"Black face" skit on Australian variety show

[Delscottio]

Okay, let's say I unjustly accuse you of being racist in front of a stage, when you had no such intentions. Do you smile and nod your head, or look shocked and shake it? look at the tape, at the MJ character, right around 2:18-2:20.

Or alternatively, since racism is so charged, at work one of your employees makes a sexually suggestive comment and you say to him "that sort of thing doesn't fly in the workplace" and he grins sheepishly and nods his head, would you ever accept him later saying he had no idea it was unacceptable?

I find it extremely difficult to accept other explanation other than they knew exactly why Harry was protesting their act. You just don't nod yes to vile accusations that have no connection to your intended behavior.

You may be correct, but this is on national TV in front of millions (potentially) - the last thing I would do is kick up a fuss - I would want off asap. Especially when the comments are coming from someone in a position of "power", on a "junk" TV show that to them or anyone else isn't to be taken seriously. Conforming when under pressure isn't unusual. Again this is just my opinion and I may be totally out with it.
Now at work my reaction to such an allegation would be completely different. For a start I'd be in a position and situation I am used to and comfortable with, only having to deal with the one issue.

I'd agree if someone did as you say at work I wouldn't believe them at a later date if they denied it. (unless they were known as socially inept and I knew they couldn't deal with conflict - I'd give them a little leeway not much like).

Another point, I take it this isn't live? They may have had their say and its been cut??

Why the heck did the show invite them back though, they are just as stupid imo.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

IMO, the skit had very little to do with the Jackson 5. They did not parody one of their songs, there was no effort to sound like them, and they made no attempt to look like them. Instead, they used coal-black make-up, and sambo-like afro-wigs in clear mimicry of old-time minstrel shows.

And to answer Legend's earlier question, they could have worn Jackson 5 masks and performed the same routine with less outrage that what they did. There is a difference.

And as roger points out, they knew what they were doing.

 

[roger]

To make it clear to those not from the States, this is the kind of thing they were referencing:

 

[roger]

And, to explain that, blackface has a tradition in the US from the early 1800s. It was a tradition of making fun of black slaves and what culture they were able to salvage from the extraordinarily destroying effects of being stolen from their home countries and enslaved. Ha ha. They were depicted as stupid, ignorant, ass licking, happy to be slaves, with an insatiable appetite for white women. Ha ha. (note bene: the ha ha's are sarcastic, the history is factual). That supposed insatiable appetite being one of the main reasons for lynchings - black men regularly got beaten and hung for just talking to a white woman. Ha ha. This tradition was roundly derided for being racist back in the 1840s, with extremely prominent people speaking out against it - such as Douglass. Nonetheless, the tradition, such as it was, continued, with whites routinely taking music invented by blacks and profitting from it, while of course not allowing blacks in the show (ha ha). It was a systematic protrayal of a race as ignorant, stupid, inferior, with unstoppable drives (sex, drugs, you name it). Ha ha?

It's been over 170 years since these acts have been condemned as racist, yet they continue, occasionally.

The complaint here is not that they guys dressed up as black men. Harry himself does a routine where he imitates Jesse Jackson, and it's funny. But, it is not a reference back to 170 years of a theatrical tradition of denigrating a race, it's a skit about a single person. If the single MJ person got up and did his act, I don't see that anyone would complain about a racist element to it. But the makeup and dress of the other 5 just references the blackface tradition, as exemplified in the poster I posted above. You just can't invoke 170 years of historical racism and then claim it's not racist, anymore than I can say the N word and claim I'm not being racist by using it (assuming I'm not quoting somebody, playing a racist in a play, or whatever).

I can sort of understand not being aware of the depth of this history here. But, upon being informed of it, to stand up for it? Seems like the reasonable response, such as what thehost did, would be along the lines of "holy crap, it didn't occur to me, please, please forgive this lapse and I'll never do it again. Thank you so much for correcting me".

 

[athon]

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

I was waiting for that to be the next comment.

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.

No. It is not an 'attack'. It is an insensitivity. And in the same breath that you say 'it's certainly worth' acknowledging', you're also unwittingly being quite dismissive of it.

If you're at a party where a mate's grandmother just died, and you just arrived late, and start to sing a song about dead grandmothers, it can be rightfully argued that you didn't know any better. Still, the act itself is insensitive, and I'd certainly hope you'd apologise and not flippantly dismiss it. Why? Because you're suddenly aware that your actions caused somebody grief.

You could, of course, simply walk away and say 'I didn't know; they're being overly sensitive', of course. Since it's a subjective statement, you're not technically wrong. But I'd love to see how many friends you'd have after that.

Issues like this whole black-face one come down to this; there are people in the world who have a different perspective to you. They don't have your strength in culture, personal esteem, or sense of place in the world. They have to fight for that as others use humour and mockery to beat them down. Now, others will just see it as humour, without the mockery. So, you have a choice - you either try to sympathise and display some compassion, or you tell them to keep struggling and get over it.

Given I'm quietly confident that you come from a fairly confident, proud cultural background (again, educated guess, and I could be wrong), I'd imagine you can indeed arrogantly tell people of other cultures they're just being oversensitive. Your own values mean you don't flinch at such things, and it would seem like an overreaction. Still, it does show you're not very good at picturing yourself in another man's shoes.

Athon

 

[gtc]

I think gtc just somewhat ironically proved what I was actually trying to say in my post.

Please don't call me racist to cover up your ignorance. You are better than greyICE.

Try some reading first.

Here or Here or Here or Here or particularly Here

Here

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.

What I was saying was that your statement was itself ironic.

 

[gtc]

Why draw the line at race though

And there are plenty of straight people who can play straight roles. And pantomime will have to change, of course.

 

[Akhenaten]

Those darkies just can't take a joke, can they? What a bunch of fruitcakes.

Some can, some can't. Same as palies. Some of each group are fruitcakes, some are not.

This was a show that had it's first black performer in 1975, 18 years after the show started, a performer that was contractually obligated to appear and that regrets ever being associated with the show. A show that received petitions to end it for it's racist content, and that is widely regarded as an embarrassment today.

I didn't know that at the time I first saw the show and it doesn't affect my anecdote now that I do. I will reconsider the effect of it being shown today and review my position on that.

What can I say to that? This is your fondest memory?!?! I unreservedly accept that as a child, you were unaware of the historical connotations of blackface, and of the racist overtones of the show. But now? Come on. Pining for the good old days when you could make racist jokes about blacks with impunity?

It is not my fondest memory, but it is on the list. It was a happy and innocent time for me. It is a memory, and I have no reason or desire to try to alter it.

I am most certainly not pining for the good old days of blackface and strawmen.

Sorry, not going to happen today.

I do not know that.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]source.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What a loss to the arts and the humanities. To think we can't see "Zip Coon" on TV anymore, a stock blackface character of an 'uppity colored', or "Jim Crow", the carefree slave. Who could possibly be offended by this?[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

I don't know. Someone should start a thread discussing old British TV shows and explore the issue further.

 

[Akhenaten]

Um, yes. When racism is the cultural norm, it is frequently seen as acceptable. And the people complaining about it are seen as troublemakers.

I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement.

Rosa Parks was loudly condemned by a large segment for not 'just moving to the back of the bus.' I mean how hard is it to walk to the back of a bus? Then there'd have been no problems. What a lousy rhymes-with-witch, making all this fuss over a short walk.

I now see that type of behaviour as deplorable and I have for most of my life.

I wasn't aware of segregation or apartheid at the time of the anecdote I related, and thus was unable to form a judgement of them at all. To me it was a group of clever people singing and dancing on TV and it was entertaining.

 

[Akhenaten]

The good old days, before the darkies, ******* and wogs got all uppity.

I don't know what the naughtyword might have been, but it doesn't matter.

Your statement is correct.

The people who were being referred to as darkies, wogs and worse got very uppity, and in my opinion they had every right to do so. I take their side in that 100%.

They were the BAD old days, they are gone. I am happy with that.


Sidebar: Did you know that members of the Church of Scientology® refer to non-scientologists as "wogs"?

 

[gtc]

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.

More than just random Australians. I had to explain to at least one person why the skit was offensive to Americans.

These people aren't theatre directors and the skit wouldn't have been approved by many people.

And no I don't think they would have read your trade press and I doubt they know of Ted Danson as anything other than that guy from Cheers, Three Men and a Baby and that sit com that wasn't Frasier.

I certainly don't know about Ted Danson.

We know the n word is offensive but until recently I was not aware that it was much more offensive than other racial epitaths. It is commonly used in black culture which might be the source of our confusion - it is somewhat odd that such a hateful word would be appropriated in that way. However, the n word guy episode of South Park would have been watched by many Australians and the trouble that Michael Richards got into has received airplay here.

 

[lionking]

I'd say blind jerks who have been granted the benefit of having a relatively homogeneous culture on an island-continent and are busy bungling the ONE cultural clash they have (with the natives) because they have no idea how to interact with others. But hey, just because you've internalized most of the fun parts of chav culture doesn't make you fruitcakes (what it does make you though...).

I was going to let this go, but your ignorance about Australia is extreme.

http://www.australiancollaboration.com.au/_factsheets/1.%20Multicultural_FactSheet.pdf

Since World War II ,
approximately 6 million immigrants from over 150 countries
have settled in Australia. According to the 2006 Census,
24 per cent of Australians were born overseas, and an
additional 20 per cent have either one or both parents born
overseas. These percentages are among the highest in the
developed world.

 

[gtc]

I'll say, especially when your country was stealing land all over the world from people that didn't belong to you and making a mint off of the slave trade!

But hey, all in good fun! Pip pip!

You do know that Australia does not equal the UK and that the UK outlawed the slave trade a long time before the US did?

 

[gtc]

You just can't invoke 170 years of historical racism and then claim it's not racist, anymore than I can say the N word and claim I'm not being racist by using it (assuming I'm not quoting somebody, playing a racist in a play, or whatever).

Australia does not equal the US. You can assume that we are all aware of your cultural taboos. Anymore than I would assume that you would be aware of our cultural taboos.

But, upon being informed of it, to stand up for it?

The show did apologise. Straight away.

 

[Akhenaten]

To make it clear to those not from the States, this is the kind of thing they were referencing

<image went away>

And, to explain that, blackface has a tradition in the US from the early 1800s. It was a tradition of making fun of black slaves and what culture they were able to salvage from the extraordinarily destroying effects of being stolen from their home countries and enslaved. Ha ha. They were depicted as stupid, ignorant, ass licking, happy to be slaves, with an insatiable appetite for white women. Ha ha. (note bene: the ha ha's are sarcastic, the history is factual). That supposed insatiable appetite being one of the main reasons for lynchings - black men regularly got beaten and hung for just talking to a white woman. Ha ha. This tradition was roundly derided for being racist back in the 1840s, with extremely prominent people speaking out against it - such as Douglass. Nonetheless, the tradition, such as it was, continued, with whites routinely taking music invented by blacks and profitting from it, while of course not allowing blacks in the show (ha ha). It was a systematic protrayal of a race as ignorant, stupid, inferior, with unstoppable drives (sex, drugs, you name it). Ha ha?

It's been over 170 years since these acts have been condemned as racist, yet they continue, occasionally.

The complaint here is not that they guys dressed up as black men. Harry himself does a routine where he imitates Jesse Jackson, and it's funny. But, it is not a reference back to 170 years of a theatrical tradition of denigrating a race, it's a skit about a single person. If the single MJ person got up and did his act, I don't see that anyone would complain about a racist element to it. But the makeup and dress of the other 5 just references the blackface tradition, as exemplified in the poster I posted above. You just can't invoke 170 years of historical racism and then claim it's not racist, anymore than I can say the N word and claim I'm not being racist by using it (assuming I'm not quoting somebody, playing a racist in a play, or whatever).

I can sort of understand not being aware of the depth of this history here. But, upon being informed of it, to stand up for it? Seems like the reasonable response, such as what thehost did, would be along the lines of "holy crap, it didn't occur to me, please, please forgive this lapse and I'll never do it again. Thank you so much for correcting me".

Roger, I'm not sure at whom your post was directed, or to whom it referred, but I for one have never seen that image before and it means nothing to me.

The explanation you have provided is nice, but it seems odd that you need an image and a substantial explanation in order to convince someone to be offended about something they were hitherto somewhat blasé about.

What's that all about?

 

[Greg44]

Now that I have had some time to think about this, I say Harry Connick Jr. was not outraged enough.

I find it hard to believe that 40 year old doctors have never heard of Al Jolson and 'Blackface' in general, and that painting your face completely PITCH BLACK can be done with the intention of impersonating African American performers, rather than deliberately exaggerating a physical characteristic, as a caricature. As I see the exaggeration of skin colour as the predominant feature of the 'skit', then I most certainly consider it to be racist.

The "Where's Khamal" cartoon in this segment is the real smoking gun. You could say that the cartoonist does not speak for the performers, producers and host, but his job is to connect with the audience and the mood of the show, he seemed to do a good job in this case.(Khamal used to perform on the show regularly, he is Sri Lankan, and apparently tolerated years of light-hearted racism).

There is an Aboriginal TV channel here in Australia called NITV, you can pick it up through FOXTEL. I don't think they would have approved of or played such a sketch on their station.

 

[lionking]

The "Where's Khamal" cartoon in this segment is the real smoking gun. You could say that the cartoonist does not speak for the performers, producers and host, but his job is to connect with the audience and the mood of the show, he seemed to do a good job in this case.(Khamal used to perform on the show regularly, he is Sri Lankan, and apparently tolerated years of light-hearted racism).

You do know that Khamal has stated that he believes he has never been treated in a racist way by the show?

 

[Greg44]

You do know that Khamal has stated that he believes he has never been treated in a racist way by the show?

No, I did not know that, hence I chose to use the word apparently instead of doing any digging. I did see him on TV the day after denouncing the skit, and saying that he was happy to go into "the minefield" for all those years.

 

[Mumbles]

Going a back a bit, something important was overlooked here...

I also find the obvious double standard of blacks being able to dress as whites but whites not being able to dress as blacks racist in itself. I understand the history, and why one is considered worse than the other, but I can't see how having racially-based double standards encourages us to overcome racism.

There's actually no double standard. If the Jackson 5 had shown up somewhere, with shoe polish on their faces and bad wigs on their heads, speaking in overdone accents, and calling themselves the Jackson Jive, people would have been outraged. Meanwhile, white performers sometimes use makeup to make themselves look lighter - and nobody really cares.

Connick's, and other people's, disgust wasn't because they were imitating the Jackson 5, it was because of the way they were doing it. There's the "Jackson Jive" name, the clumsy dancing, the shoe polish on the face, and the bad stereotypical accents. The only way it could have been worse was if they were eating watermelon or chasing a white woman around (no, an actual white woman, not Michael).

And of course, everyone with any taste was outraged by "White Chicks".