What are the historical origins of the lyrics to Jingle Bells and do they contain racist language?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The tune now called “Jingle Bells” was written as “One Horse Open Sleigh” by James Lord Pierpont and published in the late 1850s; its earliest known professional performances occurred in Boston minstrel venues where white performers appeared in blackface [1] [2]. The surviving printed lyrics themselves celebrate sleigh-riding mischief and flirtation rather than overtly racist language, but historians contend the song’s initial performance context—minstrelsy—ties it to a thoroughly racist entertainment form and complicates its legacy [3] [2].
1. Origins: a New England sleigh-ride turned popular song
“One Horse Open Sleigh” was copyrighted by Pierpont in the 1850s and reissued as “Jingle Bells, or the One Horse Open Sleigh,” with local claims in Medford, Massachusetts, and Savannah, Georgia, about its genesis; Boston University research traces the work into the repertory of mid‑19th‑century popular entertainment rather than solely to a pastoral parlor origin story [1] [4].
2. How the song entered the minstrel repertoire
Scholars show that Pierpont’s tune entered the stage life of Ordway’s Aeolians and similar troupes where it was performed amid minstrel acts billed as “Plantation Darkies” or “Dandy Darkies,” meaning the song circulated within shows that relied on blackface imitation and caricature—an important performance context that shaped how audiences first heard it [1] [2].
3. What the lyrics actually say (and don’t say)
The widely sung verse and chorus that survive today narrate a jocular sleigh ride, a spilled rider and a flirtatious, humorous tone—there is no explicit racial slur or overtly racist line in the standard lyrics taught to children; multiple reporting notes emphasize that the text many performers sing today lacks the explicit racist language found in other minstrel-era songs [3] [5].
4. Why many historians label its roots troubling even if the words aren’t racist
Academic work argues that to understand the song’s meaning one must consider performance context: the tune’s early association with blackface minstrelsy and the broader repertoire of racist parodies and dialect songs of the era mean the piece was popularized by a system that demeaned Black people, and scholars warn that removing that context sanitizes history [2] [3].
5. Points of disagreement and how they’ve been framed in public debate
Some commentators and local boosters have pushed back—saying Pierpont’s personal motives and the song’s innocuous lyrics absolve it of being “racist”—and academic authors like Kyna Hamill who highlighted minstrel links faced political and online backlash; defenders stress the difference between origins and contemporary use, while critics stress that origins matter for cultural memory [1] [4].
6. The cautious conclusion: complicated provenance, non‑racial lyrics, contested legacy
The balanced reading from the sources is straightforward: the lyrics most people sing are not themselves racist in wording, but the song’s earliest professional circulation was entangled with blackface minstrelsy and that association anchors it to a racist entertainment tradition—acknowledging both facts avoids erasing the historical harms or needlessly condemning a carol without nuance [3] [2] [1].