you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Shesstealthy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Is it inaccurate?

[–]kunt-vonnegut 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"Pre-Civil War, in the 19th Century, cakewalks, also known as the “Prize Walks,” which were held on plantations. These get-togethers were for the sole purpose of servants and slaves to mock their masters. The slaves and servants were to dress in their best, and with the intention to mock the mannerisms of the aristocrats; in fact, they were encouraged to, it was the entertainment. These get-togethers took place in the masters “big house,” of the plantations, and the master would serve as a judge. The cakewalk was a form of comical enjoyment; slave owners would gather their servants and slaves to see who had the best ‘slave walker’ at the end of it all.

Couples would line up and form an aisle and down through the middle each couple would take their turn mimicking the mannerisms of the upper-class white people. In a theatrical way, the couples would strut, bow, bend, flirt, and high-step, just to list a few, they would parade around the ballroom. All the while, their masters were the judges and the guests were merely entertained.

I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase, “takes the cake.” The winner of the cakewalk won the prize of an elaborately decorated cake. But more than being a winner of a cake, the servants and slaves were enrobed with fine clothing and allowed to embrace upper-class mannerisms. Fondly, they were no longer slaves in that moment, they were the stars of a show. But I’m sure you wonder why masters would ever consider such an event to be entertainment; wouldn’t that cause the master to have lost credibility with his servants, to be laughed at? But because he became the master of ceremonies, and at the end of it all the master got to choose the winner, he took back the authority and reduced tension."

[–]Shesstealthy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What a fraught tradition. You get to mock but for their edification.... and would you ever feel safe from retaliation?

[–]kunt-vonnegut 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It was later twisted by whites into blacks "trying their best to be white." Not a form of satire, but genuine. Then whites decided to "satirize" the black "failure" to be like them through minstrel shows. Female impersonation, especially white men dressing as extremely sexualized "yaller girls" (mixed-race women) also originates from minstrel shows... But black women never got their equality, so we still have these white men gyrating on stage, lisping in exaggerated ebonics.

Black performers were largely banned from performing their own acts. They had to also perform in blackface. Anything that didn't uphold racial stereotypes wasn't allowed to be seen by white audiences. So all the watermelon-eating, chicken-stealing "comedy" acts that originated from the old "Tom Shows" of the South had no rebuttal.