How have historians and cultural institutions recommended handling historic songs with racist origins in public ceremonies and education?
Executive summary
Historians and cultural institutions generally recommend neither simple erasure nor uncritical performance of songs with racist origins; instead they advise contextualization, critical teaching, and expanding repertories to include marginalized voices [1] [2]. Music-education scholarship and professional guides show a spectrum of practices—removal, replacement, researched reinterpretation, and curricular reframing via anti-racist pedagogy—with many educators favoring respectful, contextual choices over naïve preservation [3] [4] [5].
1. Historians: use songs as primary sources—teach the past, not celebrate it
Public historians and classroom historians argue that songs are vivid primary sources that reveal social attitudes, political struggles, and popular culture, and therefore belong in teaching when framed historically rather than presented as harmless tradition; scholars recommend using lyrics and provenance to recreate the drama and meaning of an era for students [1] [6]. Teaching music as history requires linking songs to the larger narratives of race and power so students can analyze why and how racist imagery circulated, not merely sing through it [6] [1].
2. Music educators: a pragmatic mix of removal, replacement and teaching-with-context
Surveys of elementary music teachers show varied responses: many have discontinued overtly racist songs or altered lyrics, yet a plurality still teach certain tunes for musical utility while acknowledging problematic origins; teachers reported reasons for discontinuation clustered around racism/minstrelsy and historical origins, and categorized practices into teaching (including using songs to teach about racism) and planning (removing/replacing or researching) [4] [5]. Professional discussion among music educators problematizes simple erasure—some argue that removing songs can “extinguish” their histories and avoid confronting past racism—so many recommend researched, intentional choices rather than default deletion [3] [7].
3. Cultural institutions: contextualize, broaden the canon, and acknowledge provenance
Museums, archives, and festival organizers increasingly favor expanding programs to include deeper, more inclusive origins of American music and to foreground Black and other marginalized creators, with performers and curators using program notes, talks, and revised programming to trace appropriation and minstrel legacies rather than pretending those histories do not exist [2] [8]. Institutional guides and anti-racist resource lists urge transparency about historiography, deliberate inclusion of underrepresented repertoires, and pedagogical tools for checking bias in repertoire selection [9] [8] [10].
4. Practical recommendations for public ceremonies and classrooms
Experts propose concrete steps: research provenance before programming; substitute or reframe pieces when lyrics or contexts are directly harmful; provide interpretive materials or pre-performance talks when historically significant songs are retained; and enrich curricula with diverse musical voices so technical skills can be taught without relying on problematic repertory [3] [4] [11]. For public ceremonies, institutions often balance respect for tradition with acknowledgment—either by contextualizing the work publicly or by choosing alternative pieces that honor communal values while avoiding retraumatization [2] [11].
5. The debate and its power dynamics: fears, privileges, and pedagogy
The literature records contested terrain: some white educators express fear that removing racist songs will leave “silence,” revealing anxieties about repertoire loss and whiteness in music education, while scholars and Black music historians stress that a decolonizing approach requires transparent historiography and inclusion of Black musical contributions long ignored by curricula [7] [9] [12]. That tension underpins recommended practice: decisions should be evidence-based, led by researched context and community input, and oriented toward anti-racist outcomes rather than defensive preservation of tradition [3] [5] [9].