Talk:Carry Me Back to Old Virginny

That Million Seller claim for Alma Gluck's Victor record

The claim is often made that Alma Gluck's record of this song was the first by a classical artist to sell a million copies, but the article about Gluck has this to say: "Although various sources claim that her recording of Carry Me Back to Old Virginny' for the Victor Talking Machine Co. was the first celebrity recording by a classical musician to sell one million copies, Victor ledgers do not support the claim—nor did Gluck ever make such a claim herself." Accordingly, I have adjusted the wording here to soften the claim. Drhoehl (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

Herman Melville wrote in a work published in 1855 ("The Paradise of Bachelors and the Tartarus of Maids"), "I softly sing, 'Carry me back to old Virginny!'." Is he referring to a precursor of the 1880 tune by James Bland? See also "Ole Virginny" [1].

Bland adapted and copywrote the an existing traditonal song. It was a popular song during the civil war.

http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/minstrel/oldvirginny.html

Bland's version was from the perspective of former slaves seeking work in the post war North71.252.87.118 (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

neutrality

Anyone who writes that "there was a deep affection between many former slaves and their owners" should come up with some concrete examples and unimpeachable citations. Otherwise, this comment strikes me as extremely biased and offensive. How many is "many former slaves"? Do we have proof of this? The line including the remark that slaves should had a connection "perhaps akin to the devotion a dog might feel for its master" is also very troublesome; I get the point that it's what the slaveowners supposedly wanted - but again, I think this is an assumption without any proof. Paepstein 13:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• • The history of Virginia is replete with oral histories which indicate that long-term individual relationships sometimes grew as strong as family-type love despite the abomination which was the entire concept and culture of slavery. This was certainly not true in many other situations. We should keep in mind that the song was written in an era when many former slaves were struggling terribly just to feed families and survive under "freedom" which came without much else to help them join the economy and thrive (or even survive). Sure some former slaves must have missed what had felt more secure if they had lived under better conditions on a profitable plantation, notwithstanding their non-free status. (Practical matters versus philosophical). Finally, I also think the "dog" comment is offensive and serves no good purpose in this article. Vaoverland 15:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I deleted the dog line, which isn't required to make the point of the paragraph. I also revised the lead at the top to reflect the fact that the song was written in a past era and is controversial in modern times. I think the article is fairly well-balanced, presenting the different perspectives. We cannot re-write history, and while it could have better references, I see no false statements. Vaoverland 16:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Controversial? I bet you are not even from Virginia. And if you say NOVA, that doesn't count. Don't worry about what doesn't matter to you. You're not black, so there is no reason for you to take offense from this beautiful song. Gobackupnorth 00:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV edit, and call for references

I agree with Vaoverland above that the article is basically well-balanced, but think it has got into a twist trying to describe slave-master relationships as "like a dog to its master" or like "Stockholm Syndrome", both of which are potentially rather offensive and in any case definitely qualify as POV. Speculative amateur psychology is definitely not the point of Wikipedia. I know what people are trying to say, but it isn't working: please let's stick to the facts.

I have slightly recast the Historical Context section as Controversy, illustrating both the "straightforward" interpretation of the song and the "alternative" interpretation, I hope without giving more weight to one or the other. There is really no need to emphasise things like "the fundamental wrongness of slavery", a phrase which I have removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and doesn't deal in right and wrong: the point of an encyclopedia is not to patronise readers with moral judgements, but to let them view the facts and make up their own minds. (For what it's worth, I think most readers will be perfectly capable of working out that slavery is bad, especially if they follow the links.)

The article could greatly benefit from a reference to some authoritative source (eg a politician or an academic, not some random blog) making the argument that the song may be understood as a satire; also on the point that black communities in the North enjoyed the song. -- TinaSparkle 17:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The song versions doen't use satire, but all do evoke irony. The original 1840s song was from the perspective of a race neutral Virginian away from Virginia and on hard times. It then became an anthem of Virginian confederate troops in the Civil War, sung while they were outside Virginia, fighting in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Bland's version is adapts it to the point of view of a former slave who is outside of Virginia, reflecting the many who moved north and did not find work. Nostalgia in the 19th century was a very poplar theme is not just about the modern usage evoking the past, but the older usage of "nostalgia " which evoked homesickness.71.252.87.118 (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"Negro" minstrel

Is there some significance to the songwriter being referred to as a "Negro," or would "African American" suffice? My concern is that "Negro" is mildly offensive, and if its entry is to be believed, even worse to some. I don't know how things work around here, so I'm just going to change it for the sake of good taste. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.63.34 (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Watching

I write for the establishment of the return of people to the pre dated position of the Sub prime melt down of mortgages. U belioeve that people need to be return to they homes on a lend lease type operation to establish the return to job creation via the paying of their utilities electricity water rates and other job creation projects if this is what you mean by carry me back to old virgiiny then I am all for it brother aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.40.102 (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carry Me Back to Old Virginny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120815153644/http://mplayer.pastemagazine.com:80/issues/week-52/articles to http://mplayer.pastemagazine.com/issues/week-52/articles

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality, once again

I rarely edit anything, but sometimes I run across an article like this that really just makes me cringe. The intro is written more like an apologetic for the song than an actual intro. Following my recent edit, everything now contained in it is factual and fairly relevant, but there's still something about the way that it's presented that really gives the impression of an agenda. I've removed some un-encyclopedic phrasing, but the intro is still devoid of citations. Apart from the intro, the rest of the article is fine, except that the Christy lyrics need a citation. Nicknimh (talk) 06:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carry Me Back to Old Virginny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131107190901/http://michaelminn.net/armstrong/index.php?section4 to http://michaelminn.net/armstrong/index.php?section4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)