Get this "are you a racist" conversation back to a "is this thing racist" conversation

February 17, 2012 1:07 PM

Help me convince my choir director that we should not perform this minstrel song in our concert.

My choir (community, 30ish people, majority white, age range 25-70) is doing a concert of American music in May. We're singing a mix of early New England music, gospel, modern pieces, but also on the program is a Stephen Foster minstrel song called The Glendy Burk. Yes, the plan is to sing it in dialect.

I'm not that up on my music history, and when he told us at the second rehearsal that it had been a minstrel piece, I gritted my teeth but decided not to say anything because the lyrics we were practicing were fairly innocuous. Then comes last week and we got to the third-to-last stanza. For reference, this is an extremely happy, peppy song throughout. I wish I had said something then, which is part of the reason I'd like to say something now while I have the chance.

One of the older (in years and choir tenure) members decided it was more than he could take and emailed the choir director to request that we not sing it. Musical selections are not up for discussion in this choir as a rule, but the director decided we should have a conversation about it. The conversation was what really pushed me over the edge - up until then I was still thinking that maaaaybe the right song introduction could 'put it in context', but not anymore. Things I heard/reasons given that we should "be allowed" to perform it:

- Foster's minstrel songs are better than others. The director was leaning pretty heavily on a quote from Stephen Foster saying he (Foster) hoped to write minstrel music that would be more sensitive than "some songs of that order."
- The choir has performed lots of Christian music (renaissance and classical is our main era, so this is a given) and songs about 15th century prostitutes and so on, so if we can perform that offensive music we should "be allowed" to perform this
- You can't start listening to one person's offense, because soon you won't be able to perform anything
- "I (white guy) don't feel offended by this song, and I don't think our audience should be either."
- "I know a black person who is not personally offended by minstrel music."
- "We are not a political group, we're a choir. There's nothing political about us singing this song in the 21st century."
- "The director knows more than us singers about music and musical history, so if he thinks we should sing it we shouldn't argue for him. We can't start putting all our repertoire for a vote!"

- Most worrisome from my perspective (and giving that this is the guy who would be giving/writing the 'context' introduction), when the director was trying to describe minstrel music to a choir member who didn't grow up in the states, I commented that our particular minstrel song even have verses about people picking cotton and getting hit with whips. His response: "Do you think there's something un-noble about picking cotton?"
- When other people mentioned their concern about how happy the song sounds in contrast to the violent lyric, he said "Are you sure this is supposed to be a happy song? Maybe it's a song about how he's going to leave and get out of that situation", which felt pretty disingenuous to me.

I just...jeez. I heard just about every justification that people give for not wanting to give up racist behavior, with tensions and defensiveness running high enough that it was clear at least some people felt like they were being accused of racism. The director ended the discussion to get back to rehearsal, said he would make a decision by next week's rehearsal, and invited people to email him if they had further thoughts. He pretty strongly implied he was inclined to keep the song. I feel like I need to write that email, but my director has definitely dug himself into that hole where he can't drop it and save face. This discussion was started on the choir listserv, so I feel like I have the option of sending it either just to him or to the whole choir.

At this point my feeling is that the whole song is one giant racial stereotype. There's no possibility of cutting the worst verses (And I'm no longer convinced that'd be sufficient) because the director has strong feelings on altering composers' intentions. We will either sing it or not sing it. Even if the director gives a speech before and includes program notes to 'put it in context', I have a strong feeling that the speech will be along the lines of "Of course slavery was bad, but here is a list of reasons that we as modern performers should be able to sing it."

I would love links to good arguments against (especially nearly all-white, apparently pretty privilege-unaware) choirs performing arrangements of minstrel songs. Particularly helpful would be ones that make a case FOR performing other Foster songs that are not giant balls of racial caricature. (I think he'd be able to save face by using a different Foster song, but he has said "I think you're drawing a pretty fine distinction" when someone pointed out that we could sing a different song by the same composer - i.e. if any of them are not-okay, they are all equally not-okay.) Beautiful arrangements of less racist Foster songs would be great!

But more importantly, I need help getting across the idea that, ala Jay Smooth, while I am not accusing him of being a racist, this thing he wants to do is racist, or at the very least has the potential to look racist. One line of argument which I think is a strong one and that I've seen here on Metafilter is - why is it so important to you to be able to do this one thing? What do you lose by not being "allowed" to do it? What message are you sending by choosing to do it? (since nobody is actually forcing you not to do it.) Was there a longer comment or linked article somewhere on Metafilter along these lines? I'd love to be able to look at it for inspiration. The choir director appears to me to be deep in defensive-mode already, and since he's been arguing for including the piece it will be hard for him to change his mind without losing face.

Unlike this question I don't plan to write him a novel, but I would like to express my feelings to him in a way that has some chance of being effective. What should I say? How do I evaluate the tradeoff of the more public call-out of the listserv versus the private (maybe more face-saving) appeal?

[e-mail] for details and questions (I don't want this question linked to my location)

posted by anonymous to Human Relations (55 answers total)

Just a quick thought - one thing you might raise with him is the tremendous likelihood of LOTS of negative attention for the choir, especially with Facebook and social media being the way they are. You could end up as tumblr's clueless/racist white people of the week, you could get a lot of angry calls and voicemails, you could end up with a de facto googlebomb about the organization. If the dude is too pig-stubborn to respond to ethical argument, you might be able to dissuade him through fear.

I also suggest that if he does forge ahead, you resign. It will suck, but it will suck much less than having to think back on participating or explain it if it ever comes up. Believe me, I know this personally both as a non-resigner in a related situation and as a resigner. Leaving is better. And let people know why you left - that it was him.
posted by Frowner at 1:12 PM on February 17, 2012 [25 favorites]

Jeus Christ, what the hell is he thinking?!?!?

I would just quit now before the firestorm hits. Seriously, people are going to freak the fuck out over this.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:14 PM on February 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

"I might not be the only person who finds this song, performed this way, by our choir, to be offensive. Do you want to risk people remembering this concert because they were offended by it?"
posted by Etrigan at 1:15 PM on February 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Whether or not people are going to freak out remains to be seen. The decision has been made and there's probably nothing you can do to change it. You now need to decide if YOU are going to sing it.
posted by DWRoelands at 1:17 PM on February 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Here are some nuanced takes from people with distinguished expertise in their fields of why Foster's songs are significant historical documents, but why not all of them are suitable for performance at public entertainments today.

I think this guy is just going to double down on his horrible decision at this point, though.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:18 PM on February 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

You can show him this clip from the UK's "Black and White Minstrel Show (warning: holy shit offensive) and tell him that this is what people are going to see when they see you up on stage singing that song.
posted by griphus at 1:18 PM on February 17, 2012

Ken Emerson, a Stephen Foster scholar, has some wise things to say here.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:19 PM on February 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

You guys have tried .. he's digging in. You can't control him - you can control you. Decide if this is something you want to be attached to, possibly permanently via the power of the internet, and act accordingly.
posted by dotgirl at 1:20 PM on February 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

And the choral director is being disingenuous when he says "But then there aren't any Stephen Foster songs we can sing!" Only a small percentage of Foster's oeuvre was minstrel-show songs or "plantation" songs; he wrote at least double that number of "parlor songs" like "I Dream of Jeannie with the Light Brown Hair" and "Beautiful Dreamer" and others less well known.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:20 PM on February 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

I would probably skip the persuasiveness aspect and say "I think this is a bad idea that will bring negative attention on the group, and I am personally uncomfortable with it. I will not be performing that day and will be reconsidering my participation overall. Good luck to you."

And then I'd quit and never come back, because I am wildly uncomfortable with aligning my reputation with people who are unshakably convinced that their ignorance makes them invulnerable. YMMV, of course.
posted by restless_nomad at 1:20 PM on February 17, 2012 [57 favorites]

You cannot take back the performance once you do it, so I agree with Frowner -- resign if the director doesn't back down.

If I were in your position, I would say this very bluntly: "I am not accusing anyone of being a racist, but if we perform this song, we will be doing something that is unequivocally and undeniably racist."
posted by spiderskull at 1:21 PM on February 17, 2012 [12 favorites]

I think about all you can say is that even if he feels comfortable with this piece, the chances are extremely high that others will be profoundly offended. Moreover, there is no good reason this piece should be performed.

Also, as others have said, if I were you I'd politely let him know that you will not be rehearsing or performing this piece.

Believe me, if this performance moves forward he will not be your director much longer.
posted by bearwife at 1:22 PM on February 17, 2012

I don't, actually, see how this song is any more or less racist than most other Stephen Foster songs--at least of his songs that are written in a "negro dialect" and from the perspective of a black person (Oh Susannah, My Old Kentucky Home, Old Folks at Home, Camptown Races--most of those are actually more overtly racist in their lyrics than this one. I wonder if the argument to make isn't "we mustn't ever perform these songs" but rather "we can't perform these songs without providing context"? Stephen Foster is hugely important to the history of American popular music (both black and white traditions). It would seem to me to be a loss if we were to say "this music can never be performed because it is a legacy of a terrible period in US history." Why not use this as a chance to explicitly talk about race and the history of slavery and minstrelsy rather than just self-censor?
posted by yoink at 1:23 PM on February 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Speaking as a choir director, you are entirely within your rights as a choirster to recuse yourself from the performance on this basis. I've programmed religious music with my choir and had staunch atheists in the choir tell me they would not be performing those pieces.

If your choir director has any sense at all, he will accept that this is an issue for you and let you step away from that performance.

I leave it to your own discretion whether this incident is enough for you to terminate your relationship with the choir overall.
posted by LN at 1:29 PM on February 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

Suggest that verse be skipped.
posted by michaelh at 1:31 PM on February 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Just show them this. Tell them they'll get the same treatment.
posted by narcoleptic at 1:33 PM on February 17, 2012

Why not use this as a chance to explicitly talk about race and the history of slavery and minstrelsy rather than just self-censor?

I hear you. The difficulty with this approach, I think, is that it's a community choir concert and not a symposium. I'm not sure the opportunity exists to have the dialogue you imagine in this particular context without changing the fundamental nature of what the choir is there to do and the audience is there to hear. There's a difference between "these songs may never be performed" and "these songs perhaps belong in a context where an exchange about them is going to happen, and that exchange is what the people present came for."

To use an analogy that may be extreme, I don't think it's the case that nobody should ever watch or show Birth Of A Nation again, but I think it would be unwise to program it at your local revival house as part of a series called "American Classics" where people don't know it's coming, pop the popcorn, and go, "...What?"
posted by Linda_Holmes at 1:35 PM on February 17, 2012 [15 favorites]

Why not use this as a chance to explicitly talk about race and the history of slavery and minstrelsy rather than just self-censor?

"This thing is bad. We're going to do it, so you can see how bad it is." I'm sure that'll work great.

Seriously, white people performing a minstrel song is like a German choir today singing the Horst Wessel Song. It's a racist song, the intent of its writing was for white people to make a mockery of black people.
posted by Jon_Evil at 1:38 PM on February 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

My suggestion will probably get you booted from the choir sooner or later, but that still would be a lot better for all concerned than going ahead with this, in my opinion.

Find the names and email addresses of at least 3 black church-associated choir directors in your area, then ask your director if he would object if you were to write to these people to ask what they thought of this project.

If he doesn't want that (my bet, anyway) you've essentially won the argument.

If he's okay with it, then share the results with the rest of your choir and let the mutiny begin.
posted by jamjam at 1:39 PM on February 17, 2012 [9 favorites]

I think that context is everything. A self-aware understanding of Foster's music and how it fits into American musical heritage is important. "Beautiful Dreamer" and "Oh Susannah" are most certainly part of our musical heritage and those works are important to understand. The legacy of minstrel songs and what they say about the time period (and attitudes towards slavery) is important.

Things run aground is when the song is presented out of context. Based on what's said in the OP it sounds like the director is either not grounded enough historically, or is unwilling to present the full context. (And even if the full context IS presented, there is still lots of room for misinterpretation.)

What is the governing / fundraising structure of the choir? Many community arts organizations have fairly clear sponsors (civil groups, etc.), others are independent nonprofits with a board of trustees. Sometimes the music director is a dictator, but in other groups he is accountable (in one way or another) to the board and the sponsors / donors. Raising concerns "up the chain of command" may get results, depending on the structure of the group.
posted by QuantumMeruit at 1:42 PM on February 17, 2012

Seconding LN most fervently, although I agree with many other comments above. I think a succinct email from you to the director saying that you are not comfortable performing the piece will suffice.

I think you are putting a lot of heat on yourself to make an unassailable argument here and there is no need for it since the discussion about racism has already taken place. The heat, if any, should be on the director to make a principled, wise choice on behalf of the choir that he is directing. I assume this is a community chorus, so you're a volunteer and can back away from any performance at any time.

Maybe he'll back down in the meantime.
posted by Currer Belfry at 1:42 PM on February 17, 2012

If it were me, I'd resign before letting my face/voice end up on the internet somewhere singing racist songs. Regardless of context. No one but your director, in the end, will care about context; they'll see you singing a racist song.

He might argue that that is wrong, but he has no right to take you on his doomed campaign. Ditch and tell him why.
posted by emjaybee at 1:45 PM on February 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

It's a racist song, the intent of its writing was for white people to make a mockery of black people.

Well, no, that's not actually the case. Minstrelsy is far more complex than that. Watch "The Jazz Singer," for example. When Al Jolson sings "Mammy" we're meant to be moved to tears. We're not meant to be laughing at the silly comical black person. Similarly in "The Glendy Burk" our sympathies lie with the speaker, not with the white people who hit him with the flail.

It may well be the case that the issue is just too difficult to address in the context of this concert (and perhaps that's an argument for choosing one of the more well-known Foster songs like "My Old Kentucky Home" where some of the 'contextualizing' work has already been done for you), but I personally dislike the idea of censoring art because it's associated with unpleasant historical situations.
posted by yoink at 1:45 PM on February 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

To address the context issue - again, as a choir director, let me say that it is *fucking hard* to provide much in the way of context for a song during a community choir performance, and there is a great deal to get in the way of that information making it to its intended recipients. Your director can say he's going to provide context, but the audience is going to get some small fraction of that, and come away with an impression of the performance based on the thing they came to hear: the singing.

Step away, step away...
posted by LN at 1:50 PM on February 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Why not use this as a chance to explicitly talk about race and the history of slavery and minstrelsy rather than just self-censor?

In reply to you and the OP, the answer is that it's because because it's a community choir putting on a light American-music concert. The audience both doesn't want to deal with anything even approaching a "minstrel show" and at the same time doesn't want to be subjected to an extended lecture on "race and the history of slavery and minstrelsy" at a light community music event. If one wants to argue that the song is ok to sing when it is "put in context," it is even more crucial to point out that this event is not the appropriate context for the song.

On another note, you're well within the bounds of etiquette to bow out of participating in this concert. There will be other concerts. There's no upside to participating.
posted by deanc at 1:53 PM on February 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

It sounds like several of the choir members feel similarly. You and they should simply let the director know that you're not comfortable performing this song, and if it's in the program, you'll have to sit the performance out.

I've been in similar situations in the past. When you get in a discussion about what is and isn't racism, especially in relationship to the arts, it's a conversation that can go on forever. You don't need to convince the director that it's wrong to perform the song. Only that you would feel wrong in doing so.
posted by zombiedance at 1:58 PM on February 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

the audience is going to get some small fraction of that, and come away with an impression of the performance based on the thing they came to hear: the singing.

Well, just for context's sake, here's a choir singing The Glendy Burk. If the OP's setting is at all like that, I don't think the thought uppermost in anyone's mind is going to be "OMG, it's the most racist thing ever!"

As for contextualization, I'm not sure it needs a lot more than something like "Stephen Foster is, of course, one of the greatest of all composers of American popular music. There won't be a person in this room who doesn't know one of his songs, such as "O Susannah" or "Swanee River" or "My Old Kentucky Home." Some of you may be less aware, though, that these songs were written for performance in minstrel shows, where white people would don blackface to sing in the character of black slaves. We had an earnest debate about whether we ought to even perform this song given that it is written in a "comic" black dialect (as all Foster's "minstrel" songs are), but in the end we thought it best to keep these songs alive for their brilliant melodic inventiveness (much of it, of course, drawing on black folk song traditions) while recognizing that they emerge from a sad chapter in our country's history."
posted by yoink at 2:03 PM on February 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

If you feel like trying to present a solution, offer to help write up the context on a single sheet that can be included in the program. That could even include something like "This piece was a controversial choice for our group and we had strong debates as to whether it should be included in the program. In the end we decided to continue with it because (come up with some better arguments than the ones he provided)." I think that can make a difference for how the audience percieves it.

Otherwise, say you aren't comfortable singing that song and you'll have to step down for that piece.

I'm thinking of how Huck Finn gets complaints and demands that it be removed from libraries, despite the fact that it's rather important that we have this record of how we behaved. I don't think we should try to wipe out the shameful parts of our history and pretend they didn't happen. But I know what it's like to feel visceral discomfort over a piece and I'd want to maintain my right to not sing anything that disgusts me.
posted by bunderful at 2:11 PM on February 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

And talk to him directly - not by sending an email to the group. Unless you want to spark a mutiny but are also ok with being kicked out.
posted by bunderful at 2:36 PM on February 17, 2012

Obviously you shouldn't sing it if the choir isn't comfortable singing it. This is the point of a community choir. That said, I can't help but think that this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Performing music from different historical periods, one runs into these kinds of issues all the time.

Sure the lyrics are in "dialect," but no more than the "dialects" and accents written into plenty of works that are performed all the time without a second thought. For example, we have from a famous number in the often-performed Kern/Hammerstein musical Show Boat the following: "Dere's an ol' man called de Mississippi / Dat's de ol' man dat I'd like to be! / What does he care if de world's got troubles? /What does he care if de land ain't free? / Ol' man river, / Dat ol' man river / He mus'know sumpin' / But don't say nuthin', / He jes'keeps rollin' / He keeps on rollin' along." And, of course, if you like you can de-dialect many of the lyrics in "The Glendy Burk." And choirs of all kinds have been known to perform arrangements of so-called "negro spirituals" with some dialectical pronunciations. Sounds funny to my ears when it's done by a choir of white high school kids from Sheboygan, but it's still done all the time and not disrespectfully. So this aspect doesn't seem like it's necessarily a deal-breaker.

Then there's the issue that it's allegedly a "minstrel song" and some might find it offensive to perform a song associated with blackface minstrelcy. To that I would point out two things, both of which can be referenced by taking a look at this exhaustive list of blackface minstrel songs. First, you may note that "The Glendy Burk" does not appear on the list. Second, if you believe that performing any song on this list would be offensive to modern society, say goodbye to "Camptown Races," "Carry Me Back to Old Virginny," "Ching a Ring Chaw" (which was even set by Copeland!), "My Old Kentucky Home," "Oh! Susanna," "Turkey in the Straw" and other songs that I'm guessing the choir may have performed without a second thought. It's not like you're being asked to sing "Gonna Eat Ma Chicken 'Til I'm Fried" or "N****r on de Wood Pile." So perhaps not a definitive deal-breaker either.

Then there's the issue that one verse references maltreatment of African-Americans (probably of African slaves in America). Again, maltreatment of people or peoples is something that is referenced in plenty of songs that are performed all the time. Certainly it comes up in "Ol' Man River" referenced above. But there are of course songs that reference maltreatment of practically any minority group you could name. For that matter, there are any number of songs that are performed with some frequency that celebrate doing bad things to other groups or people. Have a look at a translation of La Marseillaise sometime. And, of course, this verse could always be omitted if the choir finds it offensive. So this too seems like something that's not necessarily a deal-breaker.

Lastly I suppose there is an issue as to whether it's something that's done so rarely that it might possibly be deemed "generally considered offensive." This however doesn't seem to be the case, as there are plenty of performances by all kinds of people on YouTube, and that of course is just a sample.


All of which is to say that you of course have every right to have your own opinions and make your own decisions. But it's easy for a liberally-minded white person living in the modern age to have a knee-jerk reaction to seeing something that's written in what today would be an offensive caricature dialect, and that one hears was once a minstrel song (and everyone knows we never ever sing those songs in polite society these days), and so on and so on and to decide that it would be horribly offensive to perform it. And I'm not saying that it necessarily wouldn't be horribly offensive. I'm just pointing out that it's perhaps a more subtle issue than it might at first appear.
posted by slkinsey at 2:37 PM on February 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'm at a big convention of choral directors as we speak (ACDA East). The thing that's struck me most here, as a relative outsider (I'm here as a composer) is the dedication and love with which these people talk about their singers' needs, what's good for their singers, what would please/excite their singers, etc.

Your director, on the other hand, seems to have a tin ear (and/or a weird disregard) for the emotional pulse of the group. Singing something that's become this serious a source of conflict will put it far out of the spirit in which it was originally chosen. I agree that it sounds not worth it for you to be part of this, assuming there's no change.
posted by kalapierson at 2:39 PM on February 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

I think the dialect aspect is the most difficult part; the song itself is a staple of old time music (finstance: "The Glendy Burke" by the Albemarle Ramblers - Arnie Naiman, Pete Vigour, Dick Harrington) and can be performed with joy and finesse.
posted by scruss at 2:45 PM on February 17, 2012

You should leave - this will become a mess you don't want to be a part of.
posted by mleigh at 2:54 PM on February 17, 2012

I think that if you consider MeFi to be a thoughtful, progressive group of people, what this thread makes clear is that there is no clearcut "YES! DTMFA! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!" answer here. And honestly, we're pretty good at giving that answer around here.

In an issue with two well balanced sides to the same coin, I would respect the right of the choir director to call it. You, of course, have the right to choose not to participate and to resign, but I think slkinsey's points are well made and well supported and would probably back out of my initial reaction were I you. Which I very much am not.
posted by DarlingBri at 3:01 PM on February 17, 2012

I'm an instrumentalist (not a choir singer, although I have performed with choirs frequently). FWIW, I think the right choice, as many have pointed out, is to sit out the piece, and the concert if need be, if you're uncomfortable doing it. I well understand that the decision to drop entirely out of a performing ensemble you otherwise enjoy can be painful (I go through it on a bi-monthly basis because I love playing in an orchestra but the conductor is an ass), but if the choice is between being a member and doing something that you find offensive vs. not being a member, I think your choice is made.

I also think you're well within bounds to PRIVATELY e-mail the choir director. I think there's enough subjectivity in this sort of thing to have some understanding that people themselves are not necessarily evil or racist for thinking such a thing is okay, but any such debate is just a side-bar. You're not accusing them of being racist. You're suggesting that to do a thing is offensive, and your opinion is worth something. Just set out your argument, and don't get drawn into a long discussion about supposed implications (are you saying we're racist?), complications (why, we'd never be able to sing Stephen Foster again!), etc. Stick to the ONE piece in front of you and explain why you don't feel you should do this one thing.

The reason I wouldn't recommend getting it stirred up on the list-serv is that, as you have seen with the in-person discussions, people are just unfortunately not wired to discussing something like this very rationally. It always veers toward the ad-hominem, the self-justifying, and the turf-protecting, and if it's this way in person, anything done on the internet will be 1000X worse.

A quick anecdote about context, and how it can go - perhaps it will steel your resolve. Of course, the song "Dixie" is viewed in an unfavorable light. It was a high school fight song and the like in the south as recently as the early '80s, when I was in h.s. I can't remember if I ever played it as a stand-alone piece as a student, but it may be that at one time or another I did. But as an adult, I wouldn't play it, and I haven't been asked to play it - as a stand-alone piece. It was part of a civil war medley in a concert I played several years back, and in that context I thought it was okay.

Until the audience I was playing for (white, southern, upper-middle class, kind of small town) got to their feet and started clapping and cheering.

And then I felt pretty bad for having been part of that.

I do not think the choir/orchestra director in that case intended this, and he has never programmed that medley again, but the memory has stuck with me.

It seems to me that if you're on the fence about something, there's only two ways the performance can go, neither of them good. You can see some shocked looks in the audience. Perhaps an African-american member of the audience walking out.

Or it can turn out to be the hit of the concert.

How will either result make you feel?
posted by randomkeystrike at 3:04 PM on February 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Maybe I'm just cynical, but the way I see this going is that the song is performed and the racist elements either go over the head of the audience or are ignored because of their indifference/prejudice/ignorance.

You say the audience/community is majorly white, 35 to 70. I doubt it'll cause any problems at all, honestly (which is in itself a problem), and that people will laugh at the dialect. The only thing that could even tip them off that the song was portraying a racial charicature would be for y'all to be wearing blackface. But like I said, I'm a pretty cynical person and I see the ignorance and prejudice of people, of so many people, on a regular basis. I presume that most people, unless someone calls them out on it in a big way, won't challenge their ignorance/prejudice.

Anyway, if you sit out the concert but stay with the company, this is something that the director would most likely lord over you for a long time to come, the fact that things were fine. But that won't change the fact that the director is an ignorant and insensitive person, particularly to the thoughts and desires of his performers. I wouldn't stay with that troupe no matter what.
posted by Modica at 3:17 PM on February 17, 2012

It seems ridiculous to me, honestly, to argue for white people singing a song of dubious historical antecedents that is racially charged, at a light concert or at any other concert. If a history lesson is intended, surely there is a period recording which can be played along with a clear talk about the song, its various interpretations and the complex and painful things it represents. If a black performer - or conceivably a white person or someone else with very close social ties to people of color and a good, solid artistic justification - wants to perform and examine or reclaim the song, that's something else. But if you doubt that you're that performer, then you almost certainly are not the one to pick this up.

As to censorship - a fig for censorship! You could stand in the town square at rush hour and sing any racist song you liked and there would be no legal consequences. There's be social consequences because you chose that song, out of all the other ones you could have chosen. And you might get a poke in the snoot, as we say around here. Similarly, if I say hurtful or thoughtless things, the Stasi aren't going to come and take me away, and if there's some pressing reason to say hurtful things it may even be the right thing to do. But if I'm actively choosing to say hurtful things, well, folks will judge accordingly.

Also, here's what I think. IME, I have met lots of people of color who are just sick of this shit. Maybe folks aren't going to make a thing about the confederate flag bumper sticker, or the Lady Antebellum CD, or the entitled white folks metaphorically pushing to the front of every line, but I have definitely had conversations in which people have expressed weariness. When you're choosing to do one of those wearying things, you're saying, basically, that you're not thinking about the simple social comfort of many people of color. (Some folks of course just don't care that much, of course.) That would be the kind of social comfort that white folks get about race and history almost all the time, to the point where we don't notice it. I have myself accidentally made people of color frustrated, angry and uncomfortable by choices at public events a couple of times over the years - it's so easy to be thoughtless that my feeling is that white folks really ought to concentrate on never dropping the ball on the obvious ones. If you don't drop the ball on the obvious ones, then when you accidentally do something stupid, your ensuing apology has a lot more meaning. Please trust me on this. And don't sing the song.
posted by Frowner at 3:24 PM on February 17, 2012 [14 favorites]

Ah crud. I realize I borked that link to the choral rendition of The Glendy Burk above. Here's the link. There's also a version by the Sons of the Pioneers. One interesting thing to note about both performances is that they just normalize the "dialect" (as, indeed, do most performances I know of most of the Stephen Foster songs).
posted by yoink at 3:26 PM on February 17, 2012

it's so easy to be thoughtless that my feeling is that white folks really ought to concentrate on never dropping the ball on the obvious ones

The problem being that it's entirely open for argument as to whether this is an "obvious one." If you're saying that no white person can ever perform any song originally written in black dialect and which refers to black labor then you're cutting a pretty wide swath through the American song book--much, much wider, I expect, than you realize. I'm loathe to think of my "Be Good Tanya's" album as "obviously racist" because they perform "O Susanna" for example.
posted by yoink at 3:44 PM on February 17, 2012

Also, as far as the argument given above that this performance is for politically unsophisticated white people who are unlikely to care - I have done a very stupid thing where this logic was in my head. Well, not that logic precisely, but definitely assuming that I would have a white audience who would be paying attention to only the conscious, intentional, surface part of what I had to say and not to the absences or subtexts.

1. You never know who will be in the room. You don't know who is biracial or married to a person of color, etc etc. I guarantee that while American life is really, really segregated, it isn't that segregated. When we make a choice to target things at a white audience, we are inevitably going to be in front of POC/people close to POC who will recognize their exclusion. I promise that this is true. (Unless you're doing, like, "anti-racism 101 for white people" or something where it makes moral sense to assume a white audience.)

2. One way that we keep preserving screwed-up racial dynamics (not the biggest way, though) is I think assuming that a performance in front of a white audience should be written to a specifically white perspective. So we assume that if we're talking to a white audience, it's okay to omit things, or rely on common racial understandings rather than bring those things up to the light. Here is an example. Once in college (I went to an almost 100% white college in the rolling prairie) I was looking for a friend who was meeting me at the library. I asked the front desk workers if they'd noticed him - he was really tall and not a student, so they might have. I described him as "about so high, long hair, a white guy" and when I said that he was white there was visible surprise. Not because they'd been expecting me to be meeting a person of color, but because naming the fact that the guy was white seemed weird; everyone was assuming that of course we were all white, the guy would be white, and so I did not even need to specify. That was a shared racial understanding. By specifying the guy's race, I stopped targeting my rhetoric to a white audience with a shared racial understanding; I was talking about whiteness as an identifier, not leaving it to be the default. This was not because I was wonderful and intentional. It was pretty random, but I have never forgotten. I think it can be powerful for white folks (both for ourselves when we speak or perform) and for our audiences if we try to figure out how not to speak to those shared unconscious racial understandings.
posted by Frowner at 3:54 PM on February 17, 2012 [9 favorites]

I think it can be powerful for white folks (both for ourselves when we speak or perform) and for our audiences if we try to figure out how not to speak to those shared unconscious racial understandings.

True. It seems to me that performing this song with a brief intro like the one I sketched up above is closer to doing what you describe than simply omitting the song altogether. If they perform the song but talk a little about its history then they've done a brief act of consciousness raising. They've made their mostly-white audience think a little about the history of racial injustice in this country. If they omit it, they've said "hey, let's not think about this at all--it's all just too messy and unpleasant."
posted by yoink at 4:20 PM on February 17, 2012

I like the idea of asking the pastors of the town's churches that have a lot of African Americans in them. They might have some great wording and some very pertinent information that would work for your town, exactly.
posted by small_ruminant at 4:29 PM on February 17, 2012

If your director does end up insisting you perform the piece, I think the most powerful statement you could make is for you and the others who are uncomfortable with to leave the stage as the song is announced, file to the side, and stand or sit silently.

There doesn't have to be an explanation to the audience, but to anyone who is offended by the music, your reason for non-participation will be clear, and it at least shows them that their offense is known and understood and taken seriously by some of the choir, which might mean they feel less marginalised. And maybe some people who weren't offended will notice and ask about it later, and it might lead to them challenging their own prejudices a little.
posted by lollusc at 4:29 PM on February 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

The choral performances of this on Youtube don't sing the verse about whipping. For example this and this. I also dislike the verse that says his lady is "as pretty as a pink" but that's just me. I don't see why it can't be performed without that one verse.
posted by Danila at 4:45 PM on February 17, 2012

I also dislike the verse that says his lady is "as pretty as a pink"

A pink is a carnation.
posted by yoink at 5:06 PM on February 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

A pink is a dianthus, not a carnation, but yeah, it's a flower.

If you look at the PBS page I link to, you'll see a bunch of people who have thought about the tradition of minstrelsy, and Stephen Foster's work in particular, far more than I who are basically saying "This is part of the US's musical heritage. However, it needs context for understanding--just performing this stuff as entertainment isn't likely to go over well with an audience."

I am not seeing, in this choir director (based on the comments described here) someone who is capable of giving this work the appropriate context. I have been at school community concerts where minstrel songs were performed by all white (or mostly white with a few East Asian-
American singers) groups, and the reactions ranged from awkward silence to people walking out in anger to a weeks-long battle of letters in the local newspaper's editorial page.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:52 PM on February 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

He should drop the verse. If he balks, invite local church groups that are predominantly African American, and make sure to proudly point out that he insisted on the selection.
posted by anildash at 8:30 PM on February 17, 2012

The reactionary attitude, "we'll, excuuuuse me for not being politically correct!" has had a pretty good run for the last couple of decades but I think that sensitive white people need to stop worrying about being seen as shrill or effete. If YOU find it offensive, vote with your feet on this concert.

Hard Times: Come Again No More could be suggested as an alternate. I like the version by Thomas Hampson that's on YouTube.
posted by bonobothegreat at 8:42 PM on February 17, 2012

I think some of the things you get to say include the following.

1. He has a right to sing this song. First amendment-wise, he has the right to sing any lyric.

2. He has the right to choose the music your choir sings. He's the director. The final decision is his.

3. From a technical aspect, the choir may be skilled enough to sing the song. That is, technically, they may have the talent to sing the song beautifully.

4. The song may be interesting - from a musical, not sociological, standpoint, it may be both a challenge and a joy for the choir to work on together, and to perform.

5. There are many people in the audience who would probably enjoy hearing the song.

6. The composer did not specifically intend to offend African Americans, and it is not clear that all African Americans - or anyone in fact listening to you sing in your audience - would be offended by hearing the song.

In light of that, why not sing the song, and the verse that might offend? Because a song has to be selected with both it's ensemble and it's audience in mind. And in both cases, I think the question is whether this song is worth the potential cost - which is, whether the director is prepared to speak to anyone in the community, since it is a community choir, who is offended. Because really, that's the important point. Since he is the director, the decider, he will also serve as the spokesperson to address concerns. It is possible for you to say that the song is interesting, and engaging and well within one's rights, but it isn't worth the possible cost. Which is ill will on the part of some in the very community he is a leader in. I think the best leaders seek to protect the the members with the least voice, often because they aren't in an position to protect themselves.

In that light - the one Black guy that someone knows who wouldn't find it offensive isn't the most relevant datapoint. The fact that this is the least offensive of Foster's songs doesn't matter. The fact that no one in the choir is racist also isn't relevant. Because decisions like this weigh both the intention, and the possible effect, on both the ensemble, and the community it serves.

You can say all that, and let him know that in a community that isn't African American, it is likely that no one will say anything, and the song will be well received. But is it worth the cost if he is wrong? If there is someone in the audience - the community - who is? Because that is what he has to weigh. I'm not sure what the prostitution song was about, but in the end, no matter how many rational arguments he lays out about why he chose to do this, he really is risking alienating someone in his community, for what? For three minutes of Foster-ieran musical delight? Particularly when there are so many other interesting songs, with the same technical challenges and musicality as this one, just sans potentially offensive lyric to African Americans, and kinda embarrassing to everyone else?

There is nothing wrong with controversy or difficult feelings, particularly when either is stirred with and acknowledgement and purpose. But it isn't clear that in this case, the controversy in the choir, or potential difficult feelings of some in the audience serves a purpose. This is important because if this is true, it suggests that he can get to the same wonderful outcome of musical growth and enjoyment for both choir and audience, without the potential issues that are dragging on this song.

So hopefully he'll consider all the positives of selecting another song, for both the ensemble and the audience, before making his final decision.

All that to say, that I think the best way to influence people when you don't have direct authority to them, is to pull back off the triggering dialogue, and give them space. Both the space of acknowledging their authority, and the difficulty of carrying that weight. Also, to help them walk through who gets affected adversely, regardless of the person's intentions, and lastly, if it's worth the cost, when another option could meet their goals (to sing a different song, or drop the verse).

And then you let them make the decision. And based on theirs, you make yours. I think it might have been Alice Walker who said something about how the South may rise again, but not in her presence. If your goal for not singing is Grar over not swaying the director's mind, then for heck's sake, just sing the song. But if your reason for not singing is because in your heart of hearts it would sadden yours to look out into the audience and see even one person stunned or looking in pain as you sing:

Dey make me mow in de hay field here
And knock my head wid de flail,
I'll go wha dey work wid de sugar
And de cane And roll on de cotton bale.

Then just tell the director that, and that you love the choir, and want to continue to be a part of it, and you'd like to find the least conspicuous time to leave before that song happens. It might mean not singing at all, or stepping out during the break, etc. But do it because it's the right thing for you, and let everyone and everything else take care of itself. They will.

Oh, and PS: Just so you don't think this is a White/Black thing, please know that in my younger years there were a ridiculous number of times that I was dancing in an all Black club, with a number of people who attended historically Black colleges, only to have the DJ actually play a song like "Put them titties on the glass". And I'd walk off the dance floor or just refuse an offer to dance - because I have a general rule about not dancing to my own degradation or that of others - and damned if EVERY time someone didn't call me out on being 'sensitive' or 'uppity' or 'bringing the drama', or try to explain to me that the singer 'didn't mean me' though it wasn't clear which woman or who's breasts he was talking about, or that they knew it was offensive 'but they didn't listen to the lyrics, they just liked the bass', or whatever.

I think that sometimes people - all people, myself included - want what we want, so we choose to ignore or deny who we directly or indirectly may adversely affect, because acknowledging it would mean that we have to change our behavior, and we don't want to. Or we think we can't without losing face. It's just kind of a human thing, I think, so go with the grace of knowing that you are going to do what is right for you in this situation, and try to go gentle on everyone else involved, eh? At least you get the choice of not singing the song, even if you don't like the possible consequences that comes with that decision. That's something. And good on you for trying to do what you believe is right, though it doesn't sound easy. :)
posted by anitanita at 10:21 PM on February 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

A pink is a dianthus, not a carnation

A carnation is a dianthus.
posted by yoink at 7:10 AM on February 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

A dianthus is "a flowering plant of a genus that includes the pinks and carnations."
♒★
posted by blueberry at 9:39 AM on February 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

Dey make me mow in de hay field here
And knock my head wid de flail,
I'll go wha dey work wid de sugar
And de cane And roll on de cotton bale.

I just want to point out that this is NOT how Black people talk, as I saw upthread...this is how some white people THINK we talk. It's part of why that book The Help is dubbed "benevolent racism;" it flattens Black folk by imposing non-Black perceptions onto Black characters while claiming noble intentions. Minstrel music doesn't even pretend to be benevolent. It's white musicians in blackface singing and performing in a way that they *think* Black people would, for the entertainment of other white people.

You are correct in thinking it's pretty damned racist. If I were you, I'd definitely consider letting local Black churches know; even if they don't do anything (small risk I'd be willing to take), I would still leave. I wouldn't want the burden of knowing that I actively participated in something like that.
posted by Ashen at 10:28 AM on February 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

Hi. I play minstrel style banjo. I don't sing, mostly because I'm not very good at singing and playing. There is a small but enthusiastic community of people who play this music - See the youtube channels of Tim Twiss and Carl Anderton (and others), or check out the Minstrel Banjo site. Rhiannon Giddens of the Carolina Chocolate Drops has been getting into the minstrel style as well. It's a delicate and often uncomfortable subject with no simple answer.

I don't speak for the early banjo community, but I think that what first attracts most people to the genre is the sound of the instrumentation (fretless, low-tuned deep plunky banjo, bones, tambourine, fiddle) and the music underlying the lyrics. Other people stumble into it by way of Civil War reenacting; the search for authenticity leads them to older style instruments, which leads them to period authentic music. There are some beautiful melodies from the era.

That's all well and good, but then there are the lyrics. Those awful, outrageously racist, offensive, unconscionable lyrics. It's a subject of endless discussion... what do you do with them? Do you substitute certain words or leave out select verses (not many people have heard the "jumped aboard the telegraph and travelled down the river" verse of Oh Susanna.) Do you omit them altogether and just play instrumentals? Or do you insist on 100% historical accuracy and belt them out, "dialect" and all? If you sanitize the lyrics but present the music in a historical context, are you doing a disservice to your audience by glossing over that aspect of our pop culture past that we should be ashamed of, and giving them an inaccurate picture? If you perform them as written, even if there is not a racist bone in your body (and let me just say that there is not, among all the players I've met), are you just perpetuating old attitudes?

Usually, these discussions always come back to context: when presented in a historical context and with enough background for the audience to understand why some of this deeply offensive stuff is about to come out of your mouth, that's one thing. When performing in a public space where people may wander by in the middle of a song, that's another. As others have said, minstrelsy is a charged and complex subject. Personally, I don't think we should sweep it under the rug... but I don't have an answer as to how exactly how it should be "preserved," either.

However... from what you have described, it sounds like the director is not looking at this from any of those angles, and is just being willfully culturally obtuse. I'm afraid don't really have a good answer, but if you decide to send one last e-mail about this to either the listserv or privately perhaps you can paraphrase or link to this passage by ethnomusicologist Greg Adams. (Relevant bit starts at 4:04, in case the auto link doesn't work.)
posted by usonian at 8:31 AM on February 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

Sigh.

Fixed links:
Tim Twiss
Carl Anderton

and

"I'm not very good at singing and playing" - at the same time.
posted by usonian at 8:57 AM on February 19, 2012

Mod note: From the OP:

Metafilter -

Thank you so, so much for this thread. I can't tell you how much I appreciate what you all wrote. To those who made arguments in favor of performing it, probably without the offending verses - thank you for your comments. They really helped me to clarify me feelings about this piece and especially the different contexts and considerations that might change the impact of this piece. I've come to understand that I won't be ok with performing this piece with this director and this choir - I simply won't perform the piece with that verse intact at all, but I personally wouldn't feel right singing even the abridged version alongside people who don't see any problem with its performance (in case it wasn't clear in my original question, some of the 'reasons yes' came from other choir members, not the director.)

When I wrote this question I was doing my best not to start worrying about what I was going to do if the piece stayed in, and I can't tell you how much I appreciated all the people who reaffirmed that I am not crazy about this, and told me they would quit if the piece didn't get dropped. You all gave me clear and well articulated ways of saying things I was having trouble putting into words, and ways to talk to a director who has put a lot of psychological investment into arguing this point. I've written and sent my plea to the director (with the primary emphasis on potential impact on audience members), and will be writing a heartfelt thank-you note to the choir member who spoke up originally.

I have no idea what's going to happen from this point, except I'll be pretty surprised if the director chooses to just drop the verse (he told us he thought Paul Robeson's decision to stop singing certain words in the 1950s hurt his performances.) But I've said my piece and I know what I'll be doing, and I would have had a much harder road to get there without all of you.

Now please stop fighting about flowers!

posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:21 AM on February 19, 2012 [4 favorites]