\n\n\nSimilarly, the less educated the master, the less intelligent the slave had to appear, so as to remain the master’s inferior while keeping him amused; and since American slave owners were usually less educated than Europeans, the kind of comedy that arose in American life featured a more dim-witted fool than had ever been seen on stage before. Every idiocy had to be exaggerated for effect, from misuse of language to physical ineptitude. ^ref-23001
\n
\n\n\n1865, ^ref-4097
\n
\n\n\nAgain and again, critics noted that black minstrelsy was not a show; it was a display of natural impulses. ^ref-39356
\n
\n\n\nappellation in its most pejorative sense. ^ref-61623
\n
\n\n\n, upped the ante with an ^ref-3942
\n
\n\n\nBy 1954 criticism of the Zulus as minstrels had grown. Manuel Wilson, Zulu king that year, announced: “Zulu is going to be modern from the word go. Some of our folks have been kicking about how the parade . . . is a disgrace to the Negroes. So . . . we’re going to be a comic strip right on.” The next year a new king appeared wearing silk clothes and no blackface; as soon as more traditional members saw this, they hurriedly painted his face, and did so again when he wiped it off. ^ref-17710
\n