Black & Green Atlantic

One issue Brooks touches on is the issue of authenticity in “In Dahomey” and how it relates to the mixed audience of the play. While Walker claims that the play served as a space for the “natural” black performer, the play was also created for a racially mixed audience that had different notions of what was “naturally” black. White attendees wished to see an “authentic” portrayal of African Americans, i.e. performers in blackface singing and dancing in ridiculous fashion; this audience was fascinated by the “spectacle” of seeing a production created by a company consisting of only African Americans. But the black audience was watching for a performance that portrayed a more realistic interpretation of the African American condition. “In Dahomey,” however, fails to be authentic in the white and black sense due to its nature as a transitional work.

Because “In Dahomey’ functions as a transitional piece, it cannot be fully “authentic” in either the black or white sense of the word. The play caters to a white audience by building the story around an absurd plot: the hunt of two detectives for a silver casket containing a cat’s eye. But it also caters to the black audience in the ways that it mocks the whiteness of “high society” in many of its musical numbers. The effect that this play has on its target audience is confusing because its target audience is the entirety of American society. Williams blacking up can be viewed as either satire of white playgoers or adoption of white performing traditions. The songs can either be seen as expressing satire of white America’s necessity to be the highest members of society or expressing genuine hopes that blacks will one day become members of that high society. The racist treatment of Me Sing can be interpreted as blacks pointing out their ability to be on equal footing as whites or as genuine racist treatment of the Asian American community. Depending which audience one is a part of, this play can either have great meaning or meaninglessness, which is why all the critics hated the play. It is a genuinely confusing production being that it is a transitional piece catering to an extremely wide audience. One cannot search for true authenticity in this play (whatever that may mean) because it is an experiment in theater that aims not for “true authenticity” but to bring black performers to the forefront of theatrical production, which the play ultimately succeeds in.

The Octoroon, in it’s original form, is an attempt to give agency to Zoe, a character that is in-between different races and treated as an other by both of those races. The original ending, which shows her poison herself, serves as a final act of agency where she chooses not to identify as either white or black, but as her own person. She chooses not to marry another man, and thus avoids conforming to a full “white transformation.” But in the English version where she is married, she fully becomes a member of the white family, and thus rejects her eighth-black heritage. This ending is problematic because it turns a story about enforcing one’s agency when one does not fit into a certain category into a story that teaches the audience that conformity to whiteness is the solution to Zoe’s issue of racial identity.

While the English applauded the edited ending because it was “happier,” I believe that this ending is far darker due to the pure ignorance of the viewership. The English audience that watched this version of the Octoroon looked at themselves as supporters of the anti-slavery movement, claiming that the institution of slavery itself was purely American and thus “anti-British.” This happy ending of the Octoroon gives the English an opportunity to exclude themselves from the history of slavery, acting as viewers rather than agents of that system. In actuality, the English were the creators of the system of slavery, and deserve a good majority of the blame for all the atrocities that happened as a result of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. What makes the English audience’s sentiments of the play even more troublesome, however, is the appall they expressed with the original ending. They complained because it was too dark, but there are plenty of Shakespeare plays with endings where the main character or prospective lover of the play dies. Romeo and Juliet specifically has a death that involves Juliet poisoning herself, just like the Octoroon. So, the English most likely did not believe that this ending was too dark, but that giving the black main character agency through her death was a problem that could only be solved by an alternate ending where she embraces her whiteness, and thus better fits in with a higher sense of English culture.

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. 

One thing I noticed while reading McCann’s TransAtlantic was the way that Douglass referred to and/or described bodies of different people – specifically, the contrast between how he describes Lily’s body versus how he describes his wife’s body and his own body. Every time Douglass describes Lily, there is an implied grace and beauty in his word choice. He describes her skin as “so very pale”; her wrists as “cool” and “light”; her face “ledged with freckles” and her hair “sandy-colored”. All dainty words. He even describes her was “pretty”, though at the time he did not know that it was Lily he was describing. In contrast, Douglass doesn’t ever describe the way his wife’s body looks. His descriptions of her are limited to her emotional state (such as when he was imagining how excited she would look upon receiving a letter from him) and to what clothing she wore (such as when he describes her red scarf). We, as readers, have no idea what Anna might look like, other than the fact that she is black. Similarly, the only description we get of Douglass is a fleeting moment when he catches himself in the mirror and decides to leave his hair in the more “Negro style”. There are no descriptions of black bodies here; or, at least, not nearly of the same caliber as the descriptions of white bodies. Douglass has moments in the text where he realizes, as time goes on, that in Ireland there seems to be far less care about his skin color. He is surprised every time he realizes it again. I wonder if the lack of description of black bodies is simply because Douglass never felt as though it was appropriate to praise them as beautiful or graceful. Obviously he knew it – this was one of the rights that he was fighting for his people to have. But old habits are hard to break. Is this an intentional choice on McCann’s part, I wonder?