Talk:The Black and White Minstrel Show

Confirmation of year

Question removed from body of article:

Query: BBC Two started colour in 1967 but BBC ONE didn't get it until 1969, and I always thought the B&WMS was only on BBC ONE. If so the above date should read 1969. Confirmation would be appreciated.

Having just asked on a forum, I have it in good authority that the 10th series of the programme was originally broadcast on BBC Two in colour, and then repeated on BBC One the following year (1968). The show moved to colour on BBC One full time in 1970, after a Christmas special the previous year. So, the 1967 date is correct. BillyH 12:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section

"The show was attacked as racist, a 'cultural obscenity', by some, from the early 1960s."

• This really needs to be backed up with some contemporaneous sources. Who exactly described it as a "cultural obscenity"? 217.155.20.163 02:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A report in The Times for 1967 says 200 people signed a petition organized by a Trinidadian, asking the BBC to end this "hideous impersonation" - The Times, Friday, May 19, 1967; pg. 3; Issue 56945; col C

"However the programme was not generally perceived as racist at the time by people outside the United States, and it was sold to many parts of the world, including Australia and many African countries."

• Firstly, what does the United States have to do with it? The programme was never sold to the United States, as far as I know, hence audiences inside the United States were never given the opportunity to perceive the programme as anything.

• Secondly, "sold to many parts of the world..." should be clarified I think. Was the programme ever sold to African countries that weren't part of the British Empire? Also, was the programme shown in Australia throughout its lifetime (1958-78), or only during its early years? 217.155.20.163 02:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Under increasing pressure the show tried a 'whiteface' variant in the late 1960s, titled Masquerade and swapping the black faces with masks (based on a Masquerade ball), with a resulting loss in viewing figures."

• Again, where was this pressure coming from? Also, "resulting loss" suggests that the lack of blackface was directly responsible for Masquerade's low viewing figures - is there any real evidence for this?

Yes, it's called "common sense" - Masquerade featured exactly the same singers, and exactly the same type of songs. The other features of the show (the female dancers and the guest stars) were the same, so the only difference was the change from black-face to mask. And the viewing figures dropped. So by a process of fairly simple logic, the only difference was the lack of black-face. What do you suppose caused the drop in figures? The fact that the target audiance couldn't read the word "Masquerade" properly? THINK .

• When the programme was cancelled in 1978 - was it dropped because of low ratings, or budget cuts, or because the whole racial thing had become too much of a hot potato for the BBC to handle? The article just doesn't give us any real cultural context. Were people rioting in the streets because of this programme, were they wringing their hands saying "oh, it's a little bit offensive", or did they not really care? 217.155.20.163 02:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Or where they saying that this programme has past its best and longer worth watching on Aesthetic grounds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz-kafka (talk • contribs) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that the show was shown in Australia right to the end. In fact, given there was usually a delay between a show being screening in the UK and then in Australia, it would have shown LATER in Australia than in the UK! I still remember my mother and grandmother having it on when I was a very small child - they liked it for the singing etc. I just thought it was stupid (what's the point of all that ridiculous make-up) and boring! I also had a Golliwog - it never occurred to me it was supposed to be a black African much less a racist depiction of one. I also remember seeing commercials in the later '80's for the "Black and White Minsteral Show" which was touring!

Criticism section (addendum)

As nobody has bothered to answer any of my points above, and no references have been provided, I have deleted this entire section as unreferenced speculation. 217.155.20.163 01:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Is It truly racist.

I do think the show first had intended to be racist, but that idea shot out my head once I learned that Blacks & Whites were enabled into the shows. I do believe that the Minstreal Show allowed blacks in to explode the acting on "slavery". Or simply because the audience rate was down or never was to high.

Well i am A 7th grade student doing a report on this topic & I am happy to continue a disscusion about this topic

<email redacted>

email me if interested. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.79.193.217 (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

These comments make no sense

what does "but that idea shot out my head once I learned that Blacks & Whites were enabled into the shows" actually mean Franny-K (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

holy shit

Till 1978??! There *really* needs to be a section of this article detailing how on earth that was even possible. I mean, that was less than a decade before I was born. Truly sickening. --86.142.170.168 (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I was born in 1963, and remembered the show. It was definitely aimed at the older generation: the variety show songs were old and jaded, the dancing was tedious. I think I watched about 12 seconds once (as a 10-yr-old) and Mum said 'why are you watching that racist crap?'.

In brief, it was on the way out by 1968, but died a slow death. Also please remember that in the U.K. racism was systemic, popular, and prevalent until movements such as 'rock against racism' revealed a popular lack of tolerance for bigotry.

Just look at the dates for race discrimination act and sec discrimination act. 20040302 (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I was 13 when the show finished. I can remember asking my parents about the show when it was on TV, asking "Why do they have white guys in black make up singing? Why not just have black guys?" and the answer was generally along the lines of "Because its funnier this way". I always regarded it as racist, even as a kid. Most people in the UK are racist even if they claim not to be. Ive given up hope with them. Waste of space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.33.252 (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looking back it seems bizarre and a bit creepy. Yet at the time I don't recall perceiving the show as racist or derogatory. It was dull, solidly-crafted old-fashioned "traditional entertainment", made for your parents. AFAIR the songs were mostly things like 'K-K-K-Katie' and 'Mary, Mary (Plain As Any Name Can Be)': music hall standards, old even then. They didn't relate to anything I knew of black music, any more than the appearance of the performers did to black people. (I'd certainly never seen a black person with white rings around his mouth and eyes; let alone one wearing top hat, white gloves and a sort of frock coat.) The minstrel in his blackface seemed as stylized and unreal as the whiteface clown in his funny pointy hat. If there was any patter where they tried to ridicule AAVE I've mercifully forgotten it. So I think to most viewers the show's associations weren't obviously or primarily racist, but nostalgic; they harked back to end-of-pier shows and concert parties, when "people who could really sing" sang "proper tunes" and danced in a decorous way. The blackface makeup and minstrel costume simply seemed part of that period schtick, just like the long skirts and feather boas of 'the Good Old Days' (old TV show set in Victorian music hall). By the 1950s the whole tradition was already a hundred years old, so its racist roots were no longer obvious to you. Unless, of course, you were black.

RLamb (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you sum it up well. But what is "AAVE"? TrottieTrue (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Presumably African-American Vernacular English. Mighty Antar (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. TrottieTrue (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The article merely lists the historical data of the show. It would be inappropriate to write an opinionated piece as this would be non-encylopedic and outwith the spirit of Wikipedia. Paul210 (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Read what I said. I'm saying there should be an explanation of why it continued so long. We can't write our own opinions, but surely loads of people at the time expressed *their* opinions about it which we *can* write about? I don't think any complete article about this "show" can ignore the arguments that no doubt took place around it. --86.142.170.168 (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It continued for so long because it was incredibly popular. There were increasing complaints about the show, but ratings mattered more. HairyWombat 02:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well,why not do some research and write it up yourself? Paul210 (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User 86.142.170.168, please get a grip! I know people are a bit precious about race these days, but by the time of the Black and White Minstrel Show it wouldn't have been seen by its viewers as a representation of black people. Others above have pointed out that these "blackface" minstrel shows were a well established genre and musical style. I think it's best seen in context by comparing it with a similar show at that time "The Good Old Days". That was a faux Victorian Musical hall, with comedy acts, musical numbers etc. The audience used to wear period costumes (you'd see Army officers wearing redcoats and white helmets; Victorian Admirals' uniforms, etc), they even had a master of ceremonies who used to start the next act with the bang of a gavel! Basically it was something of "nostalgia", a period piece really. The Black and White Minstrel Show was really something of that sort, showing minstrel shows, which had a long run, including the first commercial sound film "The Jazz Singer" with Al Jolson. I don't think the makers were racist in the sense that they weren't setting out to "objectify" or "stereotype" black people. They were portraying a particular musical style, one which was meant for a live audience, and so seen as easily adaptable for the (then) new medium of television! The show was popular, which is why it ran for 20 years. I'll lay my cards on the table. I was only very young when it finished, but my mother and grandparents liked it (not sure of my father's attitude). They liked it because they liked the musical style. I hated it! I found it boring, and couldn't understand the point of the black make-up! I also loved the send up of it on The Goodies (which has been repeated far more in Australia than in the UK BTW) which ridiculed the whole concept! I think the point is that most people couldn't really see a connection that show and racism for much of it’s run (even that 1967 petition only had 200 signatures which is pitiful really), and there were far worse things at that time too. I’m talking about boarding houses with “No Blacks” or “No Coloureds” signs. I’m talking about Tarzan and other shows showing “restless natives” with “black magic” and other superstitions in deepest, darkest Africa. Now that’s real stereotyping! We should also bare in mind though that there were positive portrayals of back people too in that time, and there were shows which lampooned “racist attitudes” like ‘Till Death Us Do Part and Love Thy Neighbour. In fact you could say that the character Alf Garnet is more of a derogatory stereotype of the war generation than the B&WMS is of people of African extraction!

Coloured minstrels

I remember this show and remember, before it was finally cancelled, that they tried a variation where the singers were in "coloured" face. That is to say, still with white lips and eyes but with faces of assorted colours including blue and green. I remember one singer wore large coloured spots. The article doesn't mention this variation. Does anybody know of a reference for it? HairyWombat 02:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't that a sketch comedy show send up? Perhaps The Two Ronnies? Format (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC) ---> No. It was The Goodies. Format (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My recollection is that the programme was a "straight" Minstrel show, with the green and blue blackface an attempt to divert criticism. By the 1970s the criticism was rampant. But it was a long time ago, so my memory may be playing tricks. HairyWombat 15:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

DVD Release?

Is there a DVD release of these shows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.54.85 (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Not a chance (though there could always be bootlegs around, I suppose). 68.147.116.14 (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Australian tour

The stage show performed in Sydney when I was a boy, early 1960s I'd guess but could have been earlier, I was taken to see them... guys in blackface with straw boater hats, ties and and blazers etc., girls in several changes of costume all very short-skirted, I particularly remember a beefeater or Swiss guard theme complete with halberds. The singing was excellent, that's probably why I was taken. Andrewa (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Which was it?

Music Music Music… replaced The Black and White Minstrel Show. It did well, with viewing figures to match the Minstrels…

But then:

Music Music Music, a "whiteface" version of the show, had been tried, only to lose viewers.

Can't be both. Valetude (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"Popularity"

Shouldn't "Morecombe" be "Morecambe"? I don't know of a place called "MorecOmbe", but with an A it is a well known Lancashire seaside resort. All right if you like that sort of place, but at least let it be spelt correctly. Sarandone (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, go ahead and edit it then... thankfully, someone now has. --TrottieTrue (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Surely the main reason this show is notable now is its use of blackface, but this is not mentioned at all in the lead paragraph. I think it should be included there. Newburyjohn (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)