 6: Occupied by Blackness

Ch 7: Displays of Degradation

Ch 8: Honored Felons

Ch 9: Anchoring Whiteness

Ch 10: Conclusion