A show I loved

One of the things I have found in researching for Dreamcatchers is the habit of applying todays morality to events of yesteryear. At some point I hope to post on the meaning of memory...for example, going through school, most of us "learned" that Native Americans were portrayed in the media and known for repeated, unprovoked massacres of near helpless, innocent settlers simply pursuing the American Dream. The collective memory, as presented in history textbooks, has always been of "bloodthirsty, murdering savages" who would rather fight and kill than anything else.
Just a brief inquiry into, for example, newspaper accounts of the time shows this to be a later, created, artificial fiction. In fact, in virtually every conflict the general tone in the papers is outrage at the behavior against the Native Americans. There is little to indicate the historical depiction of Native Americans as being accurate anywhere except in the heads of later historians.
In a similar vein, the depiction of the hapless, noble Native American warrior, struggling against odds he does not know are overwhelming until he finally bows his head in defeat are also entirely fanciful fictions worthy of a dime novel but not a serious study. Native American statesman after statesman comments on this exact thing and clearly, deliberately, and actively works to stave off what he (or, in cases like Sarah, she) knows is inevitable as long as possible. Almost from the day the English landed there are records of leaders recommending following the "white man's way" as being the best interests. Note, this was not true of the Spanish...from the first, their Catholic charter driven mission was murderous to the extent that I have yet to see any record of the indigenous population recommending voluntary assimilation. And in the case of the French, it was not necessary to choose either path for quite some time.
Later depictions of the Native Americans in many ways CREATED the standard views so common today. And then when characters such as Tonto were created they were against a backdrop not of reality but rather of an artifically created belief. The question then arises...was Tonto a racist character or a progressive?
Judged in today's morality, the racist is, indeed, the correct answer...but in the 1920s and 30s, even the 40s and 50s, that is the wrong answer. It was indeed a very progressive character. He took on many of the role people like to call "Messianic" as again and again he saved the lone Ranger and/or many other whites from the depredations of the "savages".
However, this post is not about that...it is actually about one of my all-time favorite shows, Amos & Andy. I have laughed at their exploits for years. Some people are outraged today...actually, many people have been since the NCAAP formed their remarkably unsuccessful boycotts in the 50s...due to what they present as a stereotypical, racist depiction. And, in todays world, that program would be just that.
At the time it was very much not true. Kingfish and Andy, Amos and even Lightnin, Shorty the Barber, Gabby Gibson...Sapphire...all of these were sympathetic characters. People listened because they cared about the characters. They cared about what happened. THey sympathized and emphasized with them. The mocking elements were lost in a blizzard of love, so to speak.
http://theater2.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/theater/reviews/15king.html?ex=1300078800&en=0a78eb39dba8059e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
As much as I have no interest whatsoever in going to New York...for this I would go.
By the way, lest people misinterpret what I am saying...a show like this today I would find horribly racial and offensive...which is one reason I never watch any of the shows on UPN. You only need to watch the commercials to see how racist they are; brash, loud, fat, "in your face" women shouting and screaming are contrasted with oversexed athletic males. Where is the depiction of real black culture and participation?