As for the Marxes- While we’re agreed that, beyond Chico and Harpo’s obvious names, the origins of the other Marx’s names gets fuzzier, it should be noted that Groucho himself disputed that he was named for a “grouch bag,” in some cases denying he ever even wore one. In one of Groucho’s later statements, he acknowledged he got the nickname because “he was the moody one.” And even Evanier points out that, well-loved as Groucho was, he couldn’t really be considered a “nice” person. As for Zeppo, it’s important to note that he was not named at Art Fisher’s card game- he wasn’t there. Since he joined the act late, the likeliest explanation for his name is just that they needed to come up with something, and it didn’t have to match any particular aspect of his person. It seems likely that Groucho’s zeppelin explanation ISN’T true, though- Groucho claimed he was named after zeppelins because he was born when they ‘started crossing the ocean.” Which would have been remarkable except for the fact that zeppelins weren’t being used to cross oceans until Zeppo was in his twenties.

we will never know the REAL reasons, but thats part of the magic of it. I’ve heard it was the comic strip, a grouch bag, even “because of his disposition”- who knows? But anything Mark Evanier can tell me about the Ritz Brothers, i’d be very grateful.

Honestly, I’d say this is probably the most important point made in this conversation, and the main point that the “that’s so racist”/”that’s not racist at all” dichotomy hinges on.

Like it or not, people are the product of their times and experiences, and their responses, statements, and actions are by necessity going to be shaped by the time period they live in. It’s worth noting that some of the most radical abolitionists from 200 years ago would likely come across as quite racist from a modern perspective – though for their time, they were incredibly progressive. It’s unfair to expect people to live up to OUR standards, when they had already far surpassed the standards of their own time in ways most of us TODAY will never manage to do with our own standards.

In that sense, Amos and Andy could easily be both racist AND not racist – attempting to present a more positive view (for the time) of the subject matter, while also being shaped by the negative views implicitly accepted by society (at the time).

—

“Also, while understanding historical perspectives is certainly useful, of course, we can, and should, judge despicable acts as despicable regardless of societal mores of the period in question. The Inquisition, lynch mobs, Salem Witch Trails, McCarthyism… all these things are terrible, and should be judged as terrible irrespective of the prevailing culture of the time.”

The problem begins when you judge the individual for the acts of the culture, though. Unless you’ve lived through it, it’s hard to understand the prevailing mentality and culture of the age, to know just what sort of situational ethics and responses were in play. To grab one of your examples, it’s difficult for people who weren’t raised under the shadow of “the Communist threat” or the imminent threat of nuclear annihilation to understand the thought processes of people during that time period. Sure, we can say McCarthyism is wrong – but to condemn individuals for the phenomenon is too simplistic.

To extend the metaphor (at the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law), the Holocaust was terrible. It would be terrible even if the mentality of the time in WWII Germany didn’t see it as terrible. The various social factors and cultural elements that made it possible aren’t really justifications for it. But at the same time, it would be somewhat facile to simply assume that every German citizen in the 30′s and 40′s was a callous monster who are directly responsible for everything that happened, and should be judged as such.

It’s easy for people who’ve never really had to deal with massive societal change, and who were likely raised in more progressive times, to sit behind the security of a computer monitor and render judgment onto every aspect of the past. It’s incredibly egotistical, ethnocentric, and pompous to do so, though. Especially if one isn’t considering the actual socio-political factors involved and trying to understand based on the time period rather than simply assuming that all of human history should be judged against the ethics of the 21st century.

To bring it back around to where we started, if you’re going to judge the racist attitudes of someone from an earlier time, it helps to compare their attitude to the prevailing attitude of the time period. Sure, they may seem racist to us NOW – but if they were far less racist than anyone else of their time, then they were doing an admirable job of thinking for themselves and seeking to overcome a societal wrong, and shouldn’t be condemned for it because we think they didn’t come far enough.

How about sticking to the topic and not attacking grammar, syntax or choice of phrase?

I wouldn’t go that far, but the joke was clearly in poor taste. As was your using profanity in a public forum twice.

SImply put Racism is a prejudiced attitude that would not be acted upon inside the company of said group being prejudiced, lampooned or stereotyped.

Let’s Say someone loves blackface, if they are so sure this form of entertainment *COFF* was not racist they would evoke this performance before a crowd of minorities without guards or police escort.

I submit that more than likely such a person would not perform said act. This to me indicates racist intent.

Using Segregated norms of the past is not a justification. In the past Minorities could not eat, drink or sleep where they chose..and somehow..there are those that believe entertainment was untainted by biases.

Thats funnier than any Amos or Andy skit.

…Careful. Michael Mayket will brand you a racist and a bigot for a statement like that.

DEADWOOD had a running thing where Al Swearengen referred to the townsfolk as “Hoople-Heads.” Creator David Milch said he just used “Hoople” as an all-purpose term to describe a stupid person.

However, some Googling I did a whlie back turned up that the word “Hoople” came from THE BUNGLE FAMILY, which had an idiotic character named “Major Hoople.” “Hoople” became associated with stupidity, and Milch picked this up for DEADWOOD…though THE BUNGLE FAMILY would not have been around in those days.

Curious as to whether this rumor is real. Any chance you’ll cover it?

Happy 200th! I’ve been loving these.

And remember that, regardless of one’s beliefs about racial issues in entertainment, everyone here agrees that no one is inherently inferior to another person by virtue of the color of their skin or racial identity. The fact of this genuine equality amongst us is a very positive testament in itself.

-Citizen Scribbler

Zeppo Marx got his name because he was a huge racist that hated Dinty Moore stew. At least that’s what I heard.