"Black face" skit on Australian variety show

[gtc]

Lebanese in Sydney for 100.

Yes, they are the ones who appear to be mostly responsible for the attacks on Indian students in Sydney.

 

[Legend]

See my previous post...

Well then it's simply over-sensitivity, in my honest, humble opinion.

If black people see this as an attack on all people and their extremely terrible past (which is certainly something worth acknowledging) then I think they're being over-sensitive and austere where it holds no place.

Perhaps I should give them the benefit of the doubt in that instance? Maybe. But to be perfectly honest I'm really confused by the opposite opinions to this. As it is likely the same for you.

At any rate I'd say we've probably stretched this to its full length. Unless you'd like to continue?

Alex.

 

[GreyICE]

Chav is a British term.

I am aware of this. The British apparently find that culture shocking enough that it deserves its own term. Australia it's just called 'culture.'

 

[EvilSmurf]

Yes, they are the ones who appear to be mostly responsible for the attacks on Indian students in Sydney.

I think gtc just somewhat ironically proved what I was actually trying to say in my post. What I was saying is that the experience of an Indian person in Melbourne is somewhat similar to what a Lebanese person in Sydney goes through.

 

[slingblade]

We saw people who were white, dressed up as black people. That is what makes the gig funny to some.

Sounds like they seem to think "black" is a costume you can put on.
This is a racially insensitive attitude.

Because they are white, impersonating a black person, it is funny to those people, which is exactly what you've just described Robert Downey Juniour as doing in "Tropic Thunder".

Okay, and what you are definitely missing here is that Downey's character is designed to make fun of the people who think that black is a costume you can put on! His character exists for the purpose of making fun of exactly these morons!

See...the joke is that if a role calls for a black character, there's no reason a black person can't play it. For a white man to make himself "black" to play a black character is absolutely elitist and racist and deserving of our scorn. It's like hiring Italians to play Lakota in a Western, in South Dakota, when the place is the home of thousands of Lakota who could actually use an extra's paycheck for playing themselves, and who would do a much better job being Lakota than a bunch of other people pretending to be Lakota.

 

[Legend]

I disagree with basically everything in that post. Even your use of the elipsis ().

I don't know where to start and I'm not going to because I'll rant.

Alex.

 

[Fishstick]

None of you guys who think this is racist swing by Netherlands or Belgium around the first week of December. You may be offended.

 

[Legend]

I can't resist because I find it easy pickings (desperately not trying to rant):

The whole idea behind acting is to become someone that you're often not.

If we're to see "race" as no barrier to a person, it doesn't define who a person is, then there is an ultimate hypocrisy going on, for if it is no barrier to a person, and it is not a yardstick to define someone, why can't people take up the characteristics of a black person and act in that way? I don't see that as racist at all. It is certainly not insensitive, unless you're dealing with an attention seeking, over sensitive idiot.

Your assessment and interpretation of the movie also undermines your argument.

This is a point of contest, a point of different cultures considering different things as racist. It has been said everywhere that it is a difference in culture that Harry Connick Junior has pointed out innocently on an Australian TV show. So let's say that a team of black people are offended by it (there are people out there). You're making an argument against it. It should receive the exact same treatment as the Hey Hey skit, shouldn't it? Should we conform and change something that isn't racist because of your interpretation of the skit? Should we conform and change something because some people who YOU consider over-sensitive take offence to it?

This is where I am. Your whole argument is problemed.

Alex.

 

[Delscottio]

See...the joke is that if a role calls for a black character, there's no reason a black person can't play it. For a white man to make himself "black" to play a black character is absolutely elitist and racist and deserving of our scorn. It's like hiring Italians to play Lakota in a Western, in South Dakota, when the place is the home of thousands of Lakota who could actually use an extra's paycheck for playing themselves, and who would do a much better job being Lakota than a bunch of other people pretending to be Lakota.

Why draw the line at race though, there have been plenty of roles undertaken by actors that don't have the physical attributes the role demands, thats what make up and special effects are for. Eddie Murphy springs to mind in one of his awful films where he takes about 15 roles.

Get the best person in for the job*.

*Eddie, please for the love of God, take note.

 

[enjoytheview]

Really? So, you pride yourself on being able to dance (don't forget, you've got little pride as it is, feel victimised, hated, and constantly made to feel like crap by others in the schoolground, to the point you start to believe that you are pretty worthless) and when the school bullies take the piss out of that, you feel it's the equivalent of you then sending up the bullies later in life?

Really? I hope I'm missing something in that.

Don't worry, you are.
I should have explained my definition of parody as well. To relate to the HHIS skit, I'd define it as a parody, but not necessarily "mocking". I've heard it described as a tribute, but I don't think I'd g that fair either.
So, replace school bullies taking the piss with school bullies merely mimicking what I've done because it's become fashionable (in a similar way that young girls might mimic Miley Cyrus for instance) and you have the lines I was thinking along.

If you have a different definition of racism (personally, I don't tend to just see it as a deliberately antagonistic thing - I think any time somebody acts in a way that causes offence due to cultural insensitivity, it can be called a racist act), then fine. We'll run with that for communication's sake. We won't call it 'racist' from here on, we'll simply call it 'racially insensitive, naive and stupid'. Hell, let's just give it the acronym 'RINS' for short.

Well I've already mentioned multiple times that I can see how it can cause offense, so I've already agreed with you on the insensitive part. I've always associated the word 'racist' to have a connotation that implies deliberately being antagonistic, so from my interpretation of the word I didn't think it fair to label these guys "racist" when they clearly weren't out there to cause offense. Also, RINS is a terrible acronym. I demand you fix it!

I was responding to your statement of not seeing 'how having racially-based double standards encourages us to overcome racism'. If there are people offended by the skit, then you have every right to also be offended if they respond in like. Then again, if you're not offended, it mustn't be a double standard, right?

Whether I'm offended or not doesn't matter, because there'll be somebody out there who will be offended. Should there be absolutely nobody offended, then the double standard wouldn't exist.

Educated guess. The language you were using didn't make me think you were associating with a perceived minority culture, maybe. Could be wrong, of course. Am I?

Well in terms of the argument, I don't think I was associating with any culture.
In terms of my actual culture, I'm at least 50% white (Hungarian) and also Maltese, which includes one red-headed Maltese great grandfather. The rest of my Maltese relatives could have been Mediterranean European, Arabic or Scandinavian. I've been at the receiving end of a few racist words and actions; often by people who considered me Arabic, or mistook me for Indian. So, although I'm not really a member of a minority group, I have had some experience in the crap that they go through.

 

[slingblade]

I disagree with basically everything in that post. Even your use of the elipsis ().

I don't know where to start and I'm not going to because I'll rant.

Alex.

Yeah, I knew you would.

Like I said, I remember that conversation we had.

 

[Legend]

I ended up responding.

See post #148.

Alex.

 

[slingblade]

Why draw the line at race though, there have been plenty of roles undertaken by actors that don't have the physical attributes the role demands, thats what make up and special effects are for. Eddie Murphy springs to mind in one of his awful films where he takes about 15 roles.

Get the best person in for the job*.

*Eddie, please for the love of God, take note.

I didn't draw any line. I thought we were talking about race. If there's another -ism in this topic, do point it out.

You must be talking about roles where an actor wears a fat-suit, for example. So why not just get a fat person? I can't answer that. It would depend on exactly which movie/actor/context you're asking about. If you have an example, we can discuss it.

 

[roger]

Now, imagine that the culture in which that occurs parodies your culture. They take the piss in vaudeville style sideshows, painting their faces and singing songs in a way that sends up how your culture does it.

In a big way, what follows is addressed more to gtc than you, Athon, but I didn't want to quote a post from several pages back.

While I can accept this is possible, it's honestly pretty hard to believe. We (Americans) invented blackface. We made it what it is - a very offensive, racist joke. There's been a very few rare exceptions where it has successfully been used in ironic ways (referenced above in this thread), and such acts received tons of press, argument, etc. Recent events such as Ted Danson being in blackface got worldwide press.

Now, I can absolutely believe that a random Australian could be ignorant of all that. Can I believe that a group of theater professionals, directors, producers, TV executives, all in the industry, all who must have been exposed to uproar over Ted Danson (don't tell me they don't read the trade press) etc., were all ignorant of it? It's pretty darn hard. Much like I find it pretty hard to believe that in general Australians don't know the N word is extremely offensive. It's possible, sure, but it sets the BS meter off.

 

[godofpie]

One more point and then I'll leave it alone. I don't know much about Australia
but I didn't see any faces of color in the audience. Would this skit have been performed if the audience was different? Say indigenous/black people? I don't know if you have something like the BET in Australia, but if you do, would this be shown on an all black/people of color network?


ETA:As to what Roger said...If anyone has any doubt as to offensiveness of the N word, go tell a black child what a cute little N&*^%^ it is and if you feel OK about yourself after that I guess it's not really a problem.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Funnily enough, the Black to the Future sketch from Family Guy was repeated on another channel last night. In that the supposed black cousin of the white father is shown portraying a stereotypical black 'funk' style character. The animation of the 'cousin' is simply the animation of the father but with brown skin and an afro. I doubt many ordinary Australians would be able to explain why that sketch was acceptable but the Michael Jackson was not.

Indeed, many Family Guy sketches are not considered "acceptable". It's just that they deliberately set out to offend, so the charge that they are offensive has little impact.

Again cringe-worthy, but Bert doesn't have a racist bone in his body. Further proof that something highly offensive in the US is but a blimp on Australia's radar.

I would think a blimp would have a fairly large radar cross-section.

 

[GreyICE]

In a big way, what follows is addressed more to gtc than you, Athon, but I didn't want to quote a post from several pages back.

While I can accept this is possible, it's honestly pretty hard to believe. We (Americans) invented blackface. We made it what it is - a very offensive, racist joke. There's been a very few rare exceptions where it has successfully been used in ironic ways (referenced above in this thread), and such acts received tons of press, argument, etc. Recent events such as Ted Danson being in blackface got worldwide press.

Now, I can absolutely believe that a random Australian could be ignorant of all that. Can I believe that a group of theater professionals, directors, producers, TV executives, all in the industry, all who must have been exposed to uproar over Ted Danson (don't tell me they don't read the trade press) etc., were all ignorant of it? It's pretty darn hard. Much like I find it pretty hard to believe that in general Australians don't know the N word is extremely offensive. It's possible, sure, but it sets the BS meter off.

Don't be a fruitcake, Australians can't be expected to keep track of that stuff, even if they're in the industry.

Don't question it. The australians all assure me it's totally true.

 

[Legend]

One more point and then I'll leave it alone. I don't know much about Australia
but I didn't see any faces of color in the audience. Would this skit have been performed if the audience was different? Say indigenous/black people? I don't know if you have something like the BET in Australia, but if you do, would this be shown on an all black/people of color network?

Would absolutely have been shown.

You have three main channels of Australian television: 7, 9 and 10, aside from ABC which is fourth popular. These are all free-TV, nationwide viewing. This was on channel 9. And these aren't the cheap free channels you might think they are. They are the most popular TV channels (Pay TV or otherwise) in the nation. I think around 2.2 million Australians (out of 21 million) tuned in to the first Hey Hey Reunion show. I'm not sure about this one (they did two, the one in question being the last, and they were just comeback specials).

Alex.

 

[Akhenaten]

One more point and then I'll leave it alone. I don't know much about Australia
but I didn't see any faces of color in the audience. Would this skit have been performed if the audience was different? Say indigenous/black people? I don't know if you have something like the BET in Australia, but if you do, would this be shown on an all black/people of color network?

It's a very good point.

The lack of your seeing any Aboriginals in the audience could be down to a couple of factors. Firstly, they are a very small minority. Secondly, Aboriginal people vary hugely in their appearance, as do Europeans. In many cases you would have to look really closely to notice, and I get it wrong myself, occasionaly.


To answer the second part of your post:

The audience for any show like this is not so much screened as 'noted' as they enter the studio. If there were an obvious Aboriginal presence, I'm sure it would be considered by the producers. They may deal with it by means of an off-camera warning to the audience that some may be offended etc . . .

Very, very few would leave. Some would write in and complain later.

The clip in question has already been aired on indigenous media outlets. Some people complained.

The Universe didn't end.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The Australian TV show "Hey Hey it's Saturday" was an institution here for over 20 years, but went off the air 15 or so years ago as it was seen to be past it's use-by date. Anyway there have been two re-union shows which have rated their socks off.

One feature of the show was "Red Faces", a send up of "New Faces", where acts of marginal talent, but often funny, were judged. Twenty years ago a group of medical students blackened their faces and did a Jackson Five skit. They were asked to come back again and here is the result:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96YLZFbrMms

Harry Connick Jnr was a judge and stormed off and there has likewise been a storm of talk-back radio responses. Many were outraged by the skit, but a surprisingly large number responded with comments like "the Jackson Five were black, why not blacken their faces"; "one of the performers was Indian"; "political correctness gone mad"; "Harry Connick Jnr can't tell us what to do" etc etc.

I should add that there has always been a high degree of irreverency in Australia, and sacred cows are regularly slaughtered on the altar of public opinion.

Opinions? Is this a hanging offence? Or indeed, political correctness gone mad?

Bump - 'cuz I don't think some people have viewed the video (from some of the comments), and I'd also like to ask if there's more to this than what's on the video. I see no Harry Connick walking off. Is there more to the story, elsewhere.

He commented, in his turn, from the panel and then they gave him a snippet of interview, later. I didn't see whatever they (the producers, I assume) viewed as him being upset. He merely commented.

Legend, I don't see where you're coming from at all. I don't see any of the elitism, snobbery, holier than thou, or whatever exactly you're reading into his comments. I'm a New Orleanean and I cringed at the act, also. But I didn't see him huffing and puffing or ranting - just commenting,... rather graciously, in fact.

As to the blackface bit? It's just plain bad, but it's just plain charcoal or lampblack, not the over-emphasized faces that minstrel shows used.

But even recognizing it as a bad bit, and not likely to have been racist in intent - it does cause me discomfort as an American. I probably would've reacted a little more strongly than Harry did.