Why is the jingle bells song considered racist?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The claim that “Jingle Bells” is racist rests not on the familiar melody or modern renditions but on documented evidence that the song’s earliest known public performance occurred in a 19th‑century blackface minstrel show—a theatrical form built explicitly to mock and caricature Black people [1] [2]. Scholars who uncovered this lineage emphasize historical context rather than urging a ban, while critics and partisan media have amplified and sometimes distorted those findings into a culture‑war flashpoint [3] [4].
1. Origins in minstrelsy: the concrete historical connection
The strongest basis for calling the song’s origins racist is archival: Kyna Hamill’s peer‑reviewed research traces the tune, originally titled “One Horse Open Sleigh,” to a September 1857 performance at Ordway Hall in Boston by a troupe that performed in blackface, placing the song squarely within the minstrel repertoire of the era [1] [3]. Minstrel shows were an entertainment form where white performers donned blackface makeup and popularized degrading caricatures of enslaved and free Black Americans, meaning any composition created for or debuted in that context carries that historical freight [2].
2. What “racist origin” means — intent, use, and cultural baggage
Labeling something “racist” can refer to origins, content, or ongoing use; researchers focused on origin argue that the song’s early performance context associates it with a genre whose purpose was dehumanization, even though the surviving lyrics mostly describe sleigh‑rides rather than explicit racial slurs [1] [2]. Some commentators point to possible lyrical echoes of racist comedic tropes of the time—such as the “laughing darky” routine—as suggestive connections, but that interpretation is debated in secondary reports and not uniformly established in the primary archival record cited by Hamill [5] [3].
3. The composer and later associations: mixed evidence
Reporting has circulated claims linking James Lord Pierpont to Confederate sympathies and other racially charged works; some outlets assert Pierpont later wrote for the Confederacy and used racist language elsewhere, which critics cite to strengthen claims about the song’s intent [6] [7]. Hamill’s scholarship, however, focuses on performance history rather than proving the composer’s explicit racist intent in composing the sleigh song, and she has contested media oversimplifications that rewrite her nuanced conclusion into a claim that the song is “now” inherently racist [3] [1].
4. The modern debate: historical truth vs. today’s context
The resurfacing of Hamill’s findings has repeatedly sparked polarized coverage—some outlets frame the research as an attack on holiday traditions, while others see it as necessary historical correction—producing a muddled public conversation that often conflates origin, intent, and present‑day use [3] [8]. Advocates for confronting cultural origins argue that awareness matters because it reveals how racist entertainment forms shaped popular culture; opponents have accused critics of politicizing Christmas or calling for censorship, a characterization Hamill denies she endorsed [3] [4].
5. How to understand the charge fairly
The most defensible, evidence‑based statement is narrow: “Jingle Bells” has documented ties to blackface minstrelsy at its first known public performance, which situates the song within a racist theatrical tradition—this justifies calling its origins racist while not automatically proving that every subsequent singing of the tune carries racist intent [1] [2]. Public responses depend on whether one treats origins as disqualifying, instructive, or merely historical curiosities; scholars like Hamill ask that the record be corrected without reducing the argument to sensationalist claims that the song must be shunned outright [3].
Conclusion: fact, context, and contested meanings
The claim that “Jingle Bells” is racist is rooted in verifiable archival evidence linking the song to blackface minstrelsy [1] [2]; beyond that factual core, interpretations diverge—some emphasize cultural accountability, others emphasize continuity and intent—while media amplification has often simplified nuanced scholarship into partisan talking points [3] [8].