|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Banjiman Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:43 AM Azizi.... please can you attribute more carefully. This is not a quote from me. "I'm no racist - far from it, but if we carry this to its logical conclusion, then what about the Voodoo tradition where you'll see people 'whitened' up. Am I not able to complain that this may well offend me, and many others? [quoting Banjiman] " I was actually quoting Barden of England..... I added to his quote: "But does it offend you? If so perhaps you could ask for voodoo (with whitened faces) not to be performed at your local school? Assuming they had some planned that is. I repeat, can you really not see why someone might be offended by "blacking up" .... whatever the motives and the particlar history of the Border Morris tradition? I can." Which should tell you about my views on the subject! Thanks Paul |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: The Borchester Echo Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:41 AM "Nigger Minstrelsy" as an authentic strand of theatrical entertainment stems from US C19 impersonation of blacks (stereotypically "Jim Crow") by white actors during intervals and from black banjo-playing street musicians. To this day there are hordes of deadly serious (and jolly good) banjo players of all colours who travel to conventions to play "nigger tunes" and defend the right to call them that because that is what black slave-descendant players call them. It is a definitive musical genre. In England, "blacking up" has long been a feature of downtrodden workers demanding money (with or without obvious menaces) as a reward for musical entertainment particularly at slack times (c.f. Plough Monday) and in disguise so that the bosses didn't "blacklist'" them from employment when work again became available and the farmer turned to the latest wave of immigrant workers because they were cheaper. Neither minstrelsy nor surreptitious street begging is acceptable nor PC in these "enlightened" times. But along with many another practice, they are features of traditions which alter constantly because that's what traditions do. Border Morris is particularly hybrid and this is a reason to examine its component antecedents, not to deny that certain elements do not (or may not) exist. You do not, after all, ban historical songs about slavery, whaling or swashbuckling imperialism just because (unless Icelandic or Japanese) you no longer support these activities. You place them in context. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Azizi Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:23 AM The very first time that I ever posted in this forum's BS (below the line) section was when a member sent me a private message about a thread on blackening up and indicated that it would be interesting to see what I -as an African American-had to say about this custom. I posted to that particular thread and have posted to other Mudcat threads on this topic. As such my views about the custom of blackening up are already known to most people on this forum. To those who don't know those views, I will merely say that they coincide with the comments posted on this thread by Les in Chorlton 29 Jun 09 - 11:40 AM Ruth Archer 29 Jun 09 - 02:16 PM PM GUEST,Crow Sister 29 Jun 09 - 03:42 PM, Derek Schofield 29 Jun 09 - 07:49 PM Gervase Webb 30 Jun 09 - 02:27 AM Royston 30 Jun 09 - 02:55 AM Pip Radish 30 Jun 09 - 03:13 AM and any other person who have posted similarly and who I may have forgotten to mention. My purpose for posting in this thread is to specifically comment for the record on those statements which refer to followers of "voodoo" wearing white paint. Comments have been posted on this thread can by represented by such quotes as "I'm no racist - far from it, but if we carry this to its logical conclusion, then what about the Voodoo tradition where you'll see people 'whitened' up. Am I not able to complain that this may well offend me, and many others? [quoting Banjiman] I'd add that Voodoo witches whited-up for disguise long before they had ever seen a white-skinned person. They weren't doing it to deride and take the p**s out of white folk" (Royston 29 Jun 09 - 03:29 PM) and "My assumption would be that whiteface in voodoo is intended to call a bleached skull to mind." (Richard Bridge 30 Jun 09 - 03:45 AM). To provide context, if not credibility, to my comments, let me say that I have long had an interest in and have done considerable reading about the traditional cultures/religions of the Yoruba people (Nigeria, West Africa) and the Benin people (West Africa) that have come to be known as "voodoo". Furthermore, I count among my friends and acquaintances African Americans who are members of a small Yoruba religious community in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in Washington, DC area, in Hew York, New York, and in the state of Florida. As such I have talked with these people about their religion which is traditionally known as orisha vodu. I have also read books about their religious beliefs that they have told me about or have shared with me and I have attended informal gatherings in their homes which include some aspects of their religious celebrations/customs. Furthermore, I have had occasion to talk about orisa vodu religious beliefs/customs with some Yoruba people who were born and raised in Nigeria, West Africa. And I have continued my reading about the culture of orisa vodu online. Briefly, I would strongly state my opinion that traditional Africans wearing white coloring on their faces or on other parts of their bodies has nothing what so ever to do with White people ("white" skin color). Nor does traditional Africans wearing white coloring on their face or on other parts of body have anything to do with "a bleached skull"-though from what I've read, tit's correct to say that in most traditional African cultures the the color white (representing ashes) symbolizes death, that is to say that part of the world that is inhabited by the Supreme Deity and the forces that He or She or He/She rules and the control over specific parts of nature/life and ppower/energy (ase pronounced "ashay") that has delegated by that Supreme God to those lesser gods [Traditional African religions are very much like the Greek/Roman religions with their pantheon of gods]. For those who truly are interested in the significance of colors in traditional orisa vodu religion, visit this website http://www.orishanet.org/ocha.html Here is two excerpts from that website: "Elegguá is the owner of the roads and doors in this world. He is the repository of ashé. The colors red and black or white and black are his and codify his contradictory nature. In particular, Elegguá stands at the crossroads of the human and the divine, as he is child-like messenger between the two worlds. In this role, it is not surprising that he has a very close relationship with the orisha of divination, Orunmila. Nothing can be done in either world without his permission. Elegguá is always propitiated and called first before any other orisha as he opens the door between the worlds and opens our roads in life. He recognises himself and is recognised by the numbers 3 and 21." "Obatalá is the kindly father of all the orishas and all humanity. He is also the owner of all heads and the mind. Though it was Olorun who created the universe, it is Obatalá who is the creator of the world and humanity. Obatalá is the source of all that is pure, wise peaceful and compassionate. He has a warrior side though through which he enforces justice in the world. His color is white which is often accented with red, purple and other colors to represent his/her different paths. White is most appropriate for Obatalá as it contains all the colors of the rainbow yet is above them. Obatalá is also the only orisha that has both male and female paths. -snip- [Italics added by me to highlight that portion of the comment] There are numerous other such websites that about traditional African cultures and color symbolism that can be found through search engines. For instance, those who are truly interested in the subject of color symbolism and traditional African religions can read about the Akan (Ashanti; Ghana, West Africa) cultures and the significance of consecrating the golden stool and other ancestor stools with ashes. Here is one of many online websites that provide information about the symbolism of these 'pieces of furniture" http://www.marshall.edu/akanart/AKANADWA.HTML Traditionally in African cultures (and I dare say in other traditional cultures) ashes smeared on the face and skin was much more likely to be linked to beliefs in and honoring/evoking ancestors/deity/spirits than a disguise-unless by "disguise" one means masking (masquerading) representing (and/or becoming one with) that specific ancestor/deity/spirit. Lastly*, I would like to note that what is generally "known" about the practices of "voodoo" in the United States and in Haiti are largely Hollywood constructs which aren't based upon traditional African beliefs. I don't mean to imply that the actual practices of "voodoo" religion in the United States, Haiti, and elsewhere in this hemisphere wasn't at all based on traditional beliefs which recognized the meanings of colors in relation to forces of nature/deities/orisas. It's just to say that Hollywood movies and other mainstream media did not/do not accurately depict these cultures and their beliefs/customs. * I say "lastly" in part because this is my last comment on this thread. As I mentioned in my beginning comment to this post, I am posting this for the record as some here may be interested in the historical/traditional significance of the color white and other colors wore on the faces (and in clothing) by traditional Africans. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Ruth Archer Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:04 AM "the main propenents proudly call it niggering." To be fair, I'm not sure that this is still true, but to address Richard's points (and according to Dave Hunt's evidence that I quoted earlier) it was certainly a term still being used in living memory (the 1930s-40s). To be honest, once you begin to interrogate the history, it's rather hard to refute the connection. The REAL questions, here and now, are these: If you are in a side that blacks up and someone asks you what the origins and history of the custom are, would you be happy to mention its connection with mintrelsy? If the answer is no, does this mean that the racist heritage of the custom makes the custom itself, by extension, socially unacceptable in the 21st century? If the answer is yes, does this mean that you, as a morris dancer, or your side, feel that there is a disconnect between the heritage of the custom and its contemporary expression? Has blacking up in itself become so disconnected from its roots that those roots no longer matter? And finally, to those who are defending most vigourously their right to black up and dance wherever they want, Derek's question once again: "there are several different ingredients in any morris tradition – music, costume, dances, style etc.... Most Border Morris sides use recently- composed tunes, played on instruments that were never used traditionally for Border morris, wearing costumes that often bear slight relation to the costumes used traditionally, dancing dances that are recently made up in a style that has been recently invented. And yet ... when it comes to challenging the blacking up aspect of their appearance, it is "tradition" that is used in justification for continuing to do it. If all the other "traditional" aspects of the dance "tradition" can be jettisoned, then why not the black face?" |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Banjiman Date: 30 Jun 09 - 05:39 AM Richard, your 4 points above about "niggering" don't matter.... it is an offensive decription, traditional or not. "It is referred to as Niggering because that is what is was (is?) called. " Very useful & informative!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Richard Bridge Date: 30 Jun 09 - 05:34 AM Interesting thought, Crow Sister. That might parallel voodoo ritual too. Royston, there are at least four things we do not know about the "niggering" quote. We do not know whether it is a foolish modern usage that tells us nothing about the tradition. We do not know whether it is a malevolent modern usage that tells us something about the writer but nothing of the tradition. We do not know whether it was a Victorian period writing tainted by the casual racism of that period. We do not know whether the description predates that period (compare the northern descriptions of vertical rock crevices as "arses" that so offended the Victorians that maps now show such features called eg "Great House"). Unless and until we learn the origin of the writing in question we cannot evaluate it, and it does not inform our understanding of whether any blackface tradition is racist or not. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Morris-ey Date: 30 Jun 09 - 05:32 AM ...what it as called. (Is editing possible?) |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Morris-ey Date: 30 Jun 09 - 05:31 AM >>No, nobody has a right to not be offended, but this is all about context. A community school has an obligation to be sensitive to community feelings.<< Perhaps the school should have consulted its "community" then? >>Please, why will nobody address the fact that the border morris website stated that blackface morris is "Niggering"? you can't ignore this particular elephant in the room because its fat elephantine arse is rightly squeezing the life out of our arguments in favour of blackface.<< It is referred to as Niggering because that is what is was (is?) called. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Phil Edwards Date: 30 Jun 09 - 05:27 AM It's all about risk, Eric. If the school thinks there's a high risk that somebody will be offended by a particular event, the chances are that the school will decide not to put that event on. Why invite the hassle? It's not the Morris side who would be getting the visits from irate parents afterwards. Telling the school that they're wrong to be offended - or that they're wrong to think anyone would be offended; or that anyone who might be offended would be wrong to be offended - isn't really going to cut it. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Royston Date: 30 Jun 09 - 05:26 AM Eric the Orange, Absolutely. If the community had expressed particular feelings it would be incumbent on the school to take them into account But we come back to the fact that all available from folk-community sources says blackface is of racist origins and the main propenents proudly call it niggering. What choice did the school have? With that evidence from our community, they have no need nor obligation to look any further at all. There is no point to this discussion unless it addresses this fact. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Ruth Archer Date: 30 Jun 09 - 05:25 AM "Sharp refused to collect Anglian molly dances (stating them to be "degenerate". If they were then already in blackface, that considerably reduces the likelihood that the source of that blackface tradition (if there was one) was minstrelsy." The popularity of minstrelsy pre-dates Sharp's collecting. It was already popular in Britain the mid-19th century. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: GUEST,EricTheOrange Date: 30 Jun 09 - 05:19 AM > No, nobody has a right to not be offended, but this is all about context. A community school has an obligation to be sensitive to community feelings. Absolutely. If the community had expressed particular feelings it would be incumbent on the school to take them into account. In this case however it seems the school that is imposing their assumptions, not acting in response to expressed feelings of the community. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 30 Jun 09 - 05:16 AM Interesting tangent. The cross dressing element of guised revels is I think, a traditional aspect of 'misrule' festivities, embracing inversion in all forms. I'd guess that the Panto Dame and Lead Boy, possibly are inherited *somewhat* from such Saturnalia style customs. I wonder if the blackening of white faces, is in any way another aspect of the same kind of paradoxical thing. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Royston Date: 30 Jun 09 - 05:15 AM Sorry, I forgot to login earlier, message repeated... People might be offended. Oh! dear, that must never be. Thousands of people a year die from being offended, don't they? No, nobody has a right to not be offended, but this is all about context. A community school has an obligation to be sensitive to community feelings. Please, why will nobody address the fact that the border morris website stated that blackface morris is "Niggering"? you can't ignore this particular elephant in the room because its fat elephantine arse is rightly squeezing the life out of our arguments in favour of blackface. And that's before we get to the fact that blackface / border as we see it today, is not even traditional; in fact it is younger than most mudcatters. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: GUEST,EricTheOrange Date: 30 Jun 09 - 05:13 AM > I had forgotten that use of the term "molly", but I thought it was generally said that the molly (ie woman dressed as a man) in morris was not a reference to homosexuality, but more in the tradition of the pantomime dame I thought that pantomime dames were also a comic parody of 'mollies.' I'm not suggesting either should be banned though. As you imply, cross-dressing humour is part of british comic tradition. I don't know but I'd be surprised if gay transvestite men were offended by either dames or molly dancing. On the original topic perhaps we should leave it to black people to decide if they are offended or not? |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: GUEST Date: 30 Jun 09 - 05:12 AM People might be offended. Oh! dear, that must never be. Thousands of people a year die from being offended, don't they? No, nobody has a right to not be offended, but this is all about context. A community school has an obligation to be sensitive to community feelings. Please, why will nobody address the fact that the border morris website stated that blackface morris is "Niggering"? you can't ignore this particular elephant in the room because its fat elephantine arse is rightly squeezing the life out of our arguments in favour of blackface. And that's before we get to the fact that blackface / border as we see it today, is not even traditional; in fact it is younger than most mudcatters. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Richard Bridge Date: 30 Jun 09 - 04:47 AM I had forgotten that use of the term "molly", but I thought it was generally said that the molly (ie woman dressed as a man) in morris was not a reference to homosexuality, but more in the tradition of the pantomime dame (which tradition I think also predates minstrelsy, doesn't it?). |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: GUEST,EricTheOrange Date: 30 Jun 09 - 04:26 AM > "Molly" as a name was (was it not, and by way of contrast to "Moll Flanders"?) widely used as a name for black female slaves, so the term "molly" might (but it's a bit of a stretch from that to "is") although not rooted in mistrelsy still connote casual racism. Wasn't molly a term referring to a transvestite gay men and that is the reason for the male dancer dressed as a woman? {See Molly Houses for more} So the male dancer is a mockery of them? |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Morris-ey Date: 30 Jun 09 - 04:23 AM People might be offended. Oh! dear, that must never be. Thousands of people a year die from being offended, don't they? I hope that the teacher Kevin Tudor wrote to sends his letter back with the spelling and grammar corrected. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Royston Date: 30 Jun 09 - 03:45 AM Kev Clogs, As a teacher, you know the lengths that the profession has to go to consider the welfare of the kids, in the widest sense of the word 'welfare'. My point is that if a teacher at Chantry (in a town with a massive asian / black community) went to prepare some teaching resources to accompany the visit of a border morris side and went to the website bordermorris.co.uk and found the proponents of the "tradition" referring to it as "niggering" (refer to the dance "Clee Hill" as L in C has been trying to suggest) then, as a teacher yourself, what would you do? |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Richard Bridge Date: 30 Jun 09 - 03:45 AM PS. But if border blackup is derived from minstrelsy then it should be refashioned so that the racist aspect is lost. My assumption would be that whiteface in voodoo is intended to call a bleached skull to mind. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Richard Bridge Date: 30 Jun 09 - 03:39 AM Morning Les - "send" button stuck? What Derek says needs to be taken seriously, and having only just read his post I thank him for it. I also thank Borchester for her explanation. I didn't see the train of thought. Now I do: it is that John Kirkpatrick invented Border Morris and also the blackface part of it (which it therefore not "traditional"). But there seem to be two flaws with this. I discount the "sweep" theory since while apparently at least in Rochester the sweeps did celebrate their one day a year holiday, but they were not carriers of the dance tradition (if any). The two flaws are these, in my view. Sharp refused to collect Anglian molly dances (stating them to be "degenerate". If they were then already in blackface, that considerably reduces the likelihood that the source of that blackface tradition (if there was one) was minstrelsy. If that is so of Anglian molly, it must make us suspect the assertion that blackface border is rooted in minstrelsy. Against this, "Molly" as a name was (was it not, and by way of contrast to "Moll Flanders"?) widely used as a name for black female slaves, so the term "molly" might (but it's a bit of a stretch from that to "is") although not rooted in mistrelsy still connote casual racism. Secondly, it has above been stated that other traditions have "guised" by use of other colourings, and if that is true then if there was a border tradition it makes it more likely that the border tradition included guising by the use of black - whether coaldust or burnt cork. To muse further on the Kirkpatrick aspect, the date of his apparent invention gives us a likely explanation for the appearance of some Anglian molly moves in border (which would strengthen the argument that blackface is a longstanding tradition albeit not in border). I am left puzzled why anyone would suddenly wake up and think "I've nothing to do today. I know, I'll invent a fake tradition". |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Les in Chorlton Date: 30 Jun 09 - 03:34 AM Please read above Woody |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: GUEST,Woody Date: 30 Jun 09 - 03:27 AM Maybe if the school had concerns they could have discussed them with Motley Morris to see if they could come up with some kind of solution acceptable to both rather than just cancelling? From descriptions I've seen about the origins of the blackface it's always sounded to me like just some black was smeared/streaked over the face, not necessarily completely covering it. If this was the case, maybe the full face cover developed when minstrel acts became popular? On a wider note, a mate of mine came up with the observation that you're not being non-racist when you're being considerate of his skin colour and what might offend him. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Les in Chorlton Date: 30 Jun 09 - 03:17 AM Since almost nobody much has commented to Derek's post I take the liberty of posting it again and again: "The evidence points clearly, in my mind, to the fact that Border Morris was influenced by minstrelsy. Songs, tunes, dress (and not just the backface), instruments used (banjo, tambourine, bones). In addition, minstrel songs entered what we could call the 'popular/traditional/folk song' repertoire of country singers as well. I am sure that the people who danced and sang in the minstrel troupes or danced and sang the minstrel-influenced dances and songs did not set out to be "offensive" to black people (they'd probably never met any black people). I'm old enough to remember the Black and White Minstrels on the telly, and it never occurred to me that they were setting out to be "offensive". And now, the plethora of Border Morris sides that black up ... I am sure that they do not set out to be "offensive". But "being offensive" is not in the eye of the perpetrator, it is surely in the eye of the beholder. Vic Smith and Ian Anderson on the fRoots messageboard have both given evidence of how black people have not been offended by blacked-up dancers because they can draw analogies with whiting up in their own cultures. They have a context (once explained!) in which to see the dancers. (And both the examples quoted were of black people who had grown up in African countries). Of course the explanations they are given make no reference to minstrelsy – only to the matter of "disguise". Forty years ago there was no revival (or traditional) Border Morris. It is a relatively modern phenomenon in the morris world. The sides that started up, that led the way, relied on the few notations that were available. The biggest influence on the Border revival is probably John Kirkpatrick's Shropshire Bedlams, in terms of style, dress, dance formation etc, John openly admits that he "invented" the style of dancing and most of the dances, using the traditional dances as inspiration. Sides that have followed have copied Bedlams' dances or continued the process of inventing dances. Here's an observation: there are several different ingredients in any morris tradition – music, costume, dances, style etc.... Most Border Morris sides use recently- composed tunes, played on instruments that were never used traditionally for Border morris, wearing costumes that often bear slight relation to the costumes used traditionally, dancing dances that are recently made up in a style that has been recently invented. And yet ... when it comes to challenging the blacking up aspect of their appearance, it is "tradition" that is used in justification for continuing to do it. If all the other "traditional" aspects of the dance "tradition" can be jettisoned, then why not the black face? Discuss! I'm interested to hear from any side that has discussed the matter of blackface rationally, considered the evidence, wondered if they might be causing offence and then made a decision to retain the blackface or change to a different colour or drop the blackface altogether. Derek Schofield" It's seems traditional that when exchanges get this long people don't read what others of said. Derek's post and Ruth's previously seem to make most sense, Best wishes Les |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Les in Chorlton Date: 30 Jun 09 - 03:17 AM Since almost nobody much has commented to Derek's post I take the liberty of posting it again and again: "The evidence points clearly, in my mind, to the fact that Border Morris was influenced by minstrelsy. Songs, tunes, dress (and not just the backface), instruments used (banjo, tambourine, bones). In addition, minstrel songs entered what we could call the 'popular/traditional/folk song' repertoire of country singers as well. I am sure that the people who danced and sang in the minstrel troupes or danced and sang the minstrel-influenced dances and songs did not set out to be "offensive" to black people (they'd probably never met any black people). I'm old enough to remember the Black and White Minstrels on the telly, and it never occurred to me that they were setting out to be "offensive". And now, the plethora of Border Morris sides that black up ... I am sure that they do not set out to be "offensive". But "being offensive" is not in the eye of the perpetrator, it is surely in the eye of the beholder. Vic Smith and Ian Anderson on the fRoots messageboard have both given evidence of how black people have not been offended by blacked-up dancers because they can draw analogies with whiting up in their own cultures. They have a context (once explained!) in which to see the dancers. (And both the examples quoted were of black people who had grown up in African countries). Of course the explanations they are given make no reference to minstrelsy – only to the matter of "disguise". Forty years ago there was no revival (or traditional) Border Morris. It is a relatively modern phenomenon in the morris world. The sides that started up, that led the way, relied on the few notations that were available. The biggest influence on the Border revival is probably John Kirkpatrick's Shropshire Bedlams, in terms of style, dress, dance formation etc, John openly admits that he "invented" the style of dancing and most of the dances, using the traditional dances as inspiration. Sides that have followed have copied Bedlams' dances or continued the process of inventing dances. Here's an observation: there are several different ingredients in any morris tradition – music, costume, dances, style etc.... Most Border Morris sides use recently- composed tunes, played on instruments that were never used traditionally for Border morris, wearing costumes that often bear slight relation to the costumes used traditionally, dancing dances that are recently made up in a style that has been recently invented. And yet ... when it comes to challenging the blacking up aspect of their appearance, it is "tradition" that is used in justification for continuing to do it. If all the other "traditional" aspects of the dance "tradition" can be jettisoned, then why not the black face? Discuss! I'm interested to hear from any side that has discussed the matter of blackface rationally, considered the evidence, wondered if they might be causing offence and then made a decision to retain the blackface or change to a different colour or drop the blackface altogether. Derek Schofield" It's seems traditional that when exchanges get this long people don't read what others of said. Derek's post and Ruth's previously seem to make most sense, Best wishes Les |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Les in Chorlton Date: 30 Jun 09 - 03:15 AM Since almost nobody much has commented to Derek's post I take the liberty of posting it again: "The evidence points clearly, in my mind, to the fact that Border Morris was influenced by minstrelsy. Songs, tunes, dress (and not just the backface), instruments used (banjo, tambourine, bones). In addition, minstrel songs entered what we could call the 'popular/traditional/folk song' repertoire of country singers as well. I am sure that the people who danced and sang in the minstrel troupes or danced and sang the minstrel-influenced dances and songs did not set out to be "offensive" to black people (they'd probably never met any black people). I'm old enough to remember the Black and White Minstrels on the telly, and it never occurred to me that they were setting out to be "offensive". And now, the plethora of Border Morris sides that black up ... I am sure that they do not set out to be "offensive". But "being offensive" is not in the eye of the perpetrator, it is surely in the eye of the beholder. Vic Smith and Ian Anderson on the fRoots messageboard have both given evidence of how black people have not been offended by blacked-up dancers because they can draw analogies with whiting up in their own cultures. They have a context (once explained!) in which to see the dancers. (And both the examples quoted were of black people who had grown up in African countries). Of course the explanations they are given make no reference to minstrelsy – only to the matter of "disguise". Forty years ago there was no revival (or traditional) Border Morris. It is a relatively modern phenomenon in the morris world. The sides that started up, that led the way, relied on the few notations that were available. The biggest influence on the Border revival is probably John Kirkpatrick's Shropshire Bedlams, in terms of style, dress, dance formation etc, John openly admits that he "invented" the style of dancing and most of the dances, using the traditional dances as inspiration. Sides that have followed have copied Bedlams' dances or continued the process of inventing dances. Here's an observation: there are several different ingredients in any morris tradition – music, costume, dances, style etc.... Most Border Morris sides use recently- composed tunes, played on instruments that were never used traditionally for Border morris, wearing costumes that often bear slight relation to the costumes used traditionally, dancing dances that are recently made up in a style that has been recently invented. And yet ... when it comes to challenging the blacking up aspect of their appearance, it is "tradition" that is used in justification for continuing to do it. If all the other "traditional" aspects of the dance "tradition" can be jettisoned, then why not the black face? Discuss! I'm interested to hear from any side that has discussed the matter of blackface rationally, considered the evidence, wondered if they might be causing offence and then made a decision to retain the blackface or change to a different colour or drop the blackface altogether. Derek Schofield" It's seems traditional that when exchanges get this long people don't read what others of said. Derek's post and Ruth's previously seem to make most sense, Best wishes Les |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Phil Edwards Date: 30 Jun 09 - 03:13 AM Kevin: Morris Dancing is OUR heritage and National Dance - I'm sure that you would promote Dancers and Dancing from other cultures - so WHY NOT OURS!!!?? I have to say this strikes me as precisely the wrong approach. Anyone reading your letter who has already decided that blackface is racist will simply conclude that traditional English culture is racist, and to hell with it. "Why not ours?" Putting myself in that head-teacher's shoes for a moment, that's not a difficult question to answer at all: because "we" are the inheritors of a history of oppression; Britannia didn't just rule the waves, she ruled millions of people with naturally dark faces, and didn't always do a good job of it. You might as well ask why the Orange Order shouldn't be allowed to celebrate their culture (by marching through Catholic areas banging drums). There may be people out there who have been blacking up, man and boy, since Cecil Sharp was a lad, but it seems to me that the spread of blackface Morris is a very recent phenomenon. When I was a kid - in South London in the 70s - Morris meant cricket whites with bells round the ankles and perhaps a sash; the bag-carrier would wear a boater with flowers around the brim, but that was about as fancy as it got. As far as I'm concerned, it's Morris that's traditional - blackface is an optional extra, and a pretty recent addition for most sides. If you can't do it that way any more these days, for fear of being misinterpreted, so what? Do it a different way. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Royston Date: 30 Jun 09 - 02:55 AM This is the last time I am going to state again my balanced view on this subject. Read it, or don't (more likely!) Morris dancers generally do not intend to offend anyone. Blackface risks offending a lot of people. Whether those people are right to be offended, or wrong and need educating, if you can't understand that fact of the offence then you are profoundly stupid. So you must understand the concern of the school. Blackface morris is not important - any colour will do. On the testimony of the person who invented border morris about 40 years ago, the darn thing isn't even a real tradition. A lot of you know me very well and you know that I enjoy border, and other morris, including blackface. However, I don't have a dogmatic attachment to totems. I would fight to protect our genuine traditions, but won't waste time and effort on frippery. Fight the good fight! So what are we saying? if We're not fighting for a tradition; what are we fighting for? I just think that it would have been better that the kids got to see morris and so I think that we should be circumspect and flexible on the issue of face-colour. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: VirginiaTam Date: 30 Jun 09 - 02:33 AM Has anyone noted any sides blacking up but leaving the lips and a wide margin around the lips free of make up? Had I seen that on a morris dancer, then yes I would find it disgusting and repugnant. What say morrisers who want to disguise, dress themselves only in woad and nothing else? Well, there is a historical precedent for that, but somehow I think more people would be offended. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Gervase Date: 30 Jun 09 - 02:27 AM 100. Of course no morris side blacks up to cause offence intentionally.* No-one has suggested that. The fact is that it can cause offence, and like the black and white minstrels, child labour, badger baiting and other such things, is maybe best put aside or adapted to suit the changing times. Is it really too much to ask for these moderen, reinvented sides to tweak their pastiche that little bit more and substitute patterns for plain black or use another dark colour. For goodness sake, the average morris dancer's rig has naff-all in common with what was worn 130 years ago anyway., what with all the badges, the zxip-up trousers, the poly-cotton shirts and the like. To cling to this one aspect of the reinvention smacks of desperation, mulishness or worse. *But, as Ruth says, there are some odd folk in morris sides. I received some extremely dubious right-wing emails via two in my local side a while back, so perhaps there is an undercurrent we should acknowledge in the open. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Soldier boy Date: 29 Jun 09 - 10:07 PM Goodness me what a cafuffle. Has the world gone mad? All this debate and argument over something so completely 'innocent'. No morris side that blacks up does it intentionally to offend black people. Good grief! They do it mainly so that they have a veneer of disguise which certainly has a clear and well documented tradition with both morris and mumming sides so they could dance out or collect 'offerings'and hopefully not be recognised,especially in small,close knit communities and villages. The anonymity and mystery being part of the allure and a cloak to hide behind for nervous or bashful participants and it was a purely innocent colour readily available in coal dust or by burning corks etc so that is why the colour black was used. It was readily available and for the working man it was cheap. They're innocent. If any morris side really intended to provoke or incite racial hatred don't you think they would have chosen something far more obvious like the garb of the klu klux klan or something. Blacking up has absolutely nothing to do with pretending to be or emulating a dark skinned race.I don't think for one minute that any side has been influenced by the Black and White Minstrels which is a comical parody beneath most self respecting individuals. It's innocent. The famous Bacup Coconut Dancers are blacked up and wear strange red and white hooped skirts because I believe they are copying an ancient Morrocan/Moorish tradition (which many people believe is the origin and birth place of all morris dancing anyway) Innocent. Now in all innocence please consider this and throw it into the melting pot. A few years ago, I'm not sure when, at the Rochester Sweeps Festival the BBC in all their correct PC wisdom decided that they could not film kids blacked up as sweeps because it might offend ethnic minorities in our cherished,cosmopolitan and nanny state country. These young children were distraught and gutted by this decision because they would'nt appear on telly. They,nor their parents that innocently blacked up their sweet little faces, thought for one single second that this might cause offence and had done the same ritual for many years at the festival. After all if you are representing an innocent depiction of children sent up chimneys, guess what they will get black from the soot! We all know now that this was a despicable trade in child labour but it was all done in fun at this festival - in the vein of a Dickensian characterture or a light hearted image from Mary Poppins. Innocent. Guess what,in conclusion, the clear message is that it is all 'innocent'. Sometimes when blindly following a 'tradition' some people might follow it or ressurect it without knowing the real intent or symbolism behind the tradition but today in this century I do not believe that there is any real or sustained intention to upset our coloured brethren. Or if it does occur it is all done in complete innocence. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Joybell Date: 29 Jun 09 - 08:06 PM Sorry if someone has mentioned them already but -- chimney sweeps fit in here with morris dancing. They are part of this tradition from before the blackface minstrels. Ref. Egan's "Life in London" Their colour is sooty black. Part of their occupation and not anything to do with the colour of people. Multi-coloured chimney sweeps? Silly. Cheers, Joy |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: The Borchester Echo Date: 29 Jun 09 - 07:55 PM No. don't delete my 7.47 post. It is meant for here (at least the first half addressed to R Bridge is). I'm knackered too. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: melodeonboy Date: 29 Jun 09 - 07:52 PM "it is easy to see the school's decision as justified" C'mon Royston. It's not easy at all. It sounds to me like a decision made by silly little people who've been to school, followed by teachers' training college, followed by going back to school as a teacher, whose world view consists of politically correct government directives (I know, I work in a school) and misguided columnists on certain newspapers. It's ignorance, stupidity, fear and lack of backbone and, above all, a lack of common sense and cultural understanding. As many of those who've posted above (Richard Bridge, Kev The Clogs, Dead Horse, Neovo et al) have stated, or at least implied, the whole thing is so ridiculous that it's not even worthy of intelligent debate. Let's not even try to intellectualise it (or go down the path of talking about using blue or sky blue pink or whatever other colours people have in mind). Just write to the head, as some of you have already done, and let the school know that a real world exists outside those school gates! |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: GUEST,Derek Schofield Date: 29 Jun 09 - 07:49 PM A few thoughts on the discussion, especially since Ruth Archer has been quoting me. The evidence points clearly, in my mind, to the fact that Border Morris was influenced by minstrelsy. Songs, tunes, dress (and not just the backface), instruments used (banjo, tambourine, bones). In addition, minstrel songs entered what we could call the 'popular/traditional/folk song' repertoire of country singers as well. I am sure that the people who danced and sang in the minstrel troupes or danced and sang the minstrel-influenced dances and songs did not set out to be "offensive" to black people (they'd probably never met any black people). I'm old enough to remember the Black and White Minstrels on the telly, and it never occurred to me that they were setting out to be "offensive". And now, the plethora of Border Morris sides that black up ... I am sure that they do not set out to be "offensive". But "being offensive" is not in the eye of the perpetrator, it is surely in the eye of the beholder. Vic Smith and Ian Anderson on the fRoots messageboard have both given evidence of how black people have not been offended by blacked-up dancers because they can draw analogies with whiting up in their own cultures. They have a context (once explained!) in which to see the dancers. (And both the examples quoted were of black people who had grown up in African countries). Of course the explanations they are given make no reference to minstrelsy – only to the matter of "disguise". Forty years ago there was no revival (or traditional) Border Morris. It is a relatively modern phenomenon in the morris world. The sides that started up, that led the way, relied on the few notations that were available. The biggest influence on the Border revival is probably John Kirkpatrick's Shropshire Bedlams, in terms of style, dress, dance formation etc, John openly admits that he "invented" the style of dancing and most of the dances, using the traditional dances as inspiration. Sides that have followed have copied Bedlams' dances or continued the process of inventing dances. Here's an observation: there are several different ingredients in any morris tradition – music, costume, dances, style etc.... Most Border Morris sides use recently- composed tunes, played on instruments that were never used traditionally for Border morris, wearing costumes that often bear slight relation to the costumes used traditionally, dancing dances that are recently made up in a style that has been recently invented. And yet ... when it comes to challenging the blacking up aspect of their appearance, it is "tradition" that is used in justification for continuing to do it. If all the other "traditional" aspects of the dance "tradition" can be jettisoned, then why not the black face? Discuss! I'm interested to hear from any side that has discussed the matter of blackface rationally, considered the evidence, wondered if they might be causing offence and then made a decision to retain the blackface or change to a different colour or drop the blackface altogether. Derek Schofield |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: The Borchester Echo Date: 29 Jun 09 - 07:48 PM Oops, wrong thread - I had two open, Can a clone please delete? |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: The Borchester Echo Date: 29 Jun 09 - 07:47 PM Richard Bridge You are surely aware (or perhaps not) that John Kirkpatrick, hacked off at those who assumed his working time consisted of 2 x 45 minute sets per night, wrote a song called What Do You Do In The Day? One of those things he did, on moving to Shropshire, was to reinvent Border Morris. ****** And hey, Pete Coe is a headliner. He's been at Sidmouth every time I've been there (and more times besides) AND he's written a stadium rock song. Me, I'd listen to Banditaliana and Genticorum all day long for the entire week, even if it has to be in a horrible tent with giant birds stomping all over the roof. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Kev The Clogs Date: 29 Jun 09 - 06:10 PM I have just sent the following email to the Headteacher of Chantry School (I used to work upstairs in the specialist teaching unit on the top floor". Dear Hazel King, I just had to write to you and say how appaled I am at your discision to ban Motley Morris from performing at your school. I don't know how you got to hear about them - word of mouth/saw them at an event/saw their web site - whichever way, it is VERY obvious that they paint there faces in black. Motley have danced in many parts of this country and have given great pleasure to many people of many different faiths/colours/cultures. As a teacher, I find your actions extreme and unwarrented. Surely education is about all cultures, walks of life, origins etc. You are denying your students to right to discussion and enquiry which would certainly have followed a visit by Motley. As a Morris Dancer, I find your actions DEEPLY offensive towards ALL Morris Dancers. Morris Dancing is OUR heritage and National Dance - I'm sure that you would promote Dancers and Dancing from other cultures - so WHY NOT OURS!!!?? Yours Kevin Tudor Steward for Bishop Gundulf's Morris |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Ruth Archer Date: 29 Jun 09 - 06:08 PM I wasn't being arsey, Richard - honest! Mwah! Mwah! I was being knackered - it's been a really long day and I literally cannot be arsed to clear off the blanket box and search out my back-issues of EDS. But if you're interested, I'm happy to do it tomorrow. I remember there were a lot of sources for suggested further reading. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Vic Smith Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:56 PM Baz Parkes wrote "There's an excellent posting by Vic Smith on this subject on the Froots forum other sites and media watch thread. Someone more clever than I will have to do a link...." Ahem! Well, the link to the fRoots Forum is http://froots.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4563 where Ian Anderson (if it is safe to mention that name on Mudcat) posts with a similar experience to mine. However, in posting it on fRoots I was merely quoting what I had written on the Folk Against Fascism thread at http://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=121472 You can't have missed it; it is the 270th posting of (currently) 713 postings on that thread! |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Richard Bridge Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:52 PM I'm not clear why you need to be arsey Ruth. There is a logical sequence to my question, and I would have hoped you might appreciate it. Borchester, your knowledge is often second to none but I do not see the point you are making. Yes I ahve followed teh link. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Ruth Archer Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:42 PM I can't be arsed to find the article at this juncture, Richard, but the sources were very sound. I think there's been a fair bit of relevant research into this area. And Dave Hunt's experience, as someone who is well respected and known in the folk music community, is quite persuasive. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: The Borchester Echo Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:41 PM I think John Kirkpatrick invented it in reply to people asking him what he did in the day time. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Gedi Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:40 PM Royston said "Beware the troll...Gedi I say that anyone claiming to have been called a racist for liking english music is in fact a liar. If I am wrong then the person accusing racism must be a lone idiot, so why would anyone bother to mention it..." Firstly I must thank Spleen Cringe for coming to my defence whilst I've been doing other things. Secondly, I can assure you Royston that I am neither Troll nor Liar. Nor do I appreciate being called such. The incident mentioned did happen and there were witnesses. I think your third sentence struck the nail on the head - the guy was a pratt of the first order. However I mentioned it just to show that such people do exist and that we should be aware of that fact. I was certainly taken by surprise that he could even think I was being racist, and he would not let me explain myself at all ( I think it was mostly the beer talking tbh). For your information, anyone who knows me will tell you that I am definately not a racist, living in a vibrant multicultural area of Manchester with friends from many different backgrounds. I don't intend to carry on with this but I felt I had to respond to your over-hasty character assasination. By the way, I personally would not wear black makeup. As Spleen says I prefer more the Smurf look, which is why I was 'Blued Up' on the night in question. Ged |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Richard Bridge Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:36 PM Yes, Ruth, that may be the fulcrum. If the modern Anglian blackface molly derives its name and blackface habit from Shropshire border, then if Shropshire border is tainted, so is Anglian molly. If it doesn't OR if blackface predates minstrelsy then the blackface habit is clearly NOT based on minstrelsy, so the suspicion of racist reference is not well founded. THat was my point. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Ruth Archer Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:30 PM Richard, there was only one brief quote in my post that referred to molly dancing - and if you look again, you'll see that it isn't Anglian but from Shropshire: border morris country. I'm not sure when border began to be referred to as "border", but it would seem that black-faced dancing in Shropshire was known locally as "molly". |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: The Barden of England Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:19 PM Banjiman - People 'whitening' up doesn't offend me in the slightest, and to be fair I am unaware of the Border Morris connection. I always believed that at Rochester Sweeps it was in some way a celebration (a silly way of putting it I know) of the Dickensian method of putting children up the chimney to clean it, and coming out with sooty faces. I will go to the site you suggested and mull it all over. John Barden |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Richard Bridge Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:14 PM It seems to me, Ruth, that a great deal in your logical development turns on whether Anglian "Molly" dancing is a form of morris and was so named. I am not an expert on either. Many molly sides seem to have pretty well no moves that look like border moves, but some do have some moves that look like some border moves (but none that look like cotswold or longsword, and not much like any male or female northern clog that I have seen). Sharp of course refused to accept molly as a form of morris or folk dance and he spoke of it as degenerate. If then molly is separate in derivation from morris, the existence of the blackface molly tradition undermines the assumption that backface morris is tainted by minstrelsy, as would proof of a morris blackface tradition predating minstrelsy. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Ruth Archer Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:07 PM From that point of view, Tam, each person has to make their own (hopefully informed) choice about whether they want to dance with a side that blacks up or not. But if someone makes the choice to do so, I think they ought to be willing to be honest with anyone who might ask (and with themselves) about the origins of the custom. I am not saying that border morris dancers are intrinsically racist, but in all likelihood their custom evolved from racist practices. The school in question did not "ban" the side. The side will continue to dance at events throughout the summer I'm sure, and good luck to them. But because of the sensitivities of this particular community, the school thought it unwise to honour their booking. Surely it is as much the right of the school to choose not to book the side as it is the side's right to dance however it chooses? |
| Share Thread: |
