|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:34 AM Please read above Woody |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Morris-ey Date: 30 Jun 09 - 05:32 AM ...what it as called. (Is editing possible?) |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Dave the Gnome Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:55 AM Put yourself in the shoes of someone black and then consider if you might be offended by the "blacking up". I have and I would not. I would probably be offended by someone blacking up with big pale lips and a curly wig or singing 'De Camptown Races' in a comedic african accent. But then again I may just find the whole thing so ludicrous that I could ignore it. Point is that there is a disctinct difference between blacking up for tradition and blacking up to take the piss. Those that cannot or will not see that are being obtuse. Royston - The reference to 'niggering; by Clee Hill. That was the language of the day. Much like Guy Gibsons dog was called Nigger because he was a black labrador. (Dam Busters) Neither were racial slurs as it was not considered in those days. Maybe it should have been but it was not. Give me some evidence of the same attitude today and your argument may hold water. Having said all that we performed our pace egg play on Saturday night without blacking up. For other reasons. I must say it was an awful lot easier. Especialy at the end of the night when I did not have to spend an hour removing black paint before I went to bed! Anyone who would go to all that trouble just to cause offense must be short of the full shilling anyway. There are much easier ways to give offence:-) Cheers DeG |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: GUEST,Thomas Slye Date: 30 Jun 09 - 07:06 AM I've been following this one for a while and here are a few points that struck me. 1. "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." Hold on. The same people who were running the sugar plantations were sending my ancestors down the pit. English culture does not equal ruling class culture. 2. The reference to Clee Hill "niggering" is a quote from a contemptorary source. it's what the Clee Hill dancers called themsleves at the time the information was collected. That's not quite the same as dancers today calling what they do "niggering". The website, I admit, is not as clear as it might be on this point. It does raise questions about the origins of blackface and the influence of minstrelsy, such as are already being discussed, but not about what border dancers do or think today. 3. I belong to a side which uses red make up, because that is what dancers in Leicestershire used (originally sheep raddle). Am I then to change this for fear of offending native Americans? Or would it be an insult to them to change it, because that would imply that I saw them as having red skin? Wouldn't that be incredibly insulting? I've never seen anyone with red skin. Wait a minute, I've never seen anyone with black skin either, or white skin, or yellow skin. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Richard Bridge Date: 30 Jun 09 - 07:19 AM Thank you Azizi for your information about the relevant African beliefs. With respect, Ruth, you do not seem to be getting what I see as being the crux of the matter. THere is as yet no conclusive proof that blacking up was not and never has been racist. It is of course very hard to prove a negative. But also although there are some indications that at some stages blacking up might (that's not "did", it's "might") have reflected the depiction of "nigger minstrels", no-one has yet provided proof that that was the origin (and therefore the traditional aspect of) "blacking up". It is quite puzzling to me to think that if John Kirkpatrick invented border morris he would have incorporated in it a racist habit. If he didn't invent it then we are looking further back in time. If he did invent it, it now looks to me as if he adopted some Anglian molly moves. Surely it is also so that Anglian molly does have a blackface tradition that, if it was "degenerate" by Sharp's time, is likely to predate "nigger minstrel" shows. If that is the case, then there would seem to be a plausible timeline from a non-racist origin of blackface dance to present border morris. Conversely, if there is a guised border tradition then the indications above in this thread are that other coloured guisings existed, so the proponents of the theory that blackface border is racist should be able to show a change from other colours to blackface during theminstrel period. By way of contrast, research should (if border blackface is traditional) show a border blackface tradition before the "nigger mistrel" period. There was a rock soundman in Nottingham I once much admired for his repartee. He was aquiline of feature and could easily have been assumed to be descended from the Indian continent. In fact his parents were I think one carribean and one white english. One day a thug was most unpleasant, calling him a "fucking paki". He got the reply "I'm not a fucking paki, I'm a fucking nigger and you're a fucking idiot". |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Royston Date: 30 Jun 09 - 07:55 AM I belong to a side which uses red make up, because that is what dancers in Leicestershire used (originally sheep raddle). Am I then to change this for fear of offending native Americans? Don't be fatuous. There is neither accusation nor evidence that red-face disguise was taking the piss out of Native Americans, it is clearly a genuine medium for disguise and we all know it. There is however accusation and supporting evidence that black-face is/was associated with mocking black folk. Those concerned about blackface are advocating the use of other colours, like red, as equally/more authentic and entirely uncontroversial. This is not the sixth form debating society, so don't start on the "what is black/red/yellow skin" nonsense. We are debating minstrelsy and related racist behaviours and we all know what we mean by "black" in that context. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Gervase Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:03 AM Minstrelsy dates from the 1860s, so considerably pre-dates Sharp. Anyway, times change. Guy Gibson did call his dog 'Nigger', and my grandmother would take of 'nigger brown' paint, but that is unacceptable today. Just as it is unacceptable to call a Jew a 'yid', or to call a Catholic a 'a Romish whore' or a chinese man a 'chink' or... But you get the picture I hope. Times change, and a largely re-invented 'tradition' like border morris should similarly be open to change. To cling on to an ersatz 'tradition' is stupidly stubborn at best and downright offensive at worst. An to those who whinge on about political correctness, tough shit if it means you actually have to engage your brains before opening your mouths. If it's PC to stop using words like nigger, yid, poof, paki, pikey, queer, darkie, spaz, coon, jewboy, mick or whatever, then praise be for PC. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Ruth Archer Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:11 AM "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." I agree. I think the thing that has always stuck in my craw about this issue is the steadfast and robust denial by many of its pracititioners that it might have had anything, at all, ever, on any level, to do with a tradition which parodied black people. They won't respond to the evidence. They are often extremely defensive. They would prefer not to interrogate their cutstom because they don't want to change it. I reckon if you're going to do it, own it. All of it. That means not being afraid of its history. I have to confess, I was going to avoid this thread as I feel we've discussed the issue into the ground in the past and it is quite contentious. But when I saw that people were being encouraged to send e-mails to the already beleaguered and stretched staff of a school who are only trying to be sensitive to their community (which I daresay they know better than we do), I was appalled. When I saw the aggressive tone of some of the e-mails that have been sent, which will be interpreted as representing the views of the morris community, I was even more so. What's more, the e-mails to the school which purport to speak authoritatively on the origins of border morris and blacking up, and to defend it as an ancient tradition, are somewhat more ill-informed and wrong-headed than the school's decision not to host a potentially divisive performance. I don't feel that this somewhat OTT response did our tradition any favours. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: GUEST,EricTheOrange Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:12 AM >Put yourself in the shoes of someone black and then consider if you might be offended by the "blacking up". How wonderfully patronizing. How can anybody not black imagine what growing up in a mainly white country is like and assume what they would feel? |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: GUEST,Dazbo at work Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:21 AM A few points: On disguise, having seen many shades of face paint used by far the most effective is black (on white skin). If you really want diguise then the colour should be as different as possible from your skin. So there was black face prior to the minstrel craze in the 19thC? So, whilst minstrelsey undoubtedly has influenced morris (as has classical music, music hall, rock and roll and for all I know punch and judy) it is not THE source of black face. So how much the black face was (or was not) about demeaning black people earlier than minstrelsey is not known. It seems to me that many people's statements in this thread are based on guess work, their own (possibly biased) opinions*, possibly dodgy oral histories, and historical documents that may be truthful and accurate, or may not, but all leave huge gaps in our knowledge of what went on and the motivations behind it. !!!Trollish Alert!!! As the lead musician for a border team (using silver, various blues and black face paint me) I can't help but think: if morris is descended from morrisco, that is ultimately from the Moors of northern Africa and southern Spain. Is not morris in its entirity a piss take on North Africans? *yes, myself included |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Rasener Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:22 AM The original Border sides were out of work labourers only dancing in the winter when they were laid off work. They danced to raise money (begging), this was illegal so they blacked their faces with soot, burnt cork or coal dust to disguise their faces.They wore fancy dress, some wore women's clothes, old military uniforms, rag and tatter coats & their work boots, trousers, bells, ribbons and hats etc. Each side had their own distinctive kit. Black Jack Morris wear hand torn rag coats, each individual decides their own colour scheme. Heavy black work boots. Black trousers and black shirt. Black top hat with pheasant feathers and Blackjack playing cards,, most memebrs also personalise their top hat with badges, beer mats, ribbons etc. Coloured neckerchief. Coloured braces. Bells around the knees. Wallpaper under the bells. Black fingerless gloves. Blackened faces. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Azizi Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:27 AM I am very sorry for misattributing Banjiman's quote of Barden of England's comment to you. I should have been more careful in attributing comments. I recognize that you (Banjiman) are saying that you understands how "blacking up" can cause offense. I hope that you wIll accept my apology. If I could edit my comment to this thread which attributed Barden of England's comment to you, I would do so. ** [This is the only reason that I posted on this thread again and will not comment on other points in this thread including the posts about the "N' word-my views about that word are probably also known to many in this forum so there's no need for me to expend energy repeating them.] |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Richard Bridge Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:29 AM I don't like this modern use of the word "ownership" and cognate expressions. Many here are assuming that the fact (if it is a fact) that some aspects of border morris adopted some aspects of minstrelsy (which is not compatible with John KirkPatrick having invented border morris) demonstrates that all blackface morris is tainted by the racism inherent in minstrelsy. That is a non-sequitur. And if Anglian molly was already "degenerate" when Sharp dismissed it then the fact (if it be correct) that minstrelsy started in about 1860 does not mean that minstrelsy predated blacking up in Anglian molly. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Banjiman Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:32 AM ">Put yourself in the shoes of someone black and then consider if you might be offended by the "blacking up". "How wonderfully patronizing." Perhaps, but not intended to be. Maybe you could draw an analogy with those "blacking up" and not intending to be offensive? "How can anybody not black imagine what growing up in a mainly white country is like and assume what they would feel?" I think it is usually called empathy. You're quite right though, I can't know exactly, but I can try to imagine. I think you probably could as well if you wanted to. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Banjiman Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:39 AM Azizi, no problem. It was an honest mistake. Thanks for correcting though. Paul |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Gervase Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:44 AM When I started playing for my local border side the musicians were expected to wear blackface, even though the dancers wore black and white. I wasn't happy with that, and felt extremely uncomfortable doing so. It may have taken more faffing around to do black and white brushwork, rather than a quick wipe over with a black sponge, but I felt a lot more comfortable about doing it. At the time I thought to myself "How would I attempt to justify this if i cam face-to-face with a black guy in the pub afterwards and he asked me why I blacked up?". I couldn't, in all honesty, not mention the connection with minstrelsy among the other connotations of blacking up. There you go, Eric the Orange, you can now empathise with me, a white man who was not happy about putting on a black face. Oh, and hats off to a side that was prepared, horror of horrors, to change a 20-year-old 'tradition'. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: GUEST,Derek Schofield Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:48 AM Can I make it clear that I did NOT say John Kirkpatrick had invented Border Morris. he just invented the Shropshire Bedlams style and dances. There were other sides emerging in the mid 70s with different styles and dances, although bedlams have had the most influence. Derek |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Ruth Archer Date: 30 Jun 09 - 09:00 AM "The original Border sides were out of work labourers only dancing in the winter when they were laid off work. They danced to raise money (begging), this was illegal so they blacked their faces with soot, burnt cork or coal dust to disguise their faces.They wore fancy dress, some wore women's clothes, old military uniforms, rag and tatter coats & their work boots, trousers, bells, ribbons and hats etc. Each side had their own distinctive kit." Villain, can you provide your sources for this, please? "So there was black face prior to the minstrel craze in the 19thC?" With regard to border morris, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that this was the case. Certainly when Sharp was writing about morris dance in 1912, and talked about the sides in certain parts of the country, he said that dances where faces were blacked would be called a "nigger dance". He also refuted the Moorish-Morisco theory. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: GUEST,baz parkes Date: 30 Jun 09 - 09:00 AM Quoting Dazboat work " can't help but think: if morris is descended from morrisco, that is ultimately from the Moors of northern Africa and southern Spain. Is not morris in its entirity a piss take on North Africans?" I wasn't going to fan the flames but...(and can't remember if I've told this here before... some years ago the Ironmen had the priviledge of dancing in the Basque country.Unlike most of the other government sponsored, teams, and like the English, the Basques were used to dancing in the street.On the finaldayof our tour we danced in a street procession. The Basques brought out a giant jig doll (for want of a better word). And the relevance? Tatter jacket,Black face, ribbons and feathers in battered hat, called a "Moresco". I've been less sceptical ever since. Quoting Richard summarising others "It is quite puzzling to me to think that if John Kirkpatrick invented border morris ". With all due respect to John K. I think "popularised" rather than invented. Silurian had been dancing the Border tradition under the guidance of Dave Jones for quite a while before the formation of the Bedlams,Ironmenor countless other border sides. Baz |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: The Borchester Echo Date: 30 Jun 09 - 09:05 AM Yes, quite. It was I who said JKP "invented" it in a bid to prove that he actually did stuff in the daytime. This was intended to be read ironically in conjunction with the piece on the Shropshire Bedlams history I linked to. Obviously a complete failure and entirely my fault for assuming some people on Mudcat would be arsed to actually look and learn. I was just conversing with a Well Known Morris person who made the point about blacking up for guising far more clearly than I did in my previous post. It's today's equivalent of the strikers at the Total refinery ... if you're campaigning, busking or even begging outside your own employer, you'd want to be wearing a hoodie & baseball hat. Endless emails from those who get up on their hind legs about such things will simply reinforce to the school that they made, for them, the correct decision, when actually they missed the chance to get a group of blokes to entertain the crowds that evening. |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: The Barden of England Date: 30 Jun 09 - 09:06 AM I'm sorry Azizi, I really didn't, and don't, mean to offend. If I did in any way then I unreservedly apologise. I found your post of 30 Jun 09 - 06:23 AM most enlightening and interesting too. John Barden |
|
Subject: RE: Motley Morris banned ! From: Gervase Date: 30 Jun 09 - 09:11 AM To continue to deny any element of minstrelsy in the border dance tradition does seem to fly in the face of the evidence. From Andy Anderson's comprehensive account of border morris ,a href="http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/pd49/">here,: One tune that was used regularly is 'Not for Joe', or 'Om Si the Gom Si'. This started life as a 'nigger minstrel' song and either took its folk name from, or gave the name to, a particular style of Border Morris Dancing. Some of the versions of the words for this song would be considered mildly obscene even today and it is not surprising that the collectors did not print them, although they often recorded them in manuscript. There's also this from E.C.Cawte's manuscript of collecting trip in Ludlow in May 1957: Bill Fury (58, Hollybush Milkbar) Boys aged c.12-7. Wearing women's clothes and with black faces, used to go about on Boxing Day doing a "Nigger Dance" or "Morris Dance". (I question the latter title, because when I first asked him about morris he knew nothing of a local team). Dance consisted of turning each other with linked arms, and hitting sticks together. Had a musician and sang songs while dancing, the only one he remembered was "So Early in the Morning". His father started a team of "Nigger Minstrels" with his sons, for 6 years up to 1920, "to show the boys how to do it". Included hit songs, and step dancing, and a dance in which they "went round, and hit their sticks at the end, one held his stick out, and then they changed over". This also was done on Boxing Day. Wore small top hats, big bow ties, tail coats, and striped clown's trousers, and father wore a mortar board. Black faces. Had concertina, (father), bones, tambourine, and guitar (B.F.) And in Aston-on-Clun the same month: Ivor Meredith (est. 30) & village blacksmith (est.45) No knowledge of morris dancing. On mention of niggering at once said they knew it very well. Continued until 1938, at Christmas. Last leader was Arthur Canty, "a proper fool he was... you know, a clever fool". (I.M.) Went about in fancy clothes, with black faces, playing fiddle melodeon, and mouth organ, singing songs and carols. They jigged about a bit, but there was no dance, and no stick hitting. And in Onibury: Onibury, 27.v.57 Man of about 70 There have been no resident morris dancers for the last 60 years. Remembered men going niggering at Christmas; black faces, fancy dress, someone played melodeon, and they sang songs. Someone carried 2 sticks (on direct question), but neither direct question nor direct suggestion would elicit anything resembling the 'Westwood' performance. And these are the words for 'Not for Joe': NOT FOR JOE Humdidi, dumdidi, toorah loorah, Humdidi, dumdidi, toorah ley, Humdidi, dumdidi, toorah loorah, Play it on my old banjo. 1. We had a little nigger, And he grew no bigger, So we put him in the Wild West Show. He fell through a winder, And he bloke his little finger, And he couldn't play his old banjo. Toorah loorah lilo, Toorah loorah lilo, Toorah loorah lilo, Play it on my old banjo. Humdidi, dumdidi, toorah loorah, Humdidi, dumdidi, toorah ley, Humdidi, dumdidi, toorah loorah, Play it on my old banjo. 2. My uncle Billy, Had a ten foot willie, And he showed it to the girl next door. She thought it was a snake, So she hit it with a rake, And now it's only five foot four! Toorah loorah lilo, Toorah loorah lilo, Toorah loorah lilo, Play it on my old banjo. Humdidi, dumdidi, toorah loorah, Humdidi, dumdidi, toorah ley, Humdidi, dumdidi, toorah loorah, Play it on my old banjo. |
| Share Thread: |
