Former MSNBC host Joy Reid has recently sparked debate and supposedly ‘dulled’ the Christmas spirit by a viral video she shared to her Instagram. The video, which she shared to her 1.3 million followers, makes claims about the beloved Christmas carol ‘Jingle Bells’ and its racist history. The video, originally posted by social media creator Khalil Green, shows Green wearing festive attire standing in Medford, Massachusetts. He is positioned near a plaque marking where composer James Lord Pierpont, the original songwriter of ‘Jingle Bells’, lived.
Green is shown wearing a Santa hat with the caption above: “This is where a racist Confederate soldier wrote ‘Jingle Bells’ to make fun of Black people.” The video then pans to the plaque with the caption changing to “This plague in Medford, MA honors where James Lord Pierpont wrote “Jingle Bells”, but ignores its origin in blackface minstrelsy.” Reid simply captioned the post with “Lord, have mercy.” This action ignited renewed debate about the carol’s origins and deeper meaning.
Understanding the Academic Research Behind the Claims
The video cites a Cambridge University Press paper published in 2017 by Kyna Hamill, a theater historian at Boston University. Hamill’s article appeared in Theatre Survey, a peer-reviewed journal from Cambridge University Press. The article is titled “The Story I Must Tell: ‘Jingle Bells’ in the Minstrel Repertoire.” Hamill conducted extensive research examining where and how the song was first performed. Her work traced the song’s origins to the minstrel entertainment industry of 19th-century America. She also investigated its racist origins in its performance, as ‘Jingle Bells’ was written for minstrels.
Hamill documented that “One Horse Open Sleigh,” the original title, debuted on September 15, 1857 at Ordway Hall in Boston during a minstrel show. The first performer was Johnny Pell, a blackface minstrel entertainer, who first performed the song in blackface. Hamill’s research shows that Pierpont wrote multiple songs for minstrel troupes between 1852 and 1857. His motivation to write songs for the minstrels was purely economic as he was financially struggling at the time. While ‘Jingle Bells’ the song itself is not inherently racist, its application in performance and its historical context (music written for blackface minstrels) link it to racist tropes.
The Viral Video’s Specific Claims
The viral video shared by Joy Reid makes several assertions about “Jingle Bells” that, according to Hamill, misinterpret her research. It claims Pierpont wrote the song “to make fun of Black people,” while there is no explicit evidence of racist intent documented. The video suggests that the lyric “laughing all the way” references a minstrel routine called the“Laughing Darkie.” Hamill’s research, however, does not document or establish a specific link between the two. The video also states that Pierpont was“hard up for cash” when composing the song, implying Pierpont had ulterior motives. Hamill’s research notes that Pierpoint was financially struggling, hence turning to writing songs for minstrels. This, however, does not immediately stipulate that Pierpoint wrote“Jingle Bells” to mock Black people.
Distinguishing Historical Origins From Modern Meaning
However, there are some varying conclusions in the video that differ significantly from Hamill’s actual conclusions. The researcher emphasizes that documenting the song’s minstrel origins does not mean the song itself is racist. Hamill states clearly that she never claimed modern performances carry racist intent. She emphasized she never intended to dictate what Christmas carols anyone sings or does not. Hamill has repeatedly clarified that her work examines performance history and Pierpont’s intention whilst composing the piece.
Hamill told the Boston Herald in 2017 that she “never said it was racist now.” She emphasized that her research focuses on how the song circulated within the minstrel tradition, which in itself was a racist institution. The article examines the conditions under which minstrel music flourished commercially.
Examining Pierpont’s Complex Background
James Lord Pierpont was born in 1822 in Boston to a strongly abolitionist family. His father, Reverend John Pierpont, stood firmly against slavery and spoke publicly about his opposition. While his family background suggests Pierpont inherited progressive values, his life took a different trajectory from his father’s moral positioning. Financial difficulties plagued Pierpont throughout his early years. He failed at numerous occupations, including operating a daguerreotype studio and other ventures. These failures forced him to seek work in the minstrel industry as a composer.
Pierpont moved to Savannah, Georgia, in the 1850s as the nation drifted toward civil war. He became a Confederate sympathizer and supporter of slavery, despite his abolitionist father’s moral stance. When the Civil War erupted, Pierpont allegedly abandoned his family to enlist in the Confederate Army. He wrote patriotic songs for the Southern cause, including titles like “Strike for the South.” There is documented use of racial slurs and racist language in his other compositions written for the Southern cause. While historical records do demonstrate Pierpont engaged in racist ideologies and ideals, there is no evidence to prove “Jingle Bells” was written with racist intent.
The Minstrel Performance Context
Hamill’s research also centers around the historical context of the minstrelsy as an entertainment form. Blackface minstrel shows dominated American popular entertainment during the 19th century. These performances featured white performers wearing blackface makeup, presenting grotesque caricatures of Black people to primarily white audiences. The form was extremely popular and commercially successful, with performers and composers earning substantial money from minstrel shows. Hamill documents that Pierpont wrote at least 13 songs for minstrel troupes in Boston and New York. He composed according to established formulas that audiences expected and enjoyed.
Hamill explains that many sleigh-related songs circulated through minstrel performances during the 1850s. Songs titled “The Merry Sleigh Ride,” “Darkey Sleigh Ride Party,” and similar titles appeared regularly. “One Horse Open Sleigh” emerged in this context of existing sleigh song performances. The lyrics and structure followed conventions already familiar to minstrel audiences. Pierpont drew heavily from other sleigh narratives and songs when composing the work. Historical documentation shows that Hamill carefully examined playbills and performance records.
What the Song’s Lyrics Actually Reflect
The original lyrics contain elements consistent with minstrel entertainment conventions. Phrases like “laughing all the way” appeared in other minstrel songs of the era. Linguistic choices such as “thro,” “thot,” and “upsot” suggest a racialized performance style. These dialect choices indexed southern speech patterns for northern audiences. The lyrics emphasize activities like courtship, fast riding, and male camaraderie. These were running themes that were standard content in this era of minstrel entertainment. Hamill notes that nothing in the lyrics is particularly original or locally specific, having familiar elements from the minstrel repertoire.
However, the presence of minstrel conventions does not automatically establish racist intent in composition. The song describes a sleigh ride with a female companion, a drunk party, and competitive racing. These activities were actual winter pastimes in New England during the 1800s. The sleigh ride narrative existed in popular literature before minstrelsy. The question of whether he deliberately crafted the work to mock Black people specifically remains historically unclear. Hamill’s research documents what happened to the song on stage, not necessarily what Pierpont intended when penning “Jingle Bells.”
Hamill’s Response to Misrepresentation
Kyna Hamill has responded consistently to characterizations of her work as proving that the song is racist. She has stated repeatedly that her research examines historical performance contexts. She has not declared that the song should be removed from modern holiday celebrations. When her work first sparked controversy in 2017, she received significant backlash. Conservative media outlets misrepresented her findings as claiming the song is inappropriate. She experienced hate mail, online harassment, and threats serious enough to involve campus police. Hamill told CBC News that her work had been “absolutely misreported or reported very irresponsibly.”
Hamill emphasized in interviews that understanding the song’s history serves educational purposes. Recognizing that the song emerged from minstrelsy contributes to historical literacy. However, this recognition does not require abandoning the carol in contemporary contexts. She explained that people can appreciate the song’s place in holiday traditions while understanding its origins. This nuanced position gets lost in polarized discussions. Both defenders and critics of the song sometimes present oversimplified versions of her scholarship. Hamill herself has stressed that acknowledging historical truth does not dictate how people should respond to it.
The Question of Reid’s Role and Responsibility
Joy Reid’s decision to repost the video to such a large audience carries significant implications. Reid is a former MSNBC host with established media credibility among certain audiences. Her platform gives her content substantial reach and influence. By sharing the video without adding context or caveats, she implicitly endorsed its claims. She did not note that the academic whose research supposedly supports these claims disputes some conclusions. Her minimal caption of “Lord, have mercy” provided no additional information or qualification. This approach differs from how academics present nuanced findings with appropriate caveats and limitations.
Reid’s history of controversial statements influences how her posts are received. Critics note her previous claims about controversial topics. Some cite instances where her public statements have been criticized as inaccurate or inflammatory. Others defend her role for raising important conversations about race in America. The debate about Reid herself often overshadows discussion of the actual historical claims. Her involvement transforms what might remain an academic discussion into a cultural and political controversy. This dynamic reflects broader patterns in contemporary media where messenger and message become inseparable.
The Broader Context of Christmas Culture Debates
The “Jingle Bells” controversy reflects larger tensions about holiday traditions and racial history. American Christmas celebrations have been reshaped repeatedly as cultural demographics and values change. Some argue that addressing problematic historical origins strengthens cultural institutions. Others believe focusing on past problems undermines shared traditions. These debates about whether and how to acknowledge complicated histories divide many communities. Educational institutions have faced particular pressure regarding holiday programming choices. Council Rock Primary School in New York drew criticism for removing “Jingle Bells” from its concert. The school cited the song’s minstrel connections as justification for this decision.
Arguments about cultural change include disagreements about methodology and pace. Supporters of removing problematic content emphasize historical justice and educational responsibility. Critics argue that such removals erase history rather than teaching from it. Some propose keeping traditions while explicitly teaching their complicated origins. This approach combines enjoyment with critical understanding. The “Jingle Bells” debate embodies these larger disagreements about how American communities should address difficult pasts. There are reasonable people on multiple sides of these questions. The viral video format encourages taking strong positions rather than exploring complexity.
Read More: J.R.R. Tolkien’s Legendary Response When Nazis Questioned His Heritage
Distinguishing Legitimate History From Politicization
Academic research about the song’s minstrelsy origins remains valuable regardless of political weaponization. Hamill’s scholarship contributes genuine knowledge about 19th-century entertainment and cultural history. The fact that some people misrepresent findings does not invalidate the original scholarship. Conversely, the existence of legitimate academic work does not mean all popular claims about it are accurate. Media outlets across the political spectrum have misrepresented Hamill’s actual conclusions. Some conservative sources claim she declared the song racist and inappropriate. Some progressive sources present her findings as more definitive about intent than the research actually supports. Both misrepresentations serve political goals rather than historical understanding.
The original peer-reviewed article contains careful qualifications and extensive contextual documentation. Hamill examines performance playbills, sheet music, biographical records, and visual culture. She traces how sleigh narratives circulated through minstrelsy and other forms of entertainment. This scholarly work represents genuine historical inquiry. The viral video Reid shared simplifies this complex research by making dramatic claims. The difference between rigorous scholarship and viral content remains significant. Evaluating claims about history requires examining original sources and expert explanations. Relying on viral videos as primary sources for understanding history creates systematic distortions.
Moving Forward With Historical Honesty
Understanding that “Jingle Bells” was performed in minstrel venues does not require specific responses. Some people will choose to stop singing the song based on this knowledge. Others will continue enjoying it while acknowledging its complicated history. Still others will feel that historical context does not diminish contemporary enjoyment. These positions represent legitimate different values and priorities. What should unite these groups is a commitment to historical accuracy. The factual record shows the song’s first documented performance occurred in minstrelsy. Pierpont participated in an industry based on racial mockery. The song contained linguistic and thematic elements consistent with minstrel conventions. These facts merit serious consideration in discussions about the song.
What the facts do not establish is Pierpont’s internal motivations or the song’s intended meaning, or that modern singers of the song engage in racist acts. They also do not determine whether communities should include the song in holiday celebrations. These represent questions beyond historical documentation. They involve values, ethics, and cultural priorities that communities must negotiate. Hamill’s research contributes essential information to these discussions without dictating outcomes. Reid’s amplification of the viral video has pushed these conversations into mainstream discourse. Whether this development serves the cause of historical understanding remains genuinely uncertain. The controversy itself demonstrates how complex cultural conversations become in contemporary media environments.
Read More: Internet ‘Detectives’ Zero In on Charlie Kirk and His Wife in Bizarre New Theory