"Black face" skit on Australian variety show

[athon]

As somebody who only heard of the term "black face" about 24 hours ago I must admit I don't quite understand it.
I personally didn't find the act offensive, and didn't even think about the coloured faces until it was mentioned, but I understand why it can be considered offensive.

Many Australians wouldn't. It's not a big part of our culture. But the black-face's origins are pretty insensitive to people of a given culture, nominally African American.

I don't so much as see the actual participants of the act as idiots (hell, it's like laughing at a kid who happens to say something unwittingly naive and cute - not their fault they don't understand), but the Nine network is obviously run by buffoons.

What I don't understand is the criteria for determining whether it is offensive or not.

Well, think of it this way. Imagine if your sense of identity is associated with a culture that has suffered its fair share of humiliation and violence in the past. Even today, there are still people who think you're somehow less than human, or that your culture is primitive, or that you've got a propensity for violence etc. Imagine that historically, the idea of speaking up and being proud of who you were - in the country you're born in - could mean you're at best just ignored, and at worst killed.

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.

Fast forward. Australia. A different country, even, where some people who simply don't know the historical origins of this little act copy it because, well, they just don't know any better. Sure, their ignorance might excuse them from deliberately being racist, but choosing to be naive about something isn't a completely free pass.

So, if people like Billy Crystal can parody and that's fine, why is it different for these guys? Do you have to be a well-known/well-liked person in order to parody, otherwise you're being racist?

It depends - if the send-up is a parody of the act itself (sending up rednecks, for instance, by making such an act look absurd) I think the subtle difference is significant. If it isn't, then the fame of a person won't make a lick of difference.

I'd argue that the skit itself wasn't racist, and probably not inappropriate for an Australian audience (but, obviously inappropriate for an American audience). 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.

Because whites have suffered the same humiliation and piss taking at the hands of a dominant culture? Really? Hm, haven't seemed to have seen that.

If it makes it simpler, let's reduce it to a personal level. Imagine if at school, you were bullied. A lot. Beaten up, head shoved down the toilet, stuff stolen...that sort of thing. People dress up like you, make fun of the things you say in parody, laugh at you.

A few years later, after school has finished, you finally get some confidence and feel better about yourself. You become a stand-up comic and parody the bullies in front of a club.

Here's the quiz - are those forms of parody identical in their impact?

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.

Hey, nobody is stopping you from speaking up if you're honestly offended by a black person's portrayal of your culture. Seriously.

I think that aside from the Aborigines, they are the group in Australia that can currently identify the most with the racism shown to the Blacks in America.

Except (until recently, I believe - the figures might be different given the racial tensions that have been stirred) there was no concentrated attack on Indian culture. At least, no more than other racial vilification. From how I understand it, Indians simply got mixed up in the usual redneck aggression against Muslim minorities and made out it was personal against them.

Athon

 

[Akhenaten]

What if they wore masks? What if they wore (strangely enough) black faced masks of these men? Would it be racist then? Would he even have considered speaking out "on behalf of his country"?

Don't think so. You can't tell me you do.


Alex.

Alex, Ive modified your post above to preserve context. I missed it the first time around.

I see your point clearly and I'm with you 100%.

Further, I'm afraid I have to admit that I found your proposed scenario to be absolutely hilarious, so I don't know what that says about me.



Cheers,

Dave

 

[SatanicSheep]

As for the comparison to "White Chicks" and other examples of African America performers playing white? Well, let's just say I'm not as quick to jump on the bandwagon of calling that racist. White people didn't get bought and sold for four hundred years, then deliberately insulted and denigrated on every occasion, and have the only white faces seen in any popular media portrayed as grotesque caricatures. I think, frankly a little joke at our expense isn't so bad, considering how easy we've had it.

It's just as racist. You just feel that it's justified racism so it doesn't offend you.

 

[athon]

But that's the thing. The "black faces" are not only not a problem in Australia, or a "taboo" as it's otherwise been put. It was taking a stab at the Jackson 5. Impersonating black people through having a black face. There's nothing racial in that because it DOES NOT denigrate black people.

Fine. I don't think anybody is saying that they were deliberately being racist. In fact, many have said otherwise.

But while it might excuse them from being deliberately antagonistic, how does it forgive it from being a racist act? I can almost forgive the group for being uninformed, but the nine network obviously are run by people who have never really stepped outside of their front yard.

It is an impersonation, just like Robert Downey Jnr.'s. I'm sorry but nothing I've seen or heard hear is moving me an inch in the opposite direction.

Then you're not really paying attention. Fair enough, I guess. The subtle differences that have been explained are either obvious, or they're not. If you don't get it...well, not much anybody can do for you.

What you consider racist is one thing, what we consider racist is another. I just don't understand this point of, "You'd never see that in America", and therefore Australia is (or this skit is) in the wrong.

You are right, that there are different cultural sensitivities. Australians are damn lucky. We've never really been forced to deal with the more embarrassing parts of our history and consider what it's like to be part of another subculture.

Unfortunately for some, I guess.

Athon

 

[Legend]

Here's the post again for my opposition D) to see:

As for the comparison to Robert Downey Jr. in "Tropic Thunder," did anyone miss the irony that his character was an Australian who didn't seem to understand how racist it was that he was playing a black man? Or that the actual African American character in the movie is himself playing up to a stereotype in order to conceal his homosexuality while simultaneously calling out Robert Downey Jr.'s character for being a racist stereotype and taking away a role from an actual African American actor? There were layers upon layers of satire going on in that film, not just poking fun at method acting.
It is way different from a bunch of dentists or whatever putting on afro wigs and singing a Jackson 5 song.

But that's the thing. The "black faces" are not only not a problem in Australia, or a "taboo" as it's otherwise been put. It was taking a stab at the Jackson 5. Impersonating black people through having a black face. There's nothing racial in that because it DOES NOT denigrate black people.

Why hasn't anyone considered my comment about masks in my "To Everyone" address:

What if they wore masks? What if they wore (strangely enough) black faced masks of these men? Would it be racist then? Would he even have considered speaking out "on behalf of his country"?

Don't think so. You can't tell me you do.

It is an impersonation, just like Robert Downey Jnr.'s. I'm sorry but nothing I've seen or heard hear is moving me an inch in the opposite direction.

Also, I see these golliwog dolls in quaint gift shops and toy stores and I just have to shake my head and cringe. There is no way you'd see that in America, except maybe at a crafts faire at a white racist church in the South, and even then they'd be made by a woman in her 80's who didn't know better.

And the bolded part is my problem. This is not America. You cannot transform culture to adhere to a culture an entire hemisphere away. What you consider racist is one thing, what we consider racist is another. I just don't understand this point of, "You'd never see that in America", and therefore Australia is (or this skit is) in the wrong.

Alex.

 

[Legend]

Fine. I don't think anybody is saying that they were deliberately being racist. In fact, many have said otherwise.

But while it might excuse them from being deliberately antagonistic, how does it forgive it from being a racist act? I can almost forgive the group for being uninformed, but the nine network obviously are run by people who have never really stepped outside of their front yard.

That's the entire point of my argument. It is NOT racist.

I don't care if it is in the Good Ole' US of A because it is not in the Good Ole' US of A.

Then you're not really paying attention. Fair enough, I guess. The subtle differences that have been explained are either obvious, or they're not. If you don't get it...well, not much anybody can do for you.

May I call this a cop out? Why can't you explain what I'm apparently missing?

Alex.

 

[Akhenaten]

From Definition #3 of "Racist" at the Urban Dictionary:

"Sir, I may have to give you a ticket for raping and brutally murdering that nun."

"You havingsex crack-bottom racist! It's just because I'm black ain't it? You say that havingsex word like you know what you be talkin' bout! You is ignorant!"

 

[athon]

That's the entire point of my argument. It is NOT racist.

I don't care if it is in the Good Ole' US of A because it is not in the Good Ole' US of A.

How is it not racist? At all? How do you define racism? Perhaps to you, the intention is the qualifier. If so, then fine. According to you, it's not.

However, how does ignorance suddenly excuse it? If you're in a fortunate position in life where nothing in your background or culture is sensitive enough for you to ever be offended by a term or a concept, then you are indeed a lucky man. However, others aren't. For them, even well intended humour contrasts against the struggle of trying to rebuild pride in their cultural background again.

The fact you find it hard to sympathise with that is a good thing, in that you obviously have no experience to remotely compare it to. But it might pay to just leave a small amount of doubt there, just to concede it's possible that not all people have that strength of conviction in their culture.

May I call this a cop out? Why can't you explain what I'm apparently missing?

Personally, I'm not sure if I can add to what has been said already. It makes perfect sense to me - RDJunior's role in Black Thunder was ironic. It was taking the piss out of the concept itself, not out of black people. It was parodying the very idea of a white guy portraying black culture for entertainment. What's more, not just a white guy - but a white guy from a country that has absolutely no experience with African American culture. THAT is where the humour lies in the movie - laughing at the stupid Aussie being insensitive to black culture. NOT laughing at his taking the piss out of blacks.

Any better?

Athon

 

[gtc]

Maybe our friends down under would like me to send them some Mississippi Coon Jiggers for their children to play with.

We have Coon cheese, named after the man who invented it.

Dot or feather?

Subcontinental.

 

[athon]

I can give my own personal version of something kind of similar, here.

In the UK, the word 'pikie' is more or less derogatory for travelers. Not something you'd call one, at least to their face. I had no idea. I happened to live on a street of travelers, and the guy I lived with (a local) constantly referred to them as such.

So, in front of a class, I made a reference to 'pikies', innocently having no idea really what I'd just said. It was only when the teacher's assistant took me aside later and explained the equivalence of what I'd said was I mortified. Worse still, two of the kids in my class were from traveler families.

You bet I apologised and explained. Why? Because it was insensitive. Doesn't matter that I did it unintentionally - there were kids there who copped a lot of flak for their families, and here was their teacher now sounding as if he was also against them. Turns out they weren't as much 'offended' as 'we'll egg this bastard's house later'.

Nonetheless, I could have simply shrugged it off and said nothing, arguing I didn't know any better, so, hey, who cares? Still, better an apology and a mental note to self to avoid saying it again in such a context than upsetting students.

Athon

 

[enjoytheview]

the Nine network is obviously run by buffoons.

I wholeheartedly agree

Well, think of it this way. Imagine if your sense of identity is associated with a culture that has suffered its fair share of humiliation and violence in the past. Even today, there are still people who think you're somehow less than human, or that your culture is primitive, or that you've got a propensity for violence etc. Imagine that historically, the idea of speaking up and being proud of who you were - in the country you're born in - could mean you're at best just ignored, and at worst killed.

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.

Fast forward. Australia. A different country, even, where some people who simply don't know the historical origins of this little act copy it because, well, they just don't know any better. Sure, their ignorance might excuse them from deliberately being racist, but choosing to be naive about something isn't a completely free pass.

This bit was more what I was getting at. I don't see how a parody of the Jackson five is any way a parody of black people as a whole. Surely the Jacksons aren't entirely representative of the way a whole culture sung and danced? This brings up what Legend said before: if they had store-bought masks, would it have been okay? It seems that had they bought masks, they would have been parodying the Jacksons, but by painting their faces they were parodying Black culture and persecution.

If it makes it simpler, let's reduce it to a personal level. Imagine if at school, you were bullied. A lot. Beaten up, head shoved down the toilet, stuff stolen...that sort of thing. People dress up like you, make fun of the things you say in parody, laugh at you.

A few years later, after school has finished, you finally get some confidence and feel better about yourself. You become a stand-up comic and parody the bullies in front of a club.

Here's the quiz - are those forms of parody identical in their impact?

To answer your question: No. But, those forms of parody aren't comparable to what I was talking about either.

I'll take the bullying example. Were somebody to dress up as me as a bullied kid, but then copy something else that I did that had nothing to do with me being bullied, and was actually something which earned me respect (for instance, the manner in which I danced) then that is no different to people dressing up as the bully, and parodying something that the bully was well known for (a particular fashion sense for instance) without either group parodying the actual history involved. In my opinion, this is more what the act on HHIS did. I didn't see a parody of black history in itself, simply a parody of the performance of men who happen to be black.

The examples you provided, if I were to match them to a black/white analogy, the first would be the equivalent of dressing as a black whilst deliberately altering my accent to talk in a "black" kind of way, to put that culture down. The equivalent of "talkin' stooopid" to mock rednecks. It's blatantly racist regardless of which race you're parodying, but in my opinion, the act on HHIS did nothing of this sort.

Hey, nobody is stopping you from speaking up if you're honestly offended by a black person's portrayal of your culture. Seriously.

Thanks, but I don't recall ever mentioning being offended by anybody portraying "my culture". I'm equally interested that you seem to have an idea of what "my culture" is. Given that I was talking about blacks portraying whites, it seems as though you've assumed that I identify as white. Care to explain why?
Nevertheless, none of that had anything to do with my argument. My argument was that although I agree that we should acknowledge, learn from and avoid a repeat of previous and current actions, I don't see how an inherently racist solution (albeit racist towards the other side for a change) will eventually give the right outcome.

Except (until recently, I believe - the figures might be different given the racial tensions that have been stirred) there was no concentrated attack on Indian culture. At least, no more than other racial vilification. From how I understand it, Indians simply got mixed up in the usual redneck aggression against Muslim minorities and made out it was personal against them.

It may have been the case initially that we weren't dealing with a personal attack against Indians, but I can assure you that one of the most recently reported attacks (epping skate park/meadowglen athletics track) which happened less than 10km from my house was definitely personal.

 

[GreyICE]

Yeah a bunch of fruitcakes, aren't we?

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...).

 

[WildCat]

Isn't that *exactly* what we are talking about???

That IS what happened last week on Aussie tv. HC Jr. walked out.

No, not at all. They weren't using ridiculous racial stereotypes against Australian Aborigines, but of American blacks.

 

[gtc]

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...).

Chav is a British term.

 

[Legend]

How is it not racist? At all? How do you define racism? Perhaps to you, the intention is the qualifier. If so, then fine. According to you, it's not.

However, how does ignorance suddenly excuse it? If you're in a fortunate position in life where nothing in your background or culture is sensitive enough for you to ever be offended by a term or a concept, then you are indeed a lucky man. However, others aren't. For them, even well intended humour contrasts against the struggle of trying to rebuild pride in their cultural background again.

The fact you find it hard to sympathise with that is a good thing, in that you obviously have no experience to remotely compare it to. But it might pay to just leave a small amount of doubt there, just to concede it's possible that not all people have that strength of conviction in their culture.

It isn't racism because people are not laughing at these people having black faces, they are laughing at the portrayal of the Jackson 5, who happen to be black, and therefore those impersonating the black people have black faces. I still must be missing something here.

Why haven't you considered my mask reference? Why hasn't anyone?

If the joke was a target against black people, then one would call the act racist. If the actors wore black face paint and took the mickey out of black people, as the centre-point of the play, as a denigrating thing towards black people, then one would call the act racist. But that is not the case.

This flows perfectly on:

Personally, I'm not sure if I can add to what has been said already. It makes perfect sense to me - RDJunior's role in Black Thunder was ironic. It was taking the piss out of the concept itself, not out of black people. It was parodying the very idea of a white guy portraying black culture for entertainment. What's more, not just a white guy - but a white guy from a country that has absolutely no experience with African American culture. THAT is where the humour lies in the movie - laughing at the stupid Aussie being insensitive to black culture. NOT laughing at his taking the piss out of blacks.

Any better?

Athon

Is that not precisely what we saw here?

We saw people who were white, dressed up as black people. That is what makes the gig funny to some. If it were a black person doing that skit, it wouldn't be funny to those "some". 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".

Alex.

 

[athon]

This bit was more what I was getting at. I don't see how a parody of the Jackson five is any way a parody of black people as a whole. Surely the Jacksons aren't entirely representative of the way a whole culture sung and danced? This brings up what Legend said before: if they had store-bought masks, would it have been okay? It seems that had they bought masks, they would have been parodying the Jacksons, but by painting their faces they were parodying Black culture and persecution.

I agree that it was the face painting that was associated more with the vaudeville style of parody that ruffled feathers, rather than simply it being white folk pretending to be the Jacksons.

Still, again, put yourself in another culture's position. This is an iconic group that earned your people just a little bit of respect amidst the dominant culture - and here they're being mocked. Now, I know it's a little hard to see why this might be a touch sensitive if you've never been in that position, but I can understand why some people would see this bunch of idiots as insensitive wankers.

I'll take the bullying example. Were somebody to dress up as me as a bullied kid, but then copy something else that I did that had nothing to do with me being bullied, and was actually something which earned me respect (for instance, the manner in which I danced) then that is no different to people dressing up as the bully, and parodying something that the bully was well known for (a particular fashion sense for instance) without either group parodying the actual history involved.

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.

In my opinion, this is more what the act on HHIS did. I didn't see a parody of black history in itself, simply a parody of the performance of men who happen to be black.

Who do happen to be a part of black history. The Jacksons weren't just some band who happened to be African American - the sixties and seventies was a rather significant age for African American culture, and black music played a big role in that.

The equivalent of "talkin' stooopid" to mock rednecks. It's blatantly racist regardless of which race you're parodying, but in my opinion, the act on HHIS did nothing of this sort.

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.

Thanks, but I don't recall ever mentioning being offended by anybody portraying "my culture".

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?

I'm equally interested that you seem to have an idea of what "my culture" is. Given that I was talking about blacks portraying whites, it seems as though you've assumed that I identify as white. Care to explain why?

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?

My argument was that although I agree that we should acknowledge, learn from and avoid a repeat of previous and current actions, I don't see how an inherently racist solution (albeit racist towards the other side for a change) will eventually give the right outcome.

I might have missed where somebody said it would.

In any case, I'm not sure how I see it's possible. The damage done by racist acts is contextual. It's like me laughing about your recently deceased grandmother and it's compared to a reprisal where you laugh at my still living one. The act is the same - the impact isn't.

It may have been the case initially that we weren't dealing with a personal attack against Indians, but I can assure you that one of the most recently reported attacks (epping skate park/meadowglen athletics track) which happened less than 10km from my house was definitely personal.

Yeah, as I said, I'm not sure what the current situation is. I wouldn't be surprised if it is on the up now. I just know the original figures showed there was no concentrated focus on Indians initially.

Athon

 

[WildCat]

And the bolded part is my problem. This is not America. You cannot transform culture to adhere to a culture an entire hemisphere away. What you consider racist is one thing, what we consider racist is another. I just don't understand this point of, "You'd never see that in America", and therefore Australia is (or this skit is) in the wrong.

Alex.

I don't think anyone is saying that, just pointing out the reason for Connick's reaction. And though it was in Australia in the age of youtube the video will get back to the US in about, oh, 2 minutes. And if Connick had played along and dismissed it as just something those crazy Aussies do his career (such as it is) in the US would be over.

Connick really had no choice but to call out this skit, but I don't think the people in it knew that what they were doing was considered racist in the US and most likely just thought it was harmless parody.

 

[EvilSmurf]

On a slightly different note: I've seen a few on this thread dismiss the fact that one of the performers was Indian, but I personally think this is the greatest indication that there was no racist intention. Indians have gone through a hell of a lot of racist crap in Australia this year (particularly in Melbourne) to the point where we've had to send politicians over there to try and smooth things over. I think that aside from the Aborigines, they are the group in Australia that can currently identify the most with the racism shown to the Blacks in America.

Lebanese in Sydney for 100, Alex (or Tony, as I remember from the short Australian incarnation of the show).

That is called being selective. He also said: "if they came onto the show looking like that in America it would be Hey Hey There's No More Show". Not only that but the quote you pointed out is actually enough to deduce that insinuation anyway. It first implies the skit was morally wrong and that "where [he] comes from" it would never go to air (backed up by your own words and what Harry expressed in the earlier quote I mentioned) and therefore America is more morally correct.

It wouldn't go to air in the United States. Well, it might but it would cause a bigger controversy than Janet Jackson's breast. He is not saying anything about who is "right" and "wrong" he was saying that he saw it as wrong, and such a thing would never be allowed to happen in the United States.

 

[athon]

Why haven't you considered my mask reference? Why hasn't anyone?

See my previous post.

If the joke was a target against black people, then one would call the act racist. If the actors wore black face paint and took the mickey out of black people, as the centre-point of the play, as a denigrating thing towards black people, then one would call the act racist. But that is not the case.

Again, see previous post. You're using a slightly different definition of racism to me. For sake of communication, we can just call it racially insensitive, if it helps you understand.

Is that not precisely what we saw here?

Nope. And the fact you still think that has me scratching my head. I can't think of any other way of explaining the context.

Yes, these guys were laughing at the Jacksons, and not directly at black people. However, the fact they were ignorant of these points:

a) In the past, black people were parodied in this exact manner
b) The Jacksons happened to be a rather iconic group for African American culture during a significant period of black history
c) Black culture is still finding its feet after a rather brutal history

does show them to be pretty damn naive and insensitive to other cultures. Of course, they can claim to simply not have known. But that's why people are encouraged to look beyond their own horizons - so they don't fall into those traps in the first place.

We saw people who were white, dressed up as black people. That is what makes the gig funny to some. If it were a black person doing that skit, it wouldn't be funny to those "some". 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".

Wow. I could understand if you might have initially thought that, without having seen the movie (yeah - Freudian slip on my behalf - it's late here in Canberra). But even after I just explained that it far more than what you've just said, you're still insisting that it's 'just some white guy pretending to be black which is why it's funny'.

Yes, there are people who would simply find that funny. There are people out there who find shallow things funny. Hell, Chris Farley had a successful career - I rest my case.

But there was more to the movie than that. If you still don't see it, well, I tried.

Athon

 

[Legend]

WildCat: It's become a global "issue" and it isn't one. That's just my problem. Again, this goes back to Harry Connick's insinuations. I'm just uncomfortable with it. Seriously uncomfortable with it. But I suppose it's a matter of opinion on that part.

Alex.