Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay traces how the transoceanic traffics of early blackface minstrelsy forged entanglements among the early blackface figure "Jim Crow," the US American racial formation of "Jim Crow," and the Anglophone imperial formations of the Global South. Although blackface minstrel scholarship has taken the form to be axiomatically US American and national in origin, the essay maps the popularity of minstrel performances across the nineteenth-century Anglophone empire and the intimacies by which popular culture and imperial policies combined in transnational formations of global white supremacy. Early blackface minstrelsy inundated Anglophone popular culture not only in global northern metropoles of the United States and Britain, but also throughout colonial worlds in Australia, Canada, India, Jamaica, and South Africa. Through these imperial circulations, the minstrel figuration of "Jim Crow" shaped popular white Anglophone racial imaginaries and therefore informed colonial systems of racial rule that structured the imperial world along the Global North/South axis. Focusing on the circulations of Thomas Dartmouth Rice's blackface figure "Jim Crow" as well as the proliferation of related blackface songs, playlets, and visual artifacts, the essay posits that the enduring salience of "Jim Crow" as a transnational signifier of racial control and imperial politics derived not only from US American imperialism, but also from the transoceanic circulations of the minstrel figure of "Jim Crow" as a representation and mechanism of transnational Anglophone imperial politics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".