GENDERED PERCEPTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS: EXAMINING

ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE NEW BLACK AMERICAN MINSTRELSY

SHANETTE M. HARRIS

UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND

KINGSTON, RHODE ISLAND

1730

Gendered Perceptions and Interpretations: Examining Attitudes towards the

New Black American Minstrelsy

Abstract

In the past ten years the theater stage and screens of television and cinema have re-

exposed Americans of all race/ethnic backgrounds and social classes to a new form of minstrel

performance. In this paper the concept of “Black female- faced minstrelsy” or “Black womaning

up” is introduced to discuss the rather recent emergence and sensationalism of African American

males who have taken to portrayal of middle-aged African American women in the media.

Black men such as Martin Lawrence, Eddie Murphy, Tyler Perry, Wesley Snipes, and

Kenan Thompson have graced the screen depicting women (i.e., Big Momma, Sheneneh,

Rasputia, Madea, Noxema Jackson, and Virginiaca, respectively) complete in female attire,

modulated voice tone and pitch, feminized body and hand gestures, and “snap” comments and

phrases stereotypically associated with biological women of African American heritage are

representative of this modern minstrelsy.

Key words: African American men, acting, minstrelsy, African American women, Black faced,

television

Minstrel Man

Because my mouth

Is wide with laughter

And my throat

Is deep with song, You do not think

I suffer after

I have held my pain

So long?

Because my mouth

Is wide with laughter, You do not hear

My inner cry? Because my feet

1731

Are gay with dancing,

You do not know

I die?

—Langston Hughes

Several African American male comedians and actors can attribute their career success in

part to their portrayal of representations of Black women in shows, plays, skits, and movies. As

early as the seventies, for example, Flip Wilson played the stage personality of Geraldine Jones

on national television for four seasons. Contemporary Black men such as Martin Lawrence (Big

Momma, Sheneneh), Eddie Murphy (Rasputia), Tyler Perry (Madea), Wesley Snipes (Noxema

Jackson), and Kenan Thompson (Virginiaca) seem to easily enact their perceptions of Black

women on screen. This modern minstrel spectacle involves the advancement of Black men in the

media who successfully co-opt the gestures, styles, body types, and personality characteristics

stereotypically linked to Black women. On the one hand, the actions of these imitators seem

inconsequential, harmless and even flattering to the daily experiences of Black women and elicit

laughter and humor among female majority dominated audience members. On the flip side of the

coin, the images portrayed represent one primary source through which the some of the most

negative stereotypes of African American womanhood are perpetuated on a global and

worldwide scale. Consequently, it is important to assess the fascination with men in women’s

attire. Why are some elements of the public obsessed with these images of Black women and

Black men? Are the roles exploitative or complimentary? Are the implications for members of

the transgender and male homosexual communities similar to those for Black women? In order

to more thoroughly understand contemporary “female face minstrelsy” acts and performances of

African American males in movies and television, different aspects of early minstrel shows

deserve discussion.

1732

Similar to Tuhkanen (2001), “I want to suggest that the dynamics of blackface should not

be considered a thing of the past…but the minstrel mask perhaps continues to be a central figure

in how “racial” visibility functions in the United States” (p. 12). Consequently, this paper

examined interpretations of early American minstrelsy enacted by European American

entertainers against today’s minstrelsy performed within the African American entertainment

world. Topics that require further inquiry to gain more insight into how such performances affect

the social, interpersonal and intrapersonal experiences of modern African American women and

African America gender role relationships are introduced.

The History of “Black Face” Minstrels in America:

The interpretation of black face minstrel entertainment in America is debated by scholars,

but implicitly and explicitly linked sociopolitical matters of the time with the humiliation,

degradation and disparagement of African Americans. Researchers propose that white men using

burnt cork to perform on American stages began as early as 1795 and evolved throughout the

nineteenth century in the number of actors, reactions of the audience, and later participation of

African American men (Herring, 1997; Nowatzki, 2007). In this way, comic stereotypes became

the most noticeable and available information about Blacks and exerted effects on their lives

overall, particularly amongst those who had limited knowledge of them as individuals. A

consistent theme was the humor levied against slavery as an appropriate and natural institution

and the portrayal of the African American as childlike and psychologically, socially and

intellectually inferior (Sussman, 2001).

European Americans publicly recognized and acknowledged the “possible” presence of a

Black culture in America with the introduction of black face minstrelsy to the theater stage (Lott,

1992). Since the reconsideration of minstrel studies by Hans Nathans in 1960, a review of the

literature reveals several books, articles and book reviews that have been written on various

1733

aspects of minstrel shows and “blackface” entertainment in America. These published works

examine the role of humor, social class structure, American unity and identity, and racism to

understand the origin, endurance and meanings of “blackface” minstrel performances. Prior to

Toll’s book Blacking Up: The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-Century America (1974) most of

these publications could be divided into two categories or perspectives. According to the first

perspective, writers primarily interpret this form of entertainment as racist, prejudicial,

stereotypical, bigoted, vile, and vulgar because the characters, folklore, language, and acts used

were alleged to arise from slave life. This stage entertainment elicited white amusement at the

expense of Black slaves who were legally powerless at the hands of whites and served to

rationalize racism. Although black face minstrels attributed their dance numbers and routines on

to slavery, some writers take issue with this idea. Lott (1993) reports that white men were

influenced by observations and experiences in racially integrated social environments of taverns,

waterfronts, theaters, and neighborhoods rather than actual plantation living. Although it has

been reported that black face minstrels reported that they borrowed their content from the actions

and lifestyles of Blacks, they actually selected specific elements and grossly altered them to meet

the need to create caricatures of Black people to arouse positive responses from all white

audiences with strongly elitist attitudes (e.g., conning or manipulation Blacks, shocking them

with batteries) (Rehin, 2009; Sussman, 2001). These acts rarely represented observations of slave

life and were actually internal representations of blackness manifested in the white mind and

behaviorally enacted in plays, skits, songs, and show themes. This “black face” comedy involved

white men’s appropriation of Black culture which was channeled through the “white gaze” for

economic improvement and political power as well as entertainment.

1734

Minstrel performances provided employment and even fame for some white men during

these time periods. Men who might have unemployable due a lack of work skill, training and

education were granted incomes if able to successfully convince the audience of their

“blackness” as a southern slave or northern free person. The appropriation of Black culture

emerged from white’s fascination with and attraction to the style, mannerisms, gifts, and talents

of African heritage men and women. Bodies of white men on stage were painted “as if” black

and performed according to scripts that mirrored white beliefs about violence, sexuality,

sensuality, intelligence, and ignorance which were projected onto their construction of black

bodies as if a tabula rasa. These repulsive experiences within the white unconscious and

imagination were projected onto black people; left over as fantasies (Lott, 1992).

Minstrel humor was also used to control the black threat; the threat of black men and

their bodies. Clearly, their attraction to and desire for participation in this type of forum must

have been in conflict with competing feelings of fear, disgust and revulsion at the “blackness” of

bodies that differed so significantly from that of the white observers. Ridicule, shame, and

humiliation were aspects of white humor shown towards the blackened body engaged in minstrel

acts to defend against feelings of fear and anxiety of white men which were never too far from

breaking through into consciousness.

On stage, “black bodies” were in the visual sphere of white men and consequently

perceived as more controllable and predictable as a target for specific uncomfortable feeling

states.

Some theorists attribute minstrel shows to white men’s desire for the type of masculinity

enacted by Black men in an almost homoerotic fashion. Lott (1991) discusses how whites sought

to exploit the power of “blackness” and use “vulgarity” to insert distance between the real dances

1735

and talents of Black men and their imitative behavior. As a result, many acts incorporated an

exaggerated sexual dynamic that spoke to white obsession with the bodies of African Americans.

For instance, some white minstrels engaged in a dance called the “jaybird wing” which was

inappropriate when performed by males in burlesque who wore skirts.

Abolitionists saw such shows as exploitative and harmful to those already at the lowest

level of society and spent many years trying to convince the public of the impact of such acts.

They also suggested that the emphasis on racism was more common than other explanations for

the popularity of this entertainment because burnt-cork was used to paint actors’ faces black and

Blacks did not benefit from what was referred to as belonging to them (e.g., songs). Frederick

Douglass proposed that Blackface performers were

“filthy scum of white society, who have stolen from [Blacks] a complexion denied them

by nature, in which to make money, and pander to the corrupt taste of their fellow white

citizens” (North Star).

Other writers focus more on subjects unrelated to race to explain the existence of black face

minstrels although they do not pretend or deny the role of racism. Between 1930 and the 1970’s

the literature presented minstrel shows as important to American popular culture entertainment

because the shows integrated diverse cultural and ethnic group members as American.

In this case, the writers concentrate on the equality inherent in American culture but

ironically exclude the inequality that legal slavery obviously represented which was made even

more apparent with the flood of black faced portrayals of slaves across northern stages.

Instead, “Americans” became those who were less dark in skin tone and immigrated to

this land from diverse European cultures with little in common. Their willingness to share

laughter in a theater as white males on stage imitated Blacks in songs, dance and interpersonal

interactions reduced cultural differences and enhanced commonalities as “whiteness” was

initially defined and experienced early on (Blair, 1990; Nowatzki, 2007). Writers also propose

1736

that early minstrelsy was characterized by feelings of disdain and hostility of working class

urban whites towards those of upper social status. In blackface, the white working class minstrel

performer is able to use jokes and engage in imitations of higher class whites that depict them in

an unflattering way. The directness and intensity of their anger was minimized because the

words and acts were performed by those who appeared “black” (Toll, 1971). This art form

became a way to define “whiteness” and solidify a common worldview for many European

American ethnic groups from different backgrounds and traditions. “Blacking up” also served as

an outlet for intraracial group identification. Working class white men were able to enact roles in

blackface that represented or symbolized their feelings and attitudes.

The Complexity of the New Minstrelsy: “Womaning up”

“The black man [woman], the model of the minstrels, was excluded from membership

and reunion, but in a paradoxical way he [she] entered the mainstream of popular

culture”. (Rehin, 1975, p. 366)

New Black male female minstrel acts serve multiple purposes much like the white

minstrels of nineteenth century society and politics.

Using “female face”, Black men who act as women are free to criticize gender role norms

and standards maintained in the Black community (e.g., how Black men treat Black women).

Many plays and movies based on this new minstrelsy “lift the veil” to expose African American

heterosexual gendered relations to African Americans who may experience these phenomena but

still have little objective awareness of how their lives and the community are impacted by such

actions. In these “acts” life advice and specific strategies for Black women to enhance self-

esteem, attract quality Black men and methods to free themselves from abusive and unloving

relationships are presented. Women who experience varied negative events and life challenges

are also shown that learn to overcome their limitations and function more effectively to model

the possibility of self-improvement and development to female observers. To address statistics

1737

that African American females are less likely to marry than their female counterparts of other

ethnic/race groups, viable male populations are presented in romantic scenarios. Healthy

connections between blue collar males and white collar females are promoted and the importance

of considering minority men other than African American males as romantic and life partners are

presented as alternatives for women who seek romance and family.

The performances of males who portray roles as Black females make it possible to

address topics that are typically silenced in mixed company. In particular barriers that impede

healthy relationship development between heterosexual males and females are presented and

given a space for discussion and presentation. The use of “female face” distracts observers from

the difficulty of the message with the power of humor and puns based on religion and African

American proverbs.

I suggest that the masculinized women or femininized men depicted as Black woman on

stage and in the media in the past and in contemporary culture represents an effort to shed light

on the conflicts and contradictions that serve to sabotage healthy gendered relationships given

increasing status differences between African American males and females. Black female

minstrelsy is partly used as a way to incur empathy with the plight of Black women and

deconstruct relationship aspects of sexism that are subtly destroying families while

simultaneously maintaining laughter and banter and deflect feelings of hostility.

Similar to the original Black face minstrelsy–Black female face minstrel performances

are not a true representation or depiction of female African American culture or life experiences.

It is in fact a male/Black male version and vision or perception of how they perceive Black adult

female experiences with Black males and in relation to family dynamics and society. For

instance, the creator of Madea (Tyler Perry) has discussed the development of this heavy set,

1738

middle aged, verbally aggressive, and humorous female as originating from his observations of

his mother and other female relatives and family friends. In dress and wig—looking and often

sounding as if a sweet grandmother, Madea is able to levy criticism against the male roles

enacted by African American men without the heavy censures that a biological African

American female would have to adhere to in order to present the same messages about Black

male masculinity. In these movies and on these stages the power position of the male is

challenged who does not support the roles of provider/breadwinner, father and emotionally

available and affectionate males. At the same time, male cross-dressing reduces or nullifies any

threat of female power because the speaker is actually male. The messages of wisdom and sage

advice are offered in the midst of jokes and quick witted proverbs that a woman (who is really a

biological male) intermixes with antics and acts of passive-aggressive and aggressive

mannerisms.

Although contemporary portrayals of “female face” in the media facilitates dialogue

about issues of masculinity and femininity that underlie African American family and

relationships, these caricatures unfortunately promote stereotypical images of Black American

women. For instance, sexism like racism is central to the modern minstrel performance. The

belief that women should conform to certain types of behavior and that ways of living that fall

outside such standards are less feminine is biased and oppressive. The imitations of Black female

bodies (e.g., weight level, breast size), manner of speech, presentational style, and expressions

seem representative of feelings of contempt towards African American women. In many ways

these enactments promote sexism and female oppression as they undermine the perceived

acceptance of Black women into the American social structure. The new Black female minstrelsy

may represent admiration for and fascination with certain character traits of African American

1739

women but also an attempt to deny feelings of envy and rage disguised as humor aroused by

these same characteristics. This humor reduces the threat that African American women

represent in psychosocial, educational and business contexts but particularly within the family

system. Black women of large size and weight who appear high in confidence and competence

despite experiences of oppression may elicit fear and anxiety in African heritage males who

support this form of minstrelsy.

Black men’s minstrel acts may speak to the tension that has historically challenged

heterosexual bonds among African Americans as they imitate their internalized images of Black

women. Exactly how do changes in educational levels, divorce rates, and rates of incarceration,

homicide, poverty, and AIDs that differ for the gender groups contribute (if at all) to this modern

female face form of Black minstrelsy?

“Womaning up”: Implications for the transgendered and Black gay male communities

This “man in a dress” infuses the atmosphere with laughter but also familiarizes the

audience with males who prefer female attire. For instance, a man dressed in traditional female

clothing is shown—ironically against the backdrop of a Christian value system couched in

gospel music, preachers and biblical teachings depicted through weddings and songs. The

complexity of such scenes, indirectly reduce the disdain that might typically be wielded against

different gender presentations in the African American community.

Yet transgendered and African American gay males rarely find acceptance in these

contexts when their orientations and lifestyles are made public. Do Black men in female face

make it less unsettling for members of the African American community to accept all lifestyles

or is the humor portrayed in some of these movies in response to men who wear dresses? Finally,

how are these perceptions different (if at all) for transgendered males and gay males?

1740

Figure 1

1741

Figure 2

1742

Figure 3

Geraldine—Flip Wilson

1743

Figure 4

Wanda-Jamie Foxx

1744

Figure 5

Big Momma—Martin Lawrence

1745

Figure 6

Noxema—Wesley Snipes

1746

Figure 7

Sheneneh—Martin Lawrence

1747

Figure 8

Madea—Tyler Perry

1748

Figure 9

Rasputia—Eddie Murphy

1749

Figure 10

RuPaul

1750

Figure 11

Virginiaca Hastings—Kenan Thompson

1751

References

Blair, J.G. (1990). Blackface minstrels in cross-cultural perspective. American Studies

International, 28(2), 52-65.

Herring, S. (1997). Du Bois and the minstrels. MELUS, 22(2), 3-17.

Lott, E. (1991). “The seeming counterfeit”: Racial politics and early blackface minstrelsy.

American Quarterly, 43(2), 22-254.

Lott, E. (1992). Love and theft: The racial unconscious of blackface minstrelsy. Representations,

39, 23-50

Lott, E. (1993). Love and theft: Blackface minstrelsy and the American working class. New

York: Oxford UP.

Nowatzki, R. (2007). “Blackin’ up is us doin’ white folks doin’ us”: Blackface minstrelsy and

racial performance in contemporary American fiction and film. Literature Interpretation

Theory, 18, 115-136.

Rehin, G.F. (1975). The darker image: American Negro minstrelsy through the historian’s lens.

Journal of American Studies, 9(3), 365-373.

Sussman, R. (2001). The carnavalizing of race. Etnofoor, 14(2), 79-88.

Toll, R.C. (1971). From folklore to stereotype: Images of slaves in antebellum minstrelsy.

Journal of the Folklore Institute. 8(1), 38-47.

Tuhkane, M. (2001). Of blackface and paranoid knowledge: Richard Wright, Jacques Lacan, and

the ambivalence of black minstrelsy. Diacritics, 31(2), 9-34.