After reading Daphne Brooks’ Bodies in Dissent, I initially couldn’t make the connection between the Irish and the introduction of blackface. However, after our discussion, I not only have a better understanding of that, but a better understanding of Boucicault’s The Octoroon. I knew the Irish were integrating into American culture, thus taking advantage of any opportunity that would ease their transition into “whiteness”, but I didn’t know the full extent of their involvement. Not only was blackface a major success in the U.S, but it transformed the art of theater. And of course this comes shortly after the civil war. After learning about the vast number of Irish participating in the art, I began to question the legitimacy of the hate that was thrown towards them. It was as if the world was too broken up about the fallout of the civil war that they ceased to care about the silly notion of Irish not being “white”. Not to say that the success of blackface allowed the Irish to fully immerse themselves within American society without any hostility. But White Americans could definitely appreciate a friend to help them mock the blacks.
If you ask me, I would say that the Irish chose the perfect time to capitalize on the vulnerability of the country. Whether it was because they genuinely adored the art form, or because they knew they could benefit from it, the Irish managed to ally themselves with the majority of the US. What better time to integrate yourself within American culture when tensions are high and the focus is on this idea of “Black vs. White”. The timing was almost perfect.
With that being said, now we can begin to question the intent behind Boucicault’s The Octoroon. Even with the many controversial aspects of the play, I was impressed with Boucicault’s ability to produce a play that was both entertaining and accurate at the same time. In my opinion, even when certain scenes seemed to be absurd, they only highlighted the contradicting logic behind the concept of slavery etc. However, the big question is, did he write this play for a love of the art or for profit? I think that regardless of his intent, the bulk of the play would have represented the society during that time. But, as we alluded to in class, motive would seem to affect the way we read the play. I think it would affect his choice in language, character synopsis, etc. This idea can be supported in his altering of the play for different countries/cultures.
I do not see Boucicault’s profiting from the play as a sin in itself. In order to further the arts and create more vehicles of artistic vision such as plays, one must make money from those artistic vehicles. However, changing the ending of one’s artistic vision in order to please a certain audience is an act that I do not take lightly. This change is a form of censorship that acts not to protect the viewers but harm them. The English audience that did not experience the true ending of The Octoroon instead received a twisted vision of the play that distorts the author’s true meaning. The English version of the play that ends with marriage fails to take risk of giving Zoe the agency that the original version of the play does. By changing the ending, Boucicault perpetuates England’s intentional avoidance of its own guilt in the American slave system by giving the English a distorted vision of black America in which blacks gain happiness when they are indoctrinated into white culture and stripped of their blackness.
I also felt mixed emotions about Boucicault and “The Octoroon,” especially after our class discussions this week. I think his potential message about the perceived boundaries of race are clear in the character of Zoe, who kills herself because of her black ancestor, whose inclusion in her bloodline forces her into slavery despite her overwhelming “whiteness.” Yet, Boucicault’s sympathy for this racially ostracized character is muddied by his racist portrayal of the slave characters and Wahnotee. Although I believe Boucicault had some intention of a social message in the play and the story arc of Zoe, stuck between the two racial extremes in the American South, the mixed representations of the other creates a complicated reading of the text. By using such stock characters, especially those in a racialized minority role, Boucicault’s wishes for the play to be a financial success seem to overshadow any ambition he had for the play to bring social issues to light, resulting in a provocative yet flawed work of theater.
I agree that the Irish’s use of blackface, while offensive, was incredibly effective in helping them to become white and assimilate into American culture. Continuing our discussion of the intent of Boucicault and how it affects our reading, I am still torn. The intent of the author and its relationship to how you read a text is a common question that comes when reading any text with historical and political implications. I think that while it is important to realize Boucicault was making money off of the play, we have to assume that he was not just making The Octoroon for profit. I think that this is especially supported by the fact that many of his later plays explore similar themes. If Boucicault was merely trying to make a profit, I don’t think that he would have made the controversial character and casting choices that he did. It is perhaps futile to argue on this, however, as we will never truly know Boucicault’s intent. Therefore, it would perhaps be best to not let the profit that Boucicault made take too much away from our reading and analysis of the text.