Amos 'n' Andy
Based on Thomas Cripps’ article and your viewing of Amos ’n’ Andy this Thursday, how did the television show portray middle class African Americans? Discuss why the sitcom became the center of a hot public debate as well as the arguments offered by each side.
Amos 'n' Andy caused a lot of controversy and to this day has two sides of whether it was a smart move to make the transition from radio to television. While some thought that it was "detrimental to visual representation of African Americans," this was the first show with an all black cast and the performers were excited for the opportunity. According to Cripps’ article, one particular advocate spoke up saying that this was “potentially the greatest instrument of progress that has ever been available to a minority race,” a source of “cultural self-expression on a mass scale,” and a source of jobs and income. The depiction was not welcome by the organized black middle class and the NAACP sided with them. Though there were well-spoken characters in the show, the lead characters were not. CBS' representation depicted blacks as "urban riffraff, tricksters, Falstaffs and snarling matriarchs marked by naive cunning, languid manners, and drawling malapropisms." The black middle class spoke against Amos ‘n’ Andy because they believed they had successfully gotten past the “struggle to overcome the cultural bondage that the characters in the show seemed locked into.” Though actors fought that this was a break through for them and an opportunity, the other side argued that a bad representation is worse than no representation at all. The war helped change social order such that blacks started believing they finally had the right to fight for a better life and they were speaking up for this right.
ReplyDeleteAmos 'n' Andy is perhaps just as divisive today as it was when it first aired, considering its complicated history. On the one hand, it provided a foot in the door for black actors that previously had no access to jobs in Hollywood. The actors themselves praised the show claiming that it was a huge step forward for the black community in representation. At the same time, the NAACP fought against the airing of the show, since they believed that the black middle class deserved better representation beyond the silly hijinks of the two main characters. It begs the question: is bad representation better than no representation at all? Some will say that Amos 'n' Andy was a stepping stone for future television starring black actors, while others will say that, had Amos 'n' Andy not aired, original black television wouldn't be marred by the prejudiced tropes that the show produced. Some argue that while the two main characters are riddled with offensive stereotypes, the rest of the supporting cast is largely free of these representations, shown as the upstanding police officer and judge. Still, this show continued the cultural norm of segregation, not allowing these black characters to be seen in the same setting as white characters. This "separate but equal" doctrine made sure that white audiences saw the show as part of a different culture as their own.
ReplyDeleteAmos ‘n’ Andy’s troubling depiction of middle-class African Americans diminished the fact that it was one of the first series to feature an all black cast. In Cripps’ article, he sites arguments made against the series by members of the African American community. “The black middle class that spoke against Amos ‘n’ Andy perceived itself as having successfully struggled to overcome the cultural bondage that the characters in the show seemed locked into. In fact, within the shows this point was given emphasis in that the central figures…behaved with exaggerated, hat-in-hand diffidence and cunning obsequiousness.” Ultimately, the arguments made against the series referenced the stereotypical depiction of its lead characters. On the other hand, some members of the African American community regarded the series as a step forward. The main proponent of this argument was that no matter the circumstances, an all black cast was significant enough to warrant the support of the public. Even in 2014, minorities are still vastly underrepresented in the television landscape; and when they are present, it is often as secondary characters or under stereotypical circumstances. Next year, ABC will debut a series revolving around an Asian-American family called Fresh Off The Boat. While it will be one of the only series on television to feature an all-Asian cast, many have criticized the title for perpetuating the use of an offensive term. Even today, the essence of the Amos ‘n’ Andy debate is still relevant. Featuring minorities on television in significant roles might be a step forward, but at what point is the cost too great? In the 1950s, many believed that line was crossed with Amos ‘n’ Andy.
ReplyDeleteBefore the television show Amos ‘n’ Andy, African Americans were not depicted on television often, if at all. In Thomas Cripps’ article entitled Amos ‘n’ Andy and the Debate Over American Racial Integration, two interpretations of this television text were discussed. Amos ‘n’ Andy received both positive and negative views from the African American population. The main characters in this show were illustrated as clowns, con men, criminals, and unintelligent individuals in some instances. However, the entire show was based around these two characters coning members of society, as seen in the specific episode viewed in class. In turn, African Americans are placed in positions of power, like the judge in the episode we viewed. For this reason, some believed that the show was also a positive opportunity for African Americans. It gave this minority the opportunity to be on television and in the public eye. Others believed the show exploited African Americans. It based all its entertainment value around the stereotypes associated with African Americans at this time. It illustrated white individuals as civilized and educated, while African Americans were shown as clowns and con men. Even though the show possessed this negative attribute, it did offer jobs to African American actors.
ReplyDeleteBased on the Cripps’ article and the viewing of Amos ‘n’ Andy, I would say that CBS did indeed misrepresent the African American population. Coming at a time where racial prejudice and stereotypes were an ongoing issue (in which they still are today), watching the show made me extremely uncomfortable. The depiction of Andy and Kingfish (two members of the African American bourgeoisie in the show) as slang-talking, simple-minded individuals was the exact opposite of what civil rights activists wanted mainstream depictions to look like. As I viewed these characters on Amos ‘n’ Andy, I could see why it drew so much debate. As Cripps notes in his piece, and as I noticed myself during the screening, only the minor characters featured smooth and connected speech. This was the little proper representation that the African American middle-class got. Despite this, these characters never had white-collar jobs.
ReplyDeleteNow I understand the counter-argument, that this gave black actors much needed work, and that this gave them the possibility of jump-starting an industry that provided future acting opportunities to additional black actors. To this I ask, “but at what cost?” Amos ‘n’ Andy was undoubtedly a show that centered on negative depictions of its black characters, which was viewed by a mainstream audience of every color (the same can be said for other shows as well). No matter how popular the show was, those stereotypes can be implemented into the minds of the viewers. Because of the fact that this show aired during a period when African-Americans were struggling with racial integration, in can be argued that misrepresentation was the last thing they needed.
Amos ‘n’ Andy depicted middle class African Americans in a very poor light. The show portrayed them as unintelligent, which sparked heated debate over the political correctness of the show. The scheming, criminal character of Kingfish was perhaps the most egregious and blatant display of racism. For example, in the episode we watched in class, Kingfish was plotting to steal a valuable nickel. He is constantly scheming and committing selfish acts. However, there is another side to the story. As described in the article written by Thomas Cripps, Amos ‘n’ Andy had its benefits for African American actors and actresses. At a time in television when not a whole lot of roles were being offered to African Americans, Amos ‘n’ Andy offered an opportunity for that community of actors to launch a career in Hollywood. So despite the fact that it shed a negative light on African Americans, it was extremely influential in that it opened up jobs on television to African Americans. Television today certainly wouldn’t be the same without it. That being said, there was absolutely no need for the show to be so detrimental to the black community. The issue of whether or not Amos ‘n’ Andy was acceptable is still debated to this day and both sides have very reasonable arguments.
ReplyDeleteAmos ‘n’ Andy was the first television show to feature an all black cast, which should have been a positive, major stepping stone for the American people but unfortunately this show caused a major debate about the shows portrayal of middle class African Americans. Based on the Cripps article, the characters on the show had “baggy pants, plug hats, foul cigars, pushy wives, misfired schemes, and mangled grammar.” Led by the NAACP, many middle class Blacks felt as though the show reinforced negative stereotypes of African Americans.
ReplyDeleteThis argument, however, was challenged by the notion that although the characterizations found in Amos ‘n’ Andy weren’t flattering, positive, or true (mostly in regard to the main characters), the fact that Black actors were cast in the show opened up the industry for minority actors to receive opportunities, which had previously not been there.
African Americans were “unable to marshal a united front,” on the issue and I can understand why this show divided so many people’s opinion. My stance on the issue is that while I can’t definitively choose a side, I think the most important aspect of Amos ‘n’ Andy is that it started a national dialogue about the way Blacks were portrayed on screen, as well as igniting the dialogue about Blacks in the entertainment industry. The first step to change, on such a large scale, is to have a lot people debating the topic. This will bring enough attention to an issue that hopefully something changes (even if it’s just to educate or bring awareness to the masses) and I think that’s what Amos ‘n’ Andy did.
Being the first television show to have an all black cast, Amos ‘n’ Andy may have been the most controversial show in the early 50s. On the one hand, the black bourgeoisie argued that the showed misrepresented blacks as ignorant and rowdy. The show seemed to go directly against the promises for blacks to enjoy a home free from domestic racism after WWII because it perpetuated negative stereotypes against blacks. On the other hand, because the show was the first to have an all black cast, the black actors saw the show as an opportunity to be broadcast on television. Because of the complicated issues behind the show, it can be difficult to say whether the show was a good thing or not. The supporting characters were not portrayed as “detrimental to visual representation of African Americans.” However, since the focus of the show was not on these characters, the negative stereotypes were highlighted and the good representations of the black middle class were barely noticeable. But according to the article, the Standard American English spoken by the minor characters balanced the many “crimes against the language.” But the actors on the show thought the show was an artistic triumph. The most complicating factor was the fact that there were blacks on both sides of the argument.
ReplyDelete