Warning: Below video is racist, highly offensive
Whatever happened to being a citizen of the world? Why aren't media outlets more conscious about their content in this age of mass information sharing? It is true that I have never been to Australia and probably don't plan on going anytime soon. But it is totally disheartening for me to see privileged, and ostensibly educated, white men appropriating this feigned image of Blackness for comedic ends. Then there is this other problematic moment where the "Jackson Jive" ridicule Michael Jackson's vitiligo and highly complex relationship with color by feigning white face. It's as if, the MJ impersonator wasn't white himself. For shame.
Check out Whoopi's take on the matter on The View:
I am proud of Connick for standing up for Black folks. We should be clear, however, just because some Americans have the truth on that offensive skit in Australia, that doesn't mean blackface isn't still a problem here. This is especially important as we approach Halloween. I am still mad about students who dressed in blackface for Halloween to mock Katrina survivors in search of food. And it's not just Katrina survivors or black folks either. Some costumes are so outrageous, there are no words to even describe it. In 2007, there was an incident on my campus where a white male dressed up as a dead Mexican, presumably a reference to border shootings, for Halloween.
It is sometimes easier to take note of cultural and racial appropriation but sexual minorities are also used for costume fodder. In the words of the Juno character, some women are "shockingly cavalier" about the way they impersonate exotic dancers, prostitutes and what the Kardashian sissies would characterize as the "slore" in the name of rotten pumpkins and cheap candy. I am sick to my stomach of people who lack creativity or any sense of innovation taking out their frustrations on people of color and sexual minorities by slipping into what they perceive is the role of these folks only to discard this subordinate position for their privileged one before the sun rises the next day.
This may need to be said explicitly: I think it's really shitty of people with privilege to appropriate the perceived uniform of a less privileged member of society in jest. It's hurtful, cruel and offensive. It shouldn't take a law to prevent people from doing assholic things, we should just be more sensitive to the constituents of our communities.
H/T to Smita Satiani Huff Po blogger for helping me grapple with these issues.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Appropriating the Oppressed.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16498
rubbish, some tribute. been to australia and they were extremely bigoted, with white folks saying racist crap to you on the street, everyone staring at you in a restaurant and all that BS. they knew exactly what they were doing
I think this is really interesting. Because on one hand, I don't think there is something inherently wrong with people of one race dressing like people of another race in the arts. Men play women, women play men. As an actor, I have played murderers, crazy people, Christians, Jews, athiests, Italians, French people etc. Because that's what performers do- they represent other people. And they try to look as much like them as possible. So if they're going to do a skit about a famous singing group that was black, they're going to try and look black. That in itself is not an offensive thing, in my opinion.
However, because of what black face has meant historically in our country, it is very offensive. When white people putting on black make-up meant a culture of exclusion, oppression, and mockery for so long, it cannot be continued without bringing up those issues.
But in Australia they do not have that context. There may be racism in Australia against blacks, but that does not mean that this is it. Doing an over the top skit about any singing group is common on many shows. The only thing that made this different was that there was black face. And without the cultural context of black face being offensive, I do believe that it was meant to be harmless.
That said, I'm glad Harry Connick, Jr. was there and said what he said. Its important for other cultures and places to know what has happened in the world and understand that what may not be offensive in their country is deeply related to horribly offensive things elsewhere.
If they were truly trying to look like the Jackson Five why didn't they use brown paint instead of black? Black paint is right in line with the shoe-polished faces of black minstrel shows whereas brown would have given them an appearance a lot closer to skin color. And the fact that they updated their show from 20 years earlier to portray Michael Jackson as white (again, truly white) shows that they had some awareness of race when planning this performance.
I do agree that this is much less offensive because minstrel performances aren't a part of their history. However, they seem to be doing play on American black face as much as they are an American group. I don't believe it was intentionally racist, but I do believe the performers and show producers hold some responsibility for not giving it more thought.
I hadn't thought about the idea that this might be a play on black face itself. If that is the case then it does mean something different. It could be a good different, as in pointing out that minstrel shows were completely ridiculous and making fun of them. But more likely it would definitely mean it was more offensive. I didn't see it that way, but I think that's a very legitimate point.
the offense of black face is not simply relegated to america. i've visited oz and as a black person i have never ever felt such unadulterated hatred for me as a black person. they are well versed in the meaning of black face. the fact that it is only slightly offensive simply shows how deeply racist the country is.
I'm sorry that was your experience of Australia, but please don't think we are all like that. The previous government (Howard) did a really good job of dividing and polarising the country on issues like race and there is lots of work to be done. I know, I live here. There are also plenty of progressive folk, I hope you find us if you come back.
You may have had a bad experience but this is not representative of every single person in the country.
the deep south is a scary place.
I'm from Mississippi, and I'm just as horrified at this as anyone. Harry Connick, Jr. is from New Orleans, and he's the one who spoke up on the show. I currently live near Cambridge, MA where just a few months ago we learned racism still exists.
I realize I don't know where you are from or what your experiences have been. But I can say that I worry sometimes when people dismiss a place/person/culture as "bad" and end the conversation there. Again, you may turn around and totally school me, and I don't mean for this comment to be offensive or hurtful.
The Deep South had and still has many many problems. I'm not proud of the history of bigotry from my home state, but I hope that some day it won't be scary for anyone.
The 'deep south' would be New Zealand, and even we're appauled with our neighbours across the ditch.
But then again, what do you expect from a country who had their indigenous peoples listed as flora and fauna (and therefore you could legally kill them, provided they were a 'pest') until the mid 80's.
Why are you judging THIS generation on past generation's decisions? It's not my fault if my ancestors chose to act that way and it's not my fault if my fellow countrymen make a terribly thought out decision but that doesn't make us ALL racist.
Because the actions may be watered down, but the underlying message still remains the same.
I said this to thisbee, but I'll repeat it for you:
There are exceptions, of course - my comment wasn't meant to be a "they're all awful" type thing, however the culture is one which is still incredibly racist. Regardless of those exceptions Australia is still a country which is not even remotely close to grasping its racial bigotry or effectively addressing it, and something like this even getting a re-run/re-performance says a lot.
Um, getsickk I agree with you that Australia has a racist culture, although I would also argue we are improving, (i.e. the more humane detention policies of asylum seekers recently introduced by the Rudd government and the Apology to the Stolen Generations), but the statement that Indigenous people were listed as flora and fauna until the 80's is incorrect. The doctrine of terra nullius was officially recognised as incorrect in the Mabo and Wik high court decisions, but the personhood of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples was recognised in the 1967 referendum which resulted in changes to the constitution. See
ok, my link didn't work, but if you google the Australian electoral commission and go to their site they have an account of the history of the Indigenous vote which I used as my reference re 1967 referendum. For more info re Mabo and Wik I suggest google / wiki.
Sorry, got the decade wrong. Assumed since my dad who worked in Aus in the 80's was told by a police officer that if he hit an "abbo, to make sure you back up because I don't want any paper work" it was still in effect.
Which actually makes it even more horrific.
Although I agree that this 'performance' is highly offensive for many people, you have not got your facts entirely straight. These men were not 'white Australian's', they were people of 'colour' of Indian and I think also Asian descent.
Furthermore to count all Australians as racist on the basis of a few people met on the street is disgraceful, I'm sure I could come across similar situations myself were I to travel to the US. I believe Harry Connick Jr only said what he did for fear of retribution in the US.
The context needs to be taken into account also. The performance was a repeat from a show that aired over 20 years ago. It was a reunion show and they had a few acts from the past come back and perform. None of these factors make the performance right, but please do not label all Australian's scarily racit or anything else similar for that is highly offensive and ignorant.
There are exceptions, of course - my comment wasn't meant to be a "they're all awful" type thing, however the culture is one which is still incredibly racist. Regardless of those exceptions Australia is still a country which is not even remotely close to grasping its racial bigotry or effectively addressing it, and something like this even getting a re-run/re-performance says a lot.
Sorry thisbee but I'm not a fan of protesting the 'not all Australians are racist' line as I don't think anyone actually believes that.
Australia, like all countries, will be judged the content of our media, what we perceive to be appropriate standards for entertainment, and our collective reactions to it. An Australian television network and TV producers let this happen. The Australian audience loved it. The News Ltd poll result says that 71% of Australians thought the skit was not in any way racist or offensive. The international community has a right to call this out and question Australian culture. We do not exist in a bubble.
* I meant 'arguing' not 'protesting'
I believe Harry Connick Jr only said what he did for fear of retribution in the US.
Really? I think he said what he said because he thinks black face is offensive.
Holy shit. Who the hell still thinks blackface is appropriate?
I'm so happy to have the phenotype of many people of my race exaggerated and made into an awful caricatures. No wonder the doll test still works.
I don't know, I really have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I get it, making fun of black people is different than making fun of white people because of the privilege difference. And blackface is inappropriate and nasty because of its history.
The thing is though, violating PC taboos is really funny for privileged people. And I'm not sure that it's always a bad thing, either. It's a long and difficult process for privileged people to come to terms with the reality of their own privilege, and to change themselves so they stop thinking of people who are different as "others" - I should know, I work at it every day when I read this site!
Fundamentally, privileged people often feel very insecure once they realize that they've been given advantages in life that really help them in ways they thought were totally their own doing. Insecurity results in a large amount of negative feelings toward self and others, and un-PC jokes and satire can be a kind of "release valve" for these feelings that build up during this process.
Does that mean you should let examples of offensive humor stand unchallenged? No, but I think that if possible, it's important to try and engage the people who have made an offending remark in dialogue rather than attempting to silence or otherwise discipline them. If you silence a racist, he or she won't become any less racist - in fact, they will more likely resent you more intensely, and other racists around will take note and they will fear and hate you for what you can do to them rather than respect you for who you are.
violating PC taboos is really funny for privileged people.
*blink*
Oh, it is? Well OK then; carry on.
I love having my race made fun of as long as it keeps the people with privilege happy.
Is this the point where I start talking in jive to amuse the white folks?
Isn't it a laugh fucking riot!
HFS, I hate to tell you this, but you're spectacularly failing at that "checking your privilege" thing. Really failing hard.
Check yourself. Have a really freakin' hard look at yourself if you think this is okay, at all, in any way, in this world. Ever.
Seriously? You're asking us to to consider the feelings of those with privilege because they don't like it and it makes them feel insecure and uncomfortable when someone calls them on their racism. Seriously?
OK, performing in blackface is horribly offensive and racist, but I guess I shouldn't say anything because I would hate a white racist to be offended and resentful of my comment.
Or ANY racist.
This reminds me of an issue at my school -- we had a "character day" where we could dress up as famous people or fictional characters. One guy painted himself brown (yes brown - not black) in order to be Tiger Woods. The school sent him home. I found this out of line and proof of how hyper-sensitive we've become as a culture. I highly doubt the guy was trying to be racist, as golf is a popular sport in my school.
As for the video, I honestly don't see anything wrong with it. Aside from the make-up, there wasn't anything particularly racist about it. I know you guys mean well, but when it comes between freedom and speech and people's feelings, I'd rather make a couple of people angry than disregard a very important right we have as Americans.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from disagreement.
I'm aware of that, I'm just saying it shouldn't be censored for being racist (which it isn't -- it's only making fun of the Jackson 5).
Actually, blackface IS racist. See alixana's post below.
Criticism isn't censorship. Even boycotts (if this were an ongoing show in the U.S. for example) are not censorship. Pressuring private companies to remove content is not censorship.
1. It wasn't censored. It was broadcast. Harry Connick (quite rightly) expressed his feelings that the act was offensive.
2. And the act WAS offensive - as has been previously mentioned, the performers were painted black - their features were indistinguishable from one another. What do you suppose that might indicate about the views of those who chose to put together that performance - and those who laughed? Note that we can distinguish "Michael" because he is in whiteface.
It's clear that one of the things this group thought was humorous was creating a cariacture of blackness by covering themselves in extremely dark make up. What does that mean? That means They were mocking black people BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK, or mocking a group of people BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN. Do you see how this is racist?
3.You are absolutely correct in your assertion that freedom of speech is an important freedom in America. However I don't see the connection between an increase in being respectful and inclusive to people of all groups and a decrease in these rights.
Your classmate who dressed up as Tiger Woods in "brownface" may have done so with the best of intentions. However he may not have known about the history of racism and its connection to minstrel shows and blackface in the United States, and he also may not have realized that his own behavior may have offended other classmates or teachers or staff at your school because of the inherent racism in blackface.
The thing is, racism is NOT OK and should NOT BE TOLERATED OR IGNORED. Your school was right to send him home and ask him to change his clothes. If they no one had said anything to him, that would have sent a message to you and your fellow schoolmates that blackface (or in this case brownface) was OK. However it is NOT OK.
4. Does this mean your classmate's first ammendment rights were violated? I don't think so. He is still free to say racist things and say that he thinks that treatment is unfair. But dressing in the way that he did should be considered culturally unacceptable, and has really nothing to do with freedom of speech. We usually don't go out in public with out any pants or underwear on, and it has nothing to do with freedom of expression, it's because we find it culturally unacceptable.
5. I think we should find it culturally unacceptable to condone racist behavior.
To contextualise this skit, see my post below.
I highly doubt the guy was trying to be racist, as golf is a popular sport in my school.
The second clause doesn't follow from the first.
You immediately jump to condemning censorship when the issue is not even a part of this story or the coverage. Just because something is not intended to be racist doesn't mean it's not. The effect matters just as much (if not more) than the intent.
There are seriously people here defending blackface and wondering if it's really so bad and wanting to prioritize "free speech" and the uncomfortable feelings of discovering you're privileged over being monumentally hurtful and offensive?
Blackface IS racist. Inherently so. Full stop. End of story.
Wow. Rose's final paragraph said it all, and I think a lot of people need to stop and reread it.
On the flipside, it's not very cool writing off all Australians as racist and ignorant, 'cause this very comment thread demonstrates that it's not limited to that continent.
" I think it's really shitty of people with privilege to appropriate the perceived uniform of a less privileged member of society in jest."
Like in Glee, for example, which has been enthusiastically squeed over at least twice on this site?
I'm confused. What is the appropriation of the perceived uniform of a less privileged member of society that you are criticizing Glee for?
the actor who plays the character in glee who uses a wheelchair is not a person with a disability - he put on the wheelchair (the perceived uniform of a person with a disability, a less privileged member of society), but is appropriating it.
And they don't even try to have him be a fleshed out character. Have they not heard of wheelchair dance? Why are people always grabbing his chair?
Regarding the lack of real wheelchair dancing specifically, I thought the kids were actually supposed to be kind of bad dancers. One of the characters in particular always looks like he is being deliberately off-beat. I don't think it would really make sense if Artie were the only character with dancing ability. I mean, sure, it's clear that he's not a practiced wheelchair dancer, but it's not like he just hangs out in one spot on stage. His dancing is about on the same level as all the other characters'.
I agree that it is disappointing that Artie is such a one dimensional character. But they have been gradually fleshing out each character, so I am optimistic it will improve. It is pretty clearly an ensemble show, so I would be surprised if they just left one character completely flat.
Holy shit it's incredible that that would be on tv ANYWHERE
Some of the comments above are just dripping of North American chauvinism and centricism. One member even confused "deep south" for southern USA rather than the arbitary "bottom" or "southern" half of the globe.
The world does not revolve around the USA. Travel to Spitsbergen, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, the Pitcairn Islands, learn about Jeungism and Shintoism, expand your knowledge of Korarchaeota and experience Ainu cuisine.
I'm thankful, here in my country we do NOT learn about American history.
-And just for the record, the performers were of Indian, Lebanese, Greek and Anglo-saxon decent, BUT all Australian.
I'm not sure how the poster confused "deep south".
When 99% of folks here in America say deep south, we mean Alabama, Mississippi etc.
Thats the point.
What's the point? That neither I nor several posters here know Australian nomenclature? Great point.
Allow me to suggest what the point should be:
Though this thread has been derailed into a discussion on American bias or chauvinism, it was and should be a thread about how completely fucking offensive blackface is.
To the poster who is so proud of his/her lack of knowledge of American history: perhaps if you had a slightly more nuanced understanding of said history you would understand that blackface is deeply offensive to African Americans on the basis of centuries of outright oppression, prejudice and mockery.
I hardly think it is a form of American chauvinism to insist that this skit, which mocked African Americans, is flatly offensive regardless of whether or not I have a thorough understanding of the conventions of Australian television.
Last time I checked, "deep south" isn't Australian or Oceanic nomenclature (it's not capitalised). This post refers to an Australian television show, so one would draw the connection between "south" and Southern Hemisphere, you know, "Down Under".
You seem to take it for granted that people should possess at least a very shallow understanding of US history- that's US centricism.
Your post also suggests that my supposed lack of awarness of the great old US of A is somewhat of a detriment- that's US chuavinism.
I would hazard a guess and say a signifigant portion of people residing in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Ghulja or even Longyearbyen don't know a terrible lot about the Civil Rights movement let alone the history of Blackface.
Lastly, I NEVER insinuated that Blackface in this context isn't offensive. I'm saying that to a lot of Australians, especially Australian youths who have no idea what the word Blackface even meant until Thursday morning are not fully comprehending why there is so much hysteria as shown by the polls.
You really think that expecting people to know about the civil war and the history of the oppression of African Americans through slavery and racism is chauvinist.
I call bullshit and troll.
There have been multitudes of civil wars across the world, some even as we speak. Which one are you refering to? Burma? South Africa? Northern Ireland?...I presume your refering to the American Civil War though. You may think I'm nitpicking or trolling, but it's these little nuances that frustrate many people across the globe. To put anagously it's a kin to referring to police officers as policeMEN.
I doubt many adults in the Western English speaking world don't know OF the American Civil War. Ask your average citizen on The Isle of Man to elaborate on the details and they'll probably produce a vague, haphazard response.
WTF does ANY of that have to do with whether or not this performance was racist? Can you stop derailing the thread please so we can get back to discussing the main topic of this thread? Go off to your own blog and talk about how culturally ignorant Americans are on your own blog if that's what you'd like to talk about.
The Pitcairn Islands? The island where 'almost no girl' escapes sexual abuse? I think I'll pass.
I agree that many of the posters here are focusing on the USA but that's to be expected considering the publishers of this blog are American and live there. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
By the way I'm an American who has lived abroad for nearly a decade, and due to my job I meet with people from all over the world. That doesn't make me a better person than my friend who still lives in the hometown we grew up in.
But more to the point, it certainly doesn't make this performance any less racist.
And just for the record, you don't have to be white to be racist.
It is very relevant to this post, as it accounts for the varying responses worldwide ranging from "YES it was racist" to "NO it was just humour". It certainly doesn't make it less racist and I never even hinted that.
Also, I understand that people get defensive when their (US) privilege is called out- like all forms of privilege really.
I'll also consider doing a community post on how American Centricism affects Feminism world-wide. Thanks for the suggestion.
It is very relevant to this post, as it accounts for the varying responses worldwide ranging from "YES it was racist" to "NO it was just humour".
Personally I still don't think it's relevant unless you are looking for a way to condone or excuse this behavior. (IE 'It's just a joke! Stop being so sensitive! That's just our country's/family's/office's humor!') It might be relevant if we wanted to look at how racially progressive (or not) certain societies are. THAT DOES NOT MAKE THIS PERFORMANCE ANY LESS RACIST.
It certainly doesn't make it less racist and I never even hinted that.
And yet... your initial post was a very strong condemnation of the cultural insularity of the United States and an expression of how glad you were that you DO NOT STUDY AMERICAN HISTORY. What was your purpose in writing this, if not to turn the argument around and say "Well hey! The US is culturally ignorant!" Which in turn does condone this behavior, and then does yes, in fact hint that it should be considered less racist because Americans don't understand the culture. It's a poor argument, but that is the argument you seem to be making.
Also, I understand that people get defensive when their (US) privilege is called out- like all forms of privilege really.
I agree. People do get defensive when their privilege is called out.
But that's not really what you were doing. You were talking about culturally ignorant America was and how glad you are that you don't have to study this country's history. You weren't talking about how we don't have to worry about getting a visa to travel to many different countries, or how rich we are in comparison to other countries, or how much American cultural imports affect media in other countries, or how the US can print its own money to help get out of the financial crisis because the U.S. dollar is the global currency. These things are examples of American privilege.
Cultural insularity is not really such a strong example. It has been my experience (and I have been meeting with people from different countries and continents every day for the last seven and a half years due to my job) that the majority of people from large countries are rather insular culturally and most people tend to focus on the community in which they live. This is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.
Does this mean that the U.S. is not racist? Of course not. Does this performance mean that all Australians are racist? Now that's just silly. Does this performance raise some serious questions about the inherent racism in Australian culture? YES. And that is a relevant topic of discussion whether you have ever left your backyard or not.
I absolutely loved this show as a kid and it did do some really clever, funny stuff, but looking back it's obvious that Hey Hey It's Saturday was a total haven for racism, sexism, homophobia in the years that it ran (note that this was a reunion show).
Molly Meldrum, one of the presenters on Hey Hey, did music promotions and was pretty much responsible for ABBA's international popularity through the promotions he'd give them on his previous show Countdown. He is gay and his whole segment became one big homophobic joke. He would actually stuggle to get through his presentation for being interrupted by a puppet who would make homophobic jokes. He had to put up with this so-called 'Australian humour' for the sake of having a tv career.
Also, if you watch the full video you see the cartoonist hold up a sign mid-performance that says "Where's Kamahl?". Kamahl is a Malay-Indian singer who for many years would appear quite often on the show and would put up with horrific racism for the sake of his career. What would lead them to hold up a sign saying "Where's Kamahl?" other than the fact that the people performing were in blackface?
People on the gong-show segment Red Faces, which this skit was a part of, who were overweight or considered 'unattractive' in any way were cartooned and joked about over voice-over, literally the whole way through their performances. They just had to walk out on stage with a fat roll and the laughter would start.
As for the women on the show, well, they were reduced to either 'ditzy' or 'sexy' and were never given anything meaningful to do. Have a look at the full reunion show on YouTube - not much has changed.
I think we have TOTALLY underestimated the effect that this weekly injection of 'othering' and humiliation of those that are 'different' has had our attitudes as a nation. This hugely popular TV show shaped and defined contemporary 'Australian humour' - and don't you dare try and criticise it... If you dare, visit the HHIS Facebook page and look at the comments. It all comes under the "like it or leave Australia" motto that exemplifies our exclusionary patriotism.
71% of Australians do not think the skit was in any way racist or offensive according to a News Ltd poll, and have you all seen the comments on blogs and news websites going around?
It doesn't give Australians marginalised by their ethnic background, gender, sexuality and appearance who want to be 'Aussie-humourous' much of a choice but to participate, which is what we've seen here in this skit. The group of Sydney doctors are being defended en masse because of their mixed ethnic backgrounds - Anglo-Celtic Australian, Sri Lankan-Australian, Indian Australian, a Greek Australian, an Irish-Italian Australian and a Lebanese Australian. "How can people with these backgrounds ever be called racist?", so many commenters are asking. Sigh.
If black face on TV is not considered racist here in Australia, we're up shit creek trying to call out sexism. I think I'm going to put my head under a pillow for a while.
If anyone wants proof of the above this is a video of Kamahl singing. But I warn you, its EXTREMELY offensive. He was not on Red Faces. He's a professional singer, trying to plug his new song and they:
1. Speed up and slow down his backing track
2. Switch the song
3. Attack him with white powder and announce 'It's Kamahl in negative!'
It makes me physically ill to watch, but hopefully proves to those who keep defending this crap that it's not an isolated incident.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb69b5JoAd0
and again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10bi45o4xDA&feature=related
HHIS has always lampooned anyone and everyone that appears on the show, regardless of race, age, sex or ability. This is up to and including the regular cast members and the host. How often are there jokes made about Wilbur's nose, or Darryl's height or any number of other things? I always understood the premise of the show to be a little like Chaser's, or Good News Week, in that respect - anything and everything was fair game.
I don't pretend to understand everything from every culture that is going to cause offense - I am sure if I was to travel, I would trip up from time to time. Actually, I'd probably trip up a lot, given how often my foot is wont to meet my mouth. But then, I don't expect everyone to know what might offend me, either. We don't always know what is going to upset other cultures. We can take note though and try to learn from it. But, in order to learn, someone needs to explain.
I think one of the reasons so many Australian's don't see this as racist is that no-one has explained the culture. All they are hearing is "Bad Australia! No biscuit!" without actually being told why. It's the same as a young child learning a new word like 'Fuck'. He tries it out on Grandma at the family dinner and can't understand the conniptions everyone has. He might get told that it's a 'bad word', but that doesn't explain much. It's not until Mum or Dad sit down and tell him exactly what the word means that you really have a hope of teaching him.
Often, it's a case of "You don't know what you don't know. " As an Australian, I didn't understand the upset when Bert Newton said "I like the boy!", something that appeared to deeply offend Muhammed Ali. Similarly, I know nothing about 'blackface'. I don't understand the deep feelings behind it. It doesn't make it less offensive to the people offended, but if it isn't explained to us, how are we going to know? And if we don't know what we don't know, we can't go and learn about it - someone needs to tell us. But there is a lot to be said for the way people teach. A child who gets the full glare of Grandma, a shriek from Mum and a growl from Dad, for saying 'Fuck' in company, is likely to try it again. If it's explained to him, well, there's a better chance that he won't :)
Now, I didn't like the skit, and I admire HC Jr for speaking out about it, but I don't, at this point, understand the hoo-ha behind it. But the thing is, it's not the first time that people have dressed as a different culture on Red Faces. It's not even the first time that 'black face' has been used. I didn't like this one, but I did like others, such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxOuoGLSL_g
The way I see it, the Jackson 5 were being lampooned as a singing dancing family act, not as a black act. Just as if someone wanted to do a humerous skit of Dolly Parton, they'd probably find a shiny, countrified dress, and a blonde wig, and do something to give themselves an ample cleavage. They might even put on heaps of makeup and long fake eyelashes.
In all honesty, and I am asking this seriously, how else could/should/would the performers done this? or it the point that you can only do an act of a person who is your equivalent? Was the other act I showed wrong because it was a white guy playing a black man/white woman? Can you only do a Dolly Parton act if you are a white female, you can only do an Elton John act if you are a gay, white, British male, you can only do a Diana Ross act if you are an African American female, you can only do a Jackson 5 act if you are 5 African American males...etc
Hi DuskK,
Anything's fair game on Hey Hey:
That's true for Aussie humour in general, but this is where the concept of privilege comes in. Mocking a white guy for the shape of his nose or height is very different to mocking a member of a marginalised group by reducing them to things that pertain to stereotypes of that group's collective identity, rather than picking on an INDIVIDUAL quality of that person. Examples of this include reducing ANY gay guy into a queen, ANY women into dumb or hot or a ball-shrinker, ANY non-white person into a stereotype of their race and ANY disabled person into a stereotypical portrayal of someone with a disability.
No-one explained US culture to Australians beforehand:
Whose job is this? Enlighten me. Anyway, does historical context really matter when it's acknowledged and known as a blatant form of racism anyway? In any case, there is a history of blackface in Australia. If you haven't read where I've said this elsewhere, we had a Black and White Minstrel Show on ABC for many years. Plus Sam Newman put on blackface on the Footy Show in response to an Aboriginal player complaining of racist remarks on the field. Big controversy.
People should explain why it's racist to Australians instead of telling them off:
Oh, OK, because I misinterpreted the barrage of insults that have been thrown by the majority at those who question it and the 'Boycott Harry' movement as being hostile. I didn't realise they were looking for answers. Forgive me. I guess I figured that if they won't even listen to Bill O'Reilly on this, there's no hope for me.
Not the first time blackface used on Hey Hey:
That doesn't make it OK. People change, standards change. There's a reason.
How could/should they have done it?:
I don't have the answer to this. But was this really a musical tribute by diehard fans or an opportunity to make fun of people using stereotypes? If it's the former, the sure as hell could have been more innovative and respectful, not used black boot polish and enormous identical wigs and at least tried to make each member of the group look a little distinct. If it's the latter then it comes back to privilege. If you don't like it and it restricts your comedy routine, tough. There are cleverer ways to be funny.
* Fail - I apologise for the use of the word dumb.
I feel kind of dismayed at this happening in Australia... the skit was totally inappropriate.
I'd like to point out two things though, the first - which has already been pointed out - is that Australia doesn't have the history of blackface performers that American does. True, that doesn't mean we've never seen it and have no understanding of it - we have and we do - but it hasn't been part of our culture and wasn't (to my knowledge) used in Australia to make fun of aborigines or black migrants.
That doesn't make it ok, by any means. The skit was a huge lapse in judgement by the producers and the performers, but it isn't quite the same as if this had been aired in America.
The second thing is that yes, Australia really really does have a problem with racism - a lot of Australians have the same attitude towards migrants from India and Asia as a lot or Americans do towards migrants from Mexico - but it is worth noting the backlash against this skit that is happening right now.
Harry Connick Jr. wasn't the only person to point out what was wrong with it, a lot of us have too.
A lot of Aussies don't know enough about blackface to understand quite how bad an idea this was (my Dad's american and my Mum's Australia, so I have more of an awareness of it mayben than most people my age do), but I don't know anyone who thought it was funny or OK.
I just want to point out that blackface is offensive not only because of its history in the United States. It is a mocking portrayal meant to highlight the perceived oddity of the Other, for laughs. Even if you know nothing about the history of American blackface, it is offensive.
True, SarahMC. Even if they didn't know the full history, the performers have admitted that they knew they were doing something racially-charged for laughs:
"We’re not so naive that we didn’t think it would be a little bit controversial to paint our faces black. We discussed it before the show."
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/hey-heys-jackson-jive-explain-why-we-did-it/
Since so many people are (unbelievably) defending blackface as somehow "funny" and non-racist, would you please explain what's so hilarious about a person of one race painting themselves to portray someone of another race? Especially a member of a privileged class portraying someone of an oppressed class. I just don't see it.
To those of you on this thread who are defending the blackface skit and protesting that you don't see anything offensive about it...get a f*cking clue. If these men had actually wanted to impersonate the Jackson Five, they would have at least attempted to look like the Jackson Five, not grotesque caricatures of black people. Seriously, are any of you going to say that when you picture a black person in your mind, that this is the image you come up with? Wild, wooly hair, shiny, jet black skin, and bright red lips? If it is, you may be *just a wee bit* racist.
It doesn't matter that the men in this group are from various non-white or mixed ethnic backgrounds. Anyone who believes that being a person of color makes you incapable of being racist against POC of another race is incredibly naive.
As for the argument that blackface doesn't have the same context and history in Australia as it does in America, I call bullsh*t. First of all, America and Australia share a common cultural heritage with England and the English were peddling blackface minstrely all around the world right up through the 1920s. On top of that, there is the matter of this little stadium outside of Brisbane that up to at least 2005(!) was offically named "E.S. Nigger Brown" stadium in honor of Australia's first international rugby star who was given the nickname "Nigger" Brown because of the brand of shoe polish he used, which just happened to be named "nigger brown".
Seriously folks, get with the program, blackface is racist pure and simple. It doesn't matter if you live in America or Australia. And white people's ability to enjoy racist humor is not worth the insult and offence to black people.
i don't think anybody is saying it's NOT racist, socgrad, because it most definitely is. And extremely so. It should never have been aired - not now, and not when it was the first time.
What i was trying to point out that this skit airing on Australia tv is not exactly the same as if it had aired on American tv.
Imagine if somebody did a comedy skit about the stolen generation - if it aired in America no doubt people would call foul, but if it aired in Australia it would be a much, much bigger deal because it's part of our racist history.
Just to reiterate - I DO NOT think the skit was funny and I DO NOT think that anything about our cultural or historical differences makes it ok.
Taylor, read the early part of this thread, Avivapress, HFS, and Lila have all come out defending this skit and saying to various degrees that they either don't think it was that bad or don't think it was racist.
Again, I'm calling bullsh*t on the idea that somehow Australians don't understand that blackface is offensive because they have no cultural history of blackface. First, as I said before, England, both of our countries' cultural forefather had been exporting this crap to the rest of the world clear up through the time that Australia gained its independence. Furthermore, these same type of caricatures of black people were showing up all across the Western world throughout the 1800s and 1900s, even in countries where there weren't any black people (for instance, Polliwogs in Russia). A country doesn't have to have a cultural history of blackface to have been exposed to this kind of caricature of black people. Finally, you don't have to understand the history of blackface to recognize that the caricature of black people in that skit is disgusting. I hope that the Australian viewing public can recognize that much without having to be told: "hey guys, portraying black people as shiny and jet black with wild and crazy hair and bright red lips is *kinda* bad".
I understand that not all people in Australia approve of or defend the skit. But the fact that a performance like that was aired on a national program shows that the country (just like the U.S.) is in need of continuing remedial education in Respect for Other People 101.
Thank you.
Australians know that black face is racist, make no doubt. There was a local show called "The Black and White Minstrel Show" on our public network ABC for many years. I think it only ended in the late 70s/early 80s.
Besides, get enough more than enough exposure to US culture to know the what's appropriate and what's not regarding black face, even if it's not in a historical context.
* poorly phrased - it's 'never' appropriate.
I would like to defend my comment. It isn't that I don't think it was racist. What I think is that it may not have had racist intent. As an actor, I played an Italian woman in a farce once. This meant I put on a long curly brown wig, lots of self tanner, did an over-the-top accent, and was very dramatic. I got several awards and nobody made any claims that it was offensive. In fact, it was never even brought up- the show had many over the top characters of different sorts, and 2 happened to be Italian. Because sometimes on the stage comedy is about big stereotypes. I was simply saying that without the history of oppression surrounding blackface these two instances might be the same. Because of what has happened in the past and the fact that racism is still such a prevalent issue, this skit was unacceptable. My point was that simply painting one's face a darker or lighter color, in itself, is not racist. And as for the big hair, the Jackson 5 had big hair- it isn't saying all black people have afros, but the Jackson 5 did. I wasn't saying the skit wasn't racist or offensive- I was saying that it was offensive because of history rather than the actual costumes. And I was also bringing up that the history and culture in Australia is different, so the skit may have meant something different. I let the Australian commenters speak for themselves on how different or similar the culture actually is. I hope that clears things up- I didn't mean to offend anyone.
I have to say I do have to go through a process when watching this (as well as reading the comments here).
My first is the American white cultural reaction of "they did what". Blackface is steeped in cultural traditions of hate and oppression. It's so incredibly inappropriate from my own cultural tradition to do that.
However, this isn't my entire cultural tradition, so I do have to accept different cultural standards and understandings about representations of race. It's like getting offended when I see a swastika on a Buddhist temple -- different cultural context. Without the history of racist Vaudeville to lampoon POC, blackface would seem like it's funny.
Then, I come back to that this is that Vaudeville. Even if there isn't a tradition of it being from a racist cultural heritage, the blackface portrayed here is still racist because it takes from the Vaudeville tradition. While the performers may not be white themselves (or all of them white, anyway), that doesn't mean it's still not racist against an American black family.
So, while I can't use the same ire and outrage for an American show given historical context, it's still really distasteful and shouldn't have been re-aired.
I think it's really shitty of people with privilege to appropriate the perceived uniform of a less privileged member of society in jest.
Acai Detox Extreme
1. 5. 5 of the 6 performers are multi cultural themselves, the main performer is Indian.
2. Most Australians are unaware of the history surrounding black face and African American history in itself.
3. Australia is NOT a racist country, we are simply isolated and quite insulated at times. We are extremely multi cultural but unfortunately this does not include a vast black population. There are barely any black people here and no concept of black culture or history. We have Asians, Greeks, Italians, Middle Easterners, basically every race you can think of so please do not believe we are racist based on one stupid skit.
4. It's not funny by any means but it wasn't intended to be racist either, it didn't come from malicious intent, it came from stupidity and ignorance. Blame the producers for allowing it.
5. Our humour IS very "anything goes" but this went too far IMO.
You can't be serious.
1. So a person from an 'ethnic' background can't be racist?
2. They might not have a historical context but Australians know it is racist. The performers said they knew it was controversial themselves. There was a Black and White Minstrel Show on ABC for decades in Australia in which white people dressed up in blackface and danced around making fun of black people, but taken off the air eventually due to complaints. The controversy of blackface was also discussed when Sam Newman dressed up as an Aboriginal footballer on the footy show a couple of years ago. We are not in a bubble.
3. Can you think of a reason why there are 'barely any black people here'? And to say there is no concept of black culture or history here is extremely insulting. [Fuming. You must be a troll, but I'll continue anyway.] I'd like to point out too that, apart from Aboriginal people, we have an ever-increasing number of immigrants from parts of northern Africa. Saying that a wide representation of ethnic backgrounds results in an accepting society is convoluted logic at best. I can't be bothered anymore, just Wikipedia Racism in Australia.
4. & 5. Look at my post above that talks about Hey Hey and how it has influenced the concept of 'Aussie humour'.
Feministing readers, it disheartens me to tell you that, while triggering, jess815's post represents the majority opinion on Aussie websites at the moment. Nothing learned by the experience. Oh, except that Americans are over-sensitive of course...
Sall:
1. No, I was referring to the main article saying they were all white.
2. You'd be surprised how many people I've had to explain blackface to over the past few weeks. This generation had literally NO idea whatsoever, which is why there's such anger from them in response.
3. I didn't say there was no concept, I said BARELY ANY concept. I studied black history in high school and passed with straight As. That's something I chose to do. Not everyone studies history and some people have barely any concept of the past much less a past they never lived through. I think you're overestimating this generation, sad as that may be. Again, a wikipedia entry is not representative of everyone here, just as this skit isn't.
4. & 5. Well, I was too young to know any of that considering the show ENDED when I was just 9 years old.
I didn't intend for my post to be "triggering" at all, I'm simply trying to explain how all this happened. I was mortified by the performance so I'm offended that you'd classify me as a troll or a trigger. I'm GLAD Connick Jr stood up for his beliefs and I hate all the Aussies responding with such spite and anger. I do NOT think Americans are over-sensitive at ALL.
The "5.5" was a typing error.
Hi jess815,
Sorry to have offended you by saying it was triggering - there just wasn't anything in your post that said you any problem with it, so I took it as a blanket defence of the whole debacle. Some of your statements such as the backgrounds of the performers therefore came across as arguments defending the skit, as they were not contextualised.
What was triggering to me were the statements 'there are barely any black people in Australian' and 'barely any concept of black culture'. Aboriginal people of Australia have dark skin. There are 'barely any' Aboriginal people in Australia because they were subject to mass murder and extreme marginalisation when Europeans arrived. This is the most obvious example of racism in Australia, so it is offensive to overlook Aboriginal people in the context of a blackface skit. I'm still not sure whether you mean you studied Aboriginal or African-American 'black history' in school.
The bit at the end was an expression of frustration at the posts that keep cropping up with bullet points defending the skit with seemingly no effort to question *why* people are offended. I thought yours was another, as you didn't mention any offence to it. The bit about Americans being over-sensitive was a reference to 1000s of other posts I've seen, not yours.
Cheers.
and WHAT was with the '5.5'?
2. Most Australians are unaware of the history surrounding black face and African American history in itself.
3. Australia is NOT a racist country, we are simply isolated and quite insulated at times. We are extremely multi cultural but unfortunately this does not include a vast black population. There are barely any black people here and no concept of black culture or history. We have Asians, Greeks, Italians, Middle Easterners, basically every race you can think of so please do not believe we are racist based on one stupid skit.
I'm just going to take a look at these two because I think it shows a lack of understanding about what racism can be.
Your argument here is that it's not racist because it's ignorant. It's still racist. It may not be willfully racist, if your suggestion is correct, but it's still racist. Whether a place is isolate, insulated or whatever word you want to use to imply ignorant to a certain set of issues, it doesn't change the insensitivity involved in certain actions.
As a cultural group, Australians, you're implying, are just not racist because they just don't know. That doesn't make sense. The action/word is still racist even if it's not known. Part of combating racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-sex worker bias, ableism, is to call attention to all things which are of those categories to raise awareness and sensitivity to those issues. Simply not knowing doesn't make it not racist; it makes it naive and a bit sad, really, in this context.
As an immigrant white Australian, I have to agree with many who have said that Australia is a racist country. Does that mean everyone in Australia is racist? No. But, it means that there is a pervasive culture that supports racism. The Howard government was part of this, using fear-mongering tactics to play up the fear of the Other, along with Pauline Hanson and One Nation... in the last 10 years incidents such as the Tampa children overboard incident (where the government lied and said that a group of asylum seekers threw their children into the water, characterising them as "queue jumpers" and "illegal immigrants" and morally questionable, the Lebanese vs Caucasian Cronella riots, the refusal of the Howard government to apologise to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the war on "terrorism" and constant portrayals of Sol (forgotton his surname, but he was the CEO of Telstra and American) as a Mexican in caricutures, all paint a picture of a racist society. I come from New Zealand, which yes, still has racist elements, and have never before heard such consistent racist comments about Indigenous people who in Australia are painted as layabout, alcoholic, child-abusing, violent, dole-bludging criminals. Even as a Pakeha (a term for a New Zealander of non-Maori descent, usually Caucasian but does include other ethnicities, my preferred identity when discussing ethnicity) immigrant from a close country I experienced alot of racism. Not just constant disparing jokes, but a huge amount of difficulty securing a job despite being well presented and experienced in the positions I was applying for. If I as a Caucasian NZ'er experienced racism, how must it be for people of colour, and people from linguistically diverse backgrounds?
The problem with Australians asserting that they are not a racist country, is it is the majority who makes that assertion. A majority that is Caucasian, don't personally experience racism as something that is against them, and steeped in a history of politically and culturally institutionalised racism. Who seek to preserve their self-image as "fair" and "tolerant". However whenever a minority assert that Australia is racist, using their own experiences, the Caucasian majority jumps up and down and shouts "OF COURSE WE'RE NOT RACIST, WE EAT CURRY / STIR FRY / SUSHI ETC" and accuses the minority of being trouble making, oversensitive, drama queens. Way to not be racist by employing siliencing tactics and reducing people's cultures to food / dress etc. Rather than listening to the people who would actually know....
I actually heard people say "oversensitive drama queen" "he should just come out already" and "gay" in regards to Harry Connick Jnr. Yes, because using female pronouns and using queer sexuality as an insult to try to degenerate his masculinity, that not offensive to queer and female people at all. And it's not offensive to try and silence someone you disagree with by using those tactics, no, no [sarcasm].
I just wanted to clarify, that I don't think it is bad to critique masculinity as a set of gendered norms that are seen as the same as
"people" and women are the inferior Other by comparison. Just that, Harry seems to identify as a straight man, (could be wrong, don't know that much about him personally, just like his music) and to assert otherwise is rude and silencing, especially when the two groups refered to - women and gay people have traditionally been seen as inferior, and so to use these as nouns denotes Harry as inferior in this context. Oh for a day, when we live in a world that sees woman and gay people as a positive word with a diversity of connotations instead of a slur with a set of stupid stereotypes... when people on Australian Idol don't try to compliment Pink by saying "she's the man!" and "she's got balls"... um, actually no, she's not / doesn't, and you don't have to be a man to be strong, opinioned and independent. (Sorry if off topic but it pissed me off).
What's new in this video.....?
Force Factor
I live in Australia and i dont watch TV, but before this incident, i was noticing something about print advertising here in Australia. I dont know if any other australians here have noticed it, but the wacky african/ african-american type in print ads? Ive noticed them on bus stops mainly, and a bit on TV, but for example theres the guy from the boost ads (http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5421501,00.jpg) and the new coke ads with “unleash the brr” or whatever. Its almost as if because its not our identified culture and history, we can have wacky african americans and the hey hey skit was an extension of this.
Also, it is noticeable that Australia is very different, way too much pride is placed in being "laid back". But wtf, who would think THAT would be ok to put on national television?! Not all australians are racist, but god damn we are so laid back we're passed out on the floor. Im in brisbane right now on holiday, and i went to Australia Zoo a big tourist attraction full of true dinkum aussie crap. And in the show they were talking about how men get bitten by snakes more than women, and the host said "thats because the snakes natural habitat isn't the kitchen!" and everyone laughed. Oh, only in Australia.
Oops, triple post... somehow. Sorry guys.
Firstly I am Australian, Secondly I am involved as Women's Officer at a University in Sydney. I am left winged with politics and am NOT rascist. I am a long time reader of feministing but only signed up today as I was so mad with what I was reading.
Is it not rascist to label all Australians as 'rascist'???? This post and the commenting annoyed me so much. Our society is way too pc. The performers meant this as a joke, last week on Hey Hey there was a performer imitating Jimmy Barnes with big ears and a beer belly - is that saying we think all Scots are big earred and drink too much NO - it is a parody just as Tina Fey parodied Sarah Palin - I understand they are both white but Fey was not kind to Palin in her representation - I'm certainly not a fan of the republicans, but just because she isn't popular on this site doesn't mean she got an unfair deal.
This week on the 7pm project - another show in Syndey there was a skit about indy(car racing) promo girls and he asked the girl (a blow up doll substitute) the theory of relativity - and of course the doll couldn't answer. NOW before you all get up in arms about how sexist this is I WORK in promo as well - because I choose to and it is good money while I'm studying, and that skit is funny because it is true because it represent the majority of girls I have worked with. My point is there is nothing wrong with satire/parody. It takes an example from society and pokes fun at it. the fact that a lot of girls I work with don't care about uni/tertiary study and just want to have a good time isn't a bad thing, its just they way they are.
Hey Hey is a cheaply made show the guys costumes were home made so I don't see the argument with Black vs Brown paint. Nobody was up in arms when Robert Downey jnr played an AUSTRALIAN playing a AFRICAN AMERICAN in tropic thunder, his accent was way over exaggerated and even in the movie the other afican american character got annoyed at him. Downeys punishment - an academy award. An what about white chicks the movie??? Should I be offended 2 black men played 2 white women?? why isn't this rascist? They completely stereotyped white women.
I'm so sick of people being so inept of taking things lightly and always seeing an attack.
The performers did not mean to offend anyone. If we are going to get so up in arms about parodies, they I hope feministing readers also what to label all satire and parody as some kind of wrong because the type of humour this is, is to pick out something from society and exaggerate it.
So by the logic of this post men acting as women should be out - as that offensive, women acting as men is offensive, no other race should imitate another race and there you have it a complete lack of common sense.
Luxlade, grow a right wing too and fly to a class on Privilege and Patriarchy 101.
Plenty of people were up in arms about Robert Downey in blackface. I and many of my fellow Americans didn't see 'Tropic Thunder' for that very reason. And please, for chrissakes, don't depend on Hollywood for validation of what constitutes racial sensitivity. Hollywood has historically been the LAST cultural institution in the U.S. to get on board with civil rights issues. There were a whopping NINE Academy Awards given to black actors in all categories from 1929 to 2001.
On so many levels, your post completely ignores world history - a common history shared by European whites, no matter where their boat landed 600, 500, 400, 300, 200 years ago and what those Europeans have done to the native populations they encountered in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Australia.
Find me a place where millions of white women were brutalized by black people just for being white and I'll show you a culture where two black guys dressing up as white women would be pretty goddamn offensive.
White Chicks had nothing to do with race, how about WATCHING the movie.
I live in Australia and i dont watch TV, but before this incident, i was noticing something about print advertising here in Australia. I dont know if any other australians here have noticed it, but the wacky african/ african-american type in print ads? Ive noticed them on bus stops mainly, and a bit on TV, but for example theres the guy from the boost ads (http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5421501,00.jpg) and the new coke ads with “unleash the brr” or whatever. Its almost as if because its not our identified culture and history, we can have wacky african americans and the hey hey skit was an extension of this.
Also, it is noticeable that Australia is very different, way too much pride is placed in being "laid back". But wtf, who would think THAT would be ok to put on national television?! Not all australians are racist, but god damn we are so laid back we're passed out on the floor. Im in brisbane right now on holiday, and i went to Australia Zoo a big tourist attraction full of true dinkum aussie crap. And in the show they were talking about how men get bitten by snakes more than women, and the host said "thats because the snakes natural habitat isn't the kitchen!" and everyone laughed. Oh, only in Australia.
I live in Australia and i dont watch TV, but before this incident, i was noticing something about print advertising here in Australia. I dont know if any other australians here have noticed it, but the wacky african/ african-american type in print ads? Ive noticed them on bus stops mainly, and a bit on TV, but for example theres the guy from the boost ads (http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5421501,00.jpg) and the new coke ads with “unleash the brr” or whatever. Its almost as if because its not our identified culture and history, we can have wacky african americans and the hey hey skit was an extension of this.
Also, it is noticeable that Australia is very different, way too much pride is placed in being "laid back". But wtf, who would think THAT would be ok to put on national television?! Not all australians are racist, but god damn we are so laid back we're passed out on the floor. Im in brisbane right now on holiday, and i went to Australia Zoo a big tourist attraction full of true dinkum aussie crap. And in the show they were talking about how men get bitten by snakes more than women, and the host said "thats because the snakes natural habitat isn't the kitchen!" and everyone laughed. Oh, only in Australia.
Just my two cents as an Australian citizen.
I was appalled with the skit without having any knowledge of the "blackface" but i was even more appalled that the host did not apologize for the skit but merely apologized to Harry Connick Jr for offending him. I myself am deeply sorry that anything so ignorant and hurtful ever made it to air.
Australia is rampant with racism but there are people (like me) who aren't proud of that and positively want to change that for the better. However, targeting all Australian people and putting them in the one basket only causes the divide to be even greater between the people whose attitudes need to change and the people who can help to change them. Anger is understandable... but aggression only perpetuates the cycle of ignorant and racist people not listening to the arguments against their wrongly held views.
That was a.....tribute????
For reals......??
Cuz honey, there's a little person who performs MJ stuff in the subway station, and he's 1000x better than that.
And he don't need white/blackface either.
Regardless on whether they knew the African American history or not, I'm shocked that the first thing they think of when doing a tribute is to paint their faces. Cuz you know, every time I do my Gackt tribute, I make my eyes all small. It's like saying the music isn't important, it's the color of their skin.
Geez.
rolex watch
luxury watch
Thought I'd add another Australian voice to the mix. Most of the media coverage I've seen (and most of the people I've spoken to) have recognized this as being absolutely racist, have wondered how it made it to air and have been incredibly embarrassed (both at home and on the world stage) that this kind of thing still happens.
I was wondering if someone could help me with something I've been thinking about since I saw about the sketch. Could someone help me work through the difference between the blackface scene in Mad Men from a few weeks ago and the sketch on Hey Hey? The only difference I can think of is in the intention, but other posters here have said that intention is no excuse for racism. I watched Mad Men as a comment on the racism of an era and Hey Hey as an offensive and embarrassing train wreck, but I'm can't think why I received them so differently.
First of all I would like to say that I would find it depressing if people watched the "Hey Hey It's Saturday" skit and concluded that all Australians are racist. When I heard about it I was shocked and as I thought about it through the day one of the things that struck me is that the US might be more racially progressive than Australia, something I had never before considered. But this getting perilously close to least racist country!! territory so I won't go there.
ANYWAY I watched that Mad Men scene and to be honest I have mixed feelings about it even being included, regardless of intent, but one of the major themes of that episode if I recall was privelege. If you recall later in that episode Roger says to Don he's happy to be a member of that club because "you get to choose your guests."
Peggy's secretary's reaction to her smoking marijuana (as opposed to the blithe acceptance of the men smoking it) and the situation with Sally taking the money and the clear implication that Carla (the black maid - who is referred to as 'their girl') will be accused of taking it, the dinner that Joan and Dr. Rapist are having where the seating needs to be changed to indicate the status of the doctors there are all other examples.
I think the writers put that scene where Roger is doing blackface in thinking that it would be absolutely shocking (as it was) to most of the "Mad Men" viewers. It's interesting too watching the reactions of those watching. Betty (and almost everyone else) is laughing while Pete and Don both look disgusted.
I still don't know if it was a good choice to include it in Mad Men simply because there was no doubt that scene would still be offensive to many, however it's clear that the sketch on "Hey Hey it's Saturday" has none of the subtleties that was going on with the blackface scene in "Mad Men."
-$.02
The distinction seems fairly simple to me. The black face performance in Mad Men was intended to demonstrate the cultural attitudes of the time. It's eye opening for the modern audience to see something so horrifying treated that nonchalantly. It's similar to the way the show reflects the outright sexism towards women without being a sexist show. On the other hand, the Jackson Five black face performance was the entertainment in and of itself. It wasn't about a glimpse of a common attitude in a moment of history, it was simply entertainment. It wasn't intended to make you think, it was intended to make you laugh.
It's the difference between a movie that uses the n-word to demonstrate the racism of a character and a movie that uses the n-word as a punchline.
It's the dumbness of this that gets me, imagine how many people this had to go thru to even get on the air. There wasn't an excuse in 1909 much less now.
I have no love for the "we would never do this anymore" sentiments, in reference to America(ns). Maybe not with certain groups, but it's entirely broadly acceptable when it's Native-parodying mascots or someone's humorous I'm-so-Asian (except I'm not at if I stop squinting and bobbing my head like this) sketch.
It's the sort of thing that has to keep being called out for what it is, every time, with any peoples, against any peoples. I'm glad some people are actively doing so.