MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379619782 · doi:10.1353/his.2023.a899608

“Vaudeville Indians” on Global Circuits, 1880s–1930s by Christine Bold (review)

2023· article· en· W4379619782 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cecilia Morgan

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire sociale · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousEntertainmentHistoryWhite (mutation)Media studiesSociologyGender studiesArtVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: “Vaudeville Indians” on Global Circuits, 1880s–1930s by Christine Bold Cecilia Morgan Bold, Christine–“Vaudeville Indians” on Global Circuits, 1880s–1930s. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2022. 377 p. Will Rogers. Go-won-go Mohawk. Princess White Deer. Princess Chinquilla. Chester Dieck. Also: Princess Watahwaso, Young Chief Poolaw, Molly Spotted Elk, and Princess Wahletka. This roll call of Indigenous—and not-so-Indigenous—vaudeville performers represents the major players who appear in Christine Bold’s “Vaudeville Indians,” a book that breaks new ground in the history of Indigenous performance in non-Indigenous spaces, the history of late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century performance, and, more specifically, the history of vaudeville. While much has been written about the latter, Bold’s is the first book-length study of the presence and influence of Indigenous people in this highly influential, if short-lived, medium. While histories of vaudeville suggest that Indigenous performers were a very small and insignificant minority in vaudeville, Bold amasses sufficient evidence to demonstrate such was not the case. Her meticulous and thorough research clearly shows that Indigenous performers were ubiquitous on vaudeville circuits throughout North America and, in some cases, in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand; their presence in this form of commercial entertainment was thus both transcontinental and transnational. Bold invites us to consider the multiple ways in which Indigenous performers created Indigenous spaces through their work, arguing that, despite having to contend with racial stereotypes that pervaded vaudeville, they were able to exert degrees of creative control over skits, dances, and songs; such control also extended to the costumes and props they used. Moreover, far from appearing anachronistic or as remnants of a vanishing race, these Indigenous performers demonstrated that they were fully integrated into the modernity represented by [End Page 189] vaudeville, itself shaped by the rhythms of industrial capitalism. Furthermore, because vaudeville was a central influence on early American film, these men and women influenced one of the most influential—and international—forms of mass entertainment of the twentieth century. Bold first provides an overview of vaudeville, the presence and workings of Indigenous networks that brought Indigenous people to its stages, and the reasons why they chose a career as performers. The rest of the book is structured around the careers of select performers; interspersed between Bold’s chapters are brief explorations or, as she calls them, “vaudeville numbers” that examine the work of certain individuals, such as Will Rogers and Molly Spotted Elk, in detail, thus providing microhistories of her central themes. Bold’s use of collective biography gives us intimate, detailed portraits of these highly mobile people and serves as a useful corrective to depictions of Indigenous performers only in the aggregate, as anonymous figures who lacked specific histories and genealogies. Moreover, although Bold reminds us of the importance of place and nation to these performers and locates them firmly in their communities, she also points to common themes that linked their lives and experiences: the need to make a living and the economic opportunities that vaudeville offered; the desire to be seen as part of a vibrant, modern culture defined on Indigenous terms; and, the potential that vaudeville offered to sidestep the increasing reach of the settler nation-state. Although other commercial opportunities for performance existed alongside those of vaudeville, Bold reminds us that the most common of those—the Wild West Show—not only denied Indigenous performers agency (as it was organized in a hierarchical fashion and directed by White managers), the large arenas in which the shows were performed physically alienated performers from their audiences. In contrast, the theatres which housed vaudeville shows were smaller and allowed performers and audiences greater proximity and, thus, greater interaction and intimacy. Finally, although vaudeville’s skeptical, sometimes cynical tone tended to promote an atomized, highly individualized picture of society, the predominance of family networks within Indigenous performers’ lives and careers meant that their work was structured by community and collectivity. Bold also calls our attention to the importance of material culture, such as clothing and ornamentation, as a means of understanding the dimensions of indigeneity in these performers’ presentations (unfortunately, many of the photographs she analyzes to...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire socialeSame topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207