General Spanky

[John Hartwell]

Are you ready for this? From 1936 comes the Our Gang kids' only feature film (well, Spanky, Alfafa and Buckwheat, anyway ... no sign of the rest).

']

[/URL]
Spanky, a shoeshine boy on a Mississippi riverboat, musters his personal Confederate army, known as the R. P. W. C. R. C. W. M. R. ("The Royal Protection of Women and Children, Regiment Club of the World and Mississippi River") to protect local women and children from the nasty, cowardly Yankee invaders. A predictably silly story rather well acted all around ... though, of course, the three kids steal just about every scene from the adults. Not really a Little Rascals film, but an amusing take on the Lost Cause narrative. Of course, the slaves are all happy and properly servile -- with the exception of the wide-eyed egalitarianism of General Spanky's personal slave, Buckwheat.

You might catch this sometime on TCM (Turner owns the copyright), but it has apparently been released only on VHS and Laserdisc.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Are you ready for this? From 1936 comes the Our Gang kids' only feature film (well, Spanky, Alfafa and Buckwheat, anyway ... no sign of the rest).

']

[/URL]
Spanky, a shoeshine boy on a Mississippi riverboat, musters his personal Confederate army, known as the R. P. W. C. R. C. W. M. R. ("The Royal Protection of Women and Children, Regiment Club of the World and Mississippi River") to protect local women and children from the nasty, cowardly Yankee invaders. A predictably silly story rather well acted all around ... though, of course, the three kids steal just about every scene from the adults. Not really a Little Rascals film, but an amusing take on the Lost Cause narrative. Of course, the slaves are all happy and properly servile -- with the exception of the wide-eyed egalitarianism of General Spanky's personal slave, Buckwheat.

You might catch this sometime on TCM (Turner owns the copyright), but it has apparently been released only on VHS and Laserdisc.

It's SO way too early in the morning to wrap my head around this. Did this little blurb really feature a personal enslaved person, no kidding? AND Happy enslaved? Nooooooo, 1936? It's still out there somewhere? You'd have thought, ancient film or no it'd be somewhere in dusty archives labeled ' Iew'.

 

[John Hartwell]

It's SO way too early in the morning to wrap my head around this. Did this little blurb really feature a personal enslaved person, no kidding? AND Happy enslaved? Nooooooo, 1936? It's still out there somewhere? You'd have thought, ancient film or no it'd be somewhere in dusty archives labeled ' Iew'.

They might not have used the word "personal," but Buckwheat was Spanky's slave ... though he didn't act it. He was, as always, Buckwheat.

The characterization of slavery here was almost universal in '30s and '40s movies. Contentedly singing heartfelt spirituals in the fields by day, or at night gaily hoofing it around a campfire for the entertainment of Massa and Missy from the Big House. If a slave was unhappy, it was usually just the Steppin Fetchit type of eye-rolling, cowardly fear of everything.

Nobody "Iew'd" over this in the '30s -- it is what they expected. America had generally come to believe (thanks to Lost Cause myth-making) that that's how things really were.

Wikipedia has a List of films and television shows about the American Civil War era (about 75 of them before GwtW). almost every one that shows even a glimpse of slave life fits this "my dear ol' plantation home" narrative. Many today still seem to believe it -- or at least pretend they do.

But, that's not what General Spanky was about. People went to see it as a Little Rascals comedy. And, it is a funny movie. The comedy is good ... the other is just background. It came out not long after Shirley Temple's big hit, The Littlest Rebel, and hoped to cash in on its popularity. The Littlest Rebel, too, made its contribution to the loyal, contented slave mythos. And, it's easy to overlook when when Shirley does that wonderful dance down the stairs with Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, that kindly "ol' Uncle Billy", as privileged as he was, was not a free man.

 

[donna]

Never seen General Spanky but sure have seen many other of the Rascal movies. I have seen Shirley Temple's Little Rebel many times. The dance down the steps is classic.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

They might not have used the word "personal," but Buckwheat was Spanky's slave ... though he didn't act it. He was, as always, Buckwheat.

The characterization of slavery here was almost universal in '30s and '40s movies. Contentedly singing heartfelt spirituals in the fields by day, or at night gaily hoofing it around a campfire for the entertainment of Massa and Missy from the Big House. If a slave was unhappy, it was usually just the Steppin Fetchit type of eye-rolling, cowardly fear of everything.

Nobody "Iew'd" over this in the '30s -- it is what they expected. America had generally come to believe (thanks to Lost Cause myth-making) that that's how things really were.

Wikipedia has a List of films and television shows about the American Civil War era (about 75 of them before GwtW). almost every one that shows even a glimpse of slave life fits this "my dear ol' plantation home" narrative. Many today still seem to believe it -- or at least pretend they do.

But, that's not what General Spanky was about. People went to see it as a Little Rascals comedy. And, it is a funny movie. The comedy is good ... the other is just background. It came out not long after Shirley Temple's big hit, The Littlest Rebel, and hoped to cash in on its popularity. The Littlest Rebel, too, made its contribution to the loyal, contented slave mythos. And, it's easy to overlook when when Shirley does that wonderful dance down the stairs with Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, that kindly "ol' Uncle Billy", as privileged as he was, was not a free man.

Oh nooooo, really? Easy to overlook indeed. HOLY Gee Whiz. Guilty until 30 seconds ago. To me- and I realize I am in the minority because a. ' It's all in the past' and b. ' It's just the way it was then, everyone felt this way.', it's crushing to know I enjoyed that dance so much. Yes, I understand I'll get jumped on for saying this, can't do a thing about that. The way it seems to me is that unless our fellow citizens become validated on these points in History where inequality was such a foregone conclusion no one gave it a second thought, it will be extraordinarily difficult to bridge the remaining present day gaps of intolerance.

 

[John Hartwell]

Oh nooooo, really? Easy to overlook indeed. HOLY Gee Whiz. Guilty until 30 seconds ago. To me- and I realize I am in the minority because a. ' It's all in the past' and b. ' It's just the way it was then, everyone felt this way.', it's crushing to know I enjoyed that dance so much. Yes, I understand I'll get jumped on for saying this, can't do a thing about that. The way it seems to me is that unless our fellow citizens become validated on these points in History where inequality was such a foregone conclusion no one gave it a second thought, it will be extraordinarily difficult to bridge the remaining present day gaps of intolerance.

It is painful and difficult, Annie. But, let it remind us of just how far we, as a society have come. Surely that gives us cause of hope for the future.

 

[7thWisconsin]

I'm not sure dropping works of art, like movies, for not meeting modern standards is really the way to go. We could end up in the same place as European nobility suppressing "The Marriage of Figaro" because it's about the servants. I'm not ready to shelve the "Iliad" even though the major propelling plot device is the ownership of a captive slave. I think Homer might still have something vital to say about the human condition.
People are racist worldwide, and slavery, until very recently, was an accepted part of life. In many places they still are. All art needs context. Truly great art transcends its cultural boundaries, but even lesser art should be rooted in its own time. (Didn't mean to sound preachy. You can read this in a funny voice if you want.)

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

I'm not sure dropping works of art, like movies, for not meeting modern standards is really the way to go. We could end up in the same place as European nobility suppressing "The Marriage of Figaro" because it's about the servants. I'm not ready to shelve the "Iliad" even though the major propelling plot device is the ownership of a captive slave. I think Homer might still have something vital to say about the human condition.
People are racist worldwide, and slavery, until very recently, was an accepted part of life. In many places they still are. All art needs context. Truly great art transcends its cultural boundaries, but even lesser art should be rooted in its own time. (Didn't mean to sound preachy. You can read this in a funny voice if you want.)

I don't know if I agree with this in it's entirety. I mean it sounds as if it should make sense because movies such as this has been swept into a category, the same category with genuinely classic literature and works of art. Too easy. Too subjective, too- easily given over to one's perspective on ' What is Art.' Gluing movies such as this, which is indeed inclusive of one part of our country's troubled and troubling relationship with our fellow citizens together in a class with some of the world's greatest literature written centuries ago is not a foregone conclusion. Also possibly not a great argument. Should mankind not have progressed slightly by way of an enlightened attitude since 760 A.D.? It's roughly the time the Illiad was written.

Sure, slippery slope, who gets to decide where the line is, work of art and something which would be offensive and hurtful to an awful lot of fellow citizens. Of course I've never been altogether happy with the whole ' That's just the way it was back then' arguments . No, it wasn't, not for our entire society. Quakers declared slavery an abomination decades before the Civil War and abolitionists did not accept slavery or the inherent inferiority of an entire race as their world view. Yet- this ' truth' becomes the truth we're all expected to get behind.

" People are racist worldwide ' may be a powerful, sweeping statement in and of itself but it is an unsourced, subjective opinion non the less. Even were this the case would we allow this to be some excusatory factor in each of us not searching our own minds and hearts as individuals, having our actions, words and perspectives follow that? It is more correct to say " Some people are racist worldwide" then ask ourselves how it is we wish to figure in that appalling statement.

 

[7thWisconsin]

I didn't intend that as a complete sweeping generalization, so reading it as "some people" would be correct. We should be uncomfortable with the generally racist ideas presented in historic art, even low art, and keep it in context and perspective. For instance, there are collectors who specialize in depictions of people of color in advertising and trinkets. We're it not for their effort of preserving and interpreting, examples of how NOT to depict fellow human beings would be lost.
"That's how it was back then" is just a starting point, not the destination. If one stops there, a lot of things can be excused rather than examined. I'm continually appalled at how racist 19th century America really was, even most of the abolition movement would still be racist by modern standards. We can't totally reject the art and literature of the past, but can't quite cozy up to it either. The tension never goes away.