What exactly is this article from Punch (June 19, 1847) talking about? What is the article's opinion of the topic? How do we interpret the image of the half-European/half-African man? What sorts of stereotypes and methods of racial analysis does this seem to employ? Is this article satirical and, if so, what is it satirizing? Does it help us to understand representations of race in the period?
The first thing I note when reading this piece is the frequent (and terribly punny) wordplay -- "a healthier complexion," "colourable," "much in the dark," "black spot on public taste," "the dark and the bright side," etc. -- that all has to do with Africans' contrasting skin color (from the European standards). This light humor suggests that the article IS meant to come off as satirical, but it seems to me that it is merely jabbing at the public's tendency to fuel their interests in fads (rather than making a pointed statement about the treatment of Africans in Europe). In fact, the article goes so far in making fun of Europeans' "Ethiopian Mania" that it seems almost to say that African performers were really not worth their time and money. It seems to chastise Europeans not for taking a demeaning "noble savage" view" of Africans but for 'obsessing over something trivial or even fake' ("pretenders have been tolerated") in an attempt (possibly?) to seem more worldly.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I'm still wondering about: the "Two faces under one hood" quote is centered and printed in smaller font; is this a quote from some other periodical, literary source, etc.? Is it something the reader is meant to recognize?
From Sar:
ReplyDeleteMy response to this article is somewhat like Emma’s. In order to really understand this article I found myself reading and re-reading as well as looking up a lot of words to hopefully develop more insight into the meaning of it. The article definitely seems to be poking fun at the public’s infatuation with Ethiopians (or rather, people of a darker complexion) as well as the Ethiopians buying into being at the center of attention. I, like Emma picked up on the article’s comical use of expressions – such as “lamp-black is a drug”, “burnt cork has lost all its buoyancy”, “healthier complexion in the aspect of public amusement,” and “the public would have been as much in the dark as the Ethiopians themselves.” The meaning of these expressions-although used to describe the situation-are really taking a stab at the Ethiopians and their race. From my reading, the article seems to be describing this slowly disappearing movement of the public being awed at people of a dark complexion.
The picture of the half-European/half-African man puzzles me. Maybe I did not read the article correctly but I am confused as to the point of trying to encapsulate the “double effect” of the Ethiopian and European in the same picture. The article says that they wish to preserve in the same picture the “dark and the bright side of these Ethiopians.” I’m not sure what that means. Is it saying that the public recognizes these people of a different race as part of the European race? What do they mean when they say “bright side”?
I think this article does not necessarily help us understand representations of race in this period. It does more in satirizing then it does to produce any valuable information. I think the article would be more authentic if it did not use the play on words in its expressions.
This article seems to be satirizing the romanticism that became associated with race relations in the 19th century, post-anti slavery movement. It became fashionable to make a display of sympathizing with people with darker skin. However, this sympathy was superficial and reduced to a form of entertainment.
ReplyDeleteThis article definitely plays up the entertainment aspect of this new fad when it talks about "public amusement," "performers," and the image of soot and dye as a mask that is fading away or rubbing off. The image that goes with it also resembles the stage symbol of comedy and tragedy masks combined.
In referring to "original introducers of this black spot upon taste, the article seems to blaming a select group of people for introducing this fad into fashionable society in the first place. The reference to "St. James's" seems to point the finger toward royalty and The Court of St. James's, or the British government as a whole, albeit in a subtle and indirect way.
I expected far more incendiary comments to be paid to Ethiopians (presumably mixed-race) from the public but it seems, from this article, that the Ethiopians were an amusing trend. This portrayal is accurate in Vanity Fair as well, where Miss Swartz’s money blinds the Osbournes to her race, but they also regard her as a similarly laughable amusement. She knows only two songs and repeats them at all events like a trained monkey, and Thackeray’s illustrations of her are comically exaggerated. Interestingly enough, only George really sees her for her superficiality, the color of her skin, because she does not physically appeal to his vanity. It is almost admirable of him not to be lured to Miss Swartz for money if her were not so entirely vain and obstinate in character.
ReplyDeleteThe ‘pretenders’ referenced in this article reveals a peformative aspect to race; that is, presumably there were false imposters of the Ethiopian who covered themselves in lamp-black or soot or burnt cork. White people wanted to be Ethiopian? Does this have any relevance to black-face? Regardless, the awe with which people of the time regarded Ethiopians is not lost on the Osbournes either, although Thackeray makes clear that Miss Swartz’s charms are in her pockets and not her person.
Was I alone in interpreting this reference to 'pretenders' and types of blacking agents to mean that people were pretending to be African? While in my mind this possibility seems rather ridiculous, the article seems to mock both the infatuation of Europeans for Ethiopian entertainers as well as some who would pretend to be African in order to reap the fiscal rewards of the ethnicity. The half-European, half-African sketch only reinforced this idea in my mind, however I admit the possibility of being completely wrong.
ReplyDeleteWe discussed in class the final picture in this blog post. As a class we decided that there did not seem to be any physical disparities besides the actual color difference on the two sides of the face. With that being said, it really begs the question of the role of races and the relationship between races. This is the case because Victorians would typically have thought of there being distinct disparities in terms of physical traits.
ReplyDeleteAlthough we decided in class that there weren't any real physical differences between the two sides of the face, the more I look at it the more I disagree. I feel that there were intentional and slight disparities drawn into the picture. We talked about there being a slight difference in the eyebrow. Likewise, there is a difference in hair/hair texture from one side to the other. Likewise, there seems to be intentional shading done on the black face side of the picture to accentuate certain physical traits. Although this black face side is not as obvious as pictures in Vanity Fair of Ms. Swartz, I still feel that there was intentional shading used to accentuate physical disparities between the right and left side of the face.