We’ve Spent So Much Time Trying to Not Make Black People Look Like Buffoons: The Looks of Racism

By Deputy Editor Thea Lim

The Racialicious inbox has been flooded this week with emails about this race scandal from Australia:

A comedy act involving five men in afro wigs and black make-up on their faces during an Australian variety show has been criticised by Harry Connick Jr.

The US singer and actor, who was serving as a judge on Wednesday’s Hey Hey It’s Saturday, scored the act based on the Jackson Five a zero.

Watch the video, it’s painfully fascinating (…and look out for Connick Jr’s face at 1:49, it’s pretty fantastic):

But what’s more fascinating is how the whole scandal has prompted a conversation about…(drumroll please)…the Least Racist Country!

Witness the battle to be the Least Racist Country! on this Gawker comment thread (sent to us by reader Carleandria): “In Australia, Blackface Is Still Only Slightly Offensive”. The article is basically about how America must be waaaay better than Australia, and its comments section is rife with anxious Australians trying to defend their country:

To Americans, blackface is particularly abhorrent because of the cultural background to it – beyond being culturally insensitive, it is a signifier of all kinds of problems in America’s past.

While you would hope that all educated Australians would know about this background and understand that the cultural insensitivity goes beyond the superficial, American history is not our own, and you can’t expect all Australians to appreciate the nuances that you see in the performance.

Australia doesn’t have the same racial issues and past with Africans as we do in the US. For them (and Europeans too) this is a non-issue.

So… America has its own history, it kidnapped africans and tortured them. Hang on a sec, up until 6 months ago, America as government policy kidnapped people and tortured them, or is that not racist cause it wasnt against african americans, they were just Arabs! Yet America still tries to take the moral high ground and lecture the world on how to behave!! Simply breathtaking! Americans need to stop bombing everyone and lose some weight.

But it was this comment that really kicked off the battle to be the Least Racist Country!:

You don’t know what your talking about. Racism in Australia and Europe is pretty horrible. Where do you think the racist skinhead movement came from?…Racism in the US is bad and in the rest of the world it is worse. The players may change but the game remains the same.

Canada, as in most things, is probably the exception.

(Sidebar: as a Canadian who actually had to move to an American blog in order to get in on a decent online conversation about race, I find that last line totally redonculous. But that’s for another post.)

It never fails to amaze me that, despite the panoply of racist cultures across the globe – including the one we live in – one of the worst things you can call someone is racist. Hence, as soon as anyone is caught out as a racist, be it an individual, an organisation, or a country, an elaborate dance ensues wherein the major players desperately try to prove that they are not racists. Anybody else remember Michael Richards insisting that he was not a racist, while giving an apology for screaming racial slurs?

Again, people desperately try to prove that they are not racists. Rarely do people respond to accusations that they are racist by desperately trying to not be racist.

Which is why the battle to be the Least Racist Country! is not about actual quality of life or evidence of equal access across different racial groups – instead it is about who appears to be the Least Racist.

That’s also why apologies for racist acts are rarely real apologies. Instead they tend to focus on being sorry that someone interpreted or viewed something as racist – in other words, they’re sorry that something looked racist.

This is what Daryl Somers, the host of the variety show, said to Connick Jr in apology:

I know that to your countrymen, that’s an insult to have a blackface routine like that on the show, so I do apologize to you.

Again, sorry that you Americans perceive blackface to be insulting. To which of course the audience gave rousing applause, pleased to have the chance to appear unRacist, when earlier they had been killing themselves laughing over the blackface skit.

Consider Harry Connick Jr’s statement at the end of the show (emphasis mine):

I just want to say on behalf of my country, I know [the blackface skit] was done humorously, but we’ve spent so much time trying to not make black people look like buffoons, that when we see something like that we take it really to heart. And I know it was in good fun and the last thing I want to do is take this show to kind of a down level. Because you know how much I love this show and this country.

But I feel like I’m at home here and if I knew that [blackface] was going to be part of the show I probably, I definitely wouldn’t have done [the show].

Thank you for the opportunity [to speak], I’ve got to give it up because I told [Somers how I felt] at the break and he said ‘Man, you need to speak as an American.’ Not as a white American or a black American but as an American I need to say this.

Yup, it’s also about appearance. He didn’t say “We take racism against black folks very seriously,” but we try to not make black people look like buffoons.

I can’t help but get the sense that the Americans on the Gawker thread are delighted that for once, they don’t look like the only racist a-holes, the Australians are trying to invent new strategies to look less racist (either by insisting that American and Australian history are too different for blackface to have the same significance in Australia, or by being overly apologetic on behalf of an entire nation…a move that doesn’t make much sense), and the Canadians are feeling smugly pleased by their excellent appearance of unRacism.

People don’t want to talk about racism, they want to talk about the looks of racism.

But.

I have to say that I like what Harry Connick Jr. did. And that I don’t think that he just did it because he doesn’t want to look like he is going along with racism. I think that he actually did not want to go along with racism. There were two things that he said that I liked:

that when we see something like that we take it really to heart.

Unless the whole thing was staged and scripted to boost Connick Jr’s career (seems quite unlikely to me) you have to guess that he was just talking off the top of his head. From the look on his face in the video, and the words “we take it really to heart,” you get the sense that he had a real, visceral reaction to the blackface thing. Not a superficial reaction about the looks of things, but a real feeling in his gut (or heart I guess) that it’s just not right for folks to wear black make-up on their faces.

And you know, for white folks it is that real feeling in your gut – not an advanced degree in anti-racism studies – that is the foundation of being an ally.

And then I also liked this:

‘Man, you need to speak as an American.’ Not as a white American or a black American but as an American I need to say this.

Because sincere or not (and like I said I do think he was sincere) real allyhood is also about realising that racism sucks, not just for POCs, but for everybody.

–
Thanks to Emily and Carleandria for the tip!

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

WTF Australia: Harry Connick Jr Shocked by Down Under Blackface Jackson Skit – The Race Card on 18 Oct 2009 at 2:41 pm

[...] We’ve Spent So Much Time Trying to Not Make Black People Look Like Buffoons: The Looks of Racism |… Tags: australia, australian for beer, harry connick jr, new orleans [...]
Cheerleader Blackface: The Cultural Function of Pretend Shock | Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 03 Nov 2009 at 8:02 am

[...] fatigue, I haz it. Who here is tired of reading about blackface? Because I sure am tired of writing about it. And at this point I don’t know [...]

Comments

Elton wrote:

you can’t expect all Australians to appreciate the nuances that you see in the performance.

Nuances?

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 8:30 am ¶
Jess wrote:

An interesting point you brought up, Thea, was that the worst thing you can call someone is racist, but people concentrate on the look, the appearance, rather than the act itself.

This isn’t so unusual. There are lots of non-apology apologies that happen when people are caught out with the wrong sex (I’m looking at you, David Vitter). It’s a similar phenomenon.

We recognize that racism is wrong, and we know it is. But at the same time it’s tough to disentangle all kinds of stuff that we do every day. That’s part of the problem, I think. It comes out when we see performances like this, but it happens in all kinds of other places too.

Some of it, I think (if anyone has any hard data I’d love to see it) is that for white people, sometimes when someone says “you are a privileged person and you benefit from racism” the reaction is sometimes “Well, I didn’t ask to be born white and privileged, what the hell am I supposed to do?”

That’s the gut reaction I think you were thinking of, and dare I say it, looking for.

And that is what gives me some hope, because, as I have said often, it isn’t like most white people get up and say, “Boy I hate black/Asian/Latino people, what can I do to oppress them today?” And even with the actual violence that happens, I have yet to meet anyone who said “Wow, I am happy that Amadou Diallo got shot, he deserved it.”

Think of this also — Obama is old enough to remember when most people thought (according to polling at the time) that segregation was okay. The same state would be polled now and you would get a different answer. Remember, many those people you see in the film hosing down protesters are still around. And the blackface act would have drawn less comment then, I think, if anyone thought of it at all.

Does this mean the work is done? No, but it shows how much can get done and I bet nobody thought we were getting anywhere in 1968, either.

(By the way, I am not implying that being gay is wrong in the way racism is, but many of David Vitter’s constituents probably think so).

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 9:00 am ¶
BlackIvy wrote:

I LOVE Harry Connick Jr. I have always loved him and im not surprised at all by this. He grew up with black people (the Marsalises) and has always seemed like an ally. Its just nice to have proof

Also, so cute in south pacific!!!

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 9:20 am ¶
Jadey wrote:

Before I clicked on the cut, I was begging in my head that someone wouldn’t try to imply that Canada is The Least Racist of Them All, but alas.

Connick’s response was total class. The offensiveness of blackface buffoonery is inherent in its stereotyping and connotations. It’s not just a cultural quirk.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 9:20 am ¶
Nate wrote:

An interesting point is that all the ‘peformers’ in this are doctors.

Which is a bit of a worry…

Still, if nothing else, the up-side is that the intial ‘teaching moment’ didn’t have to be given by a POC.

Sure, Harry didn’t articulate quite so well initially but his very visceral. physical reaction to a bloody obvious wrong was pretty articulate by itself.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 9:36 am ¶
Kate wrote:

On my way home from work tonight, I read an article in mX, a free “newspaper” distributed at Sydney train stations during peak commuter hours…

Fall-out makes Hey day
-Henry Budd

The fall out from the controversial Hey Hey It’s Saturday “blackface” skit has not damaged the show’s brand and Channel 9 has no option but to give the show a permanent run, a media expert says.
Wednesday’s second reunion show was marred by a Jackson Five parody on Red Faces.
It featured a troupe of singers wearing curly wigs with faces painted black and the lead singer, playing Michael Jackson, with his face painted white.
Guest judge Harry Connick Jr led the criticism, looking uncomfortable during the performance of the Jackson Jive, then giving a score of zero.
The condemnation spread around the world yesterday, raising questions about Australia’s attitudes toward race.
But the show was a massive rating’s success, pulling in an average of 2.3 million viewers.
Media analyst Peter Cox said the ensuing coverage would only help the show’s chances of making a permanent return.
Cox compared the fall-out with that after The Chaser’s APEC stunt, which saw the ABC show achieve record ratings.
“The (black faces) skit did no damage whatsoever,” Cox said.
“In cases like this, any publicity is good publicity.
“If they had something like this happen every week they would have it made.”
Cox said the show’s “amazing” ratings left the Nine Network with its hands tied.
The first reunion special on September 30 drew an average of 2.1 million viewers.
“The only question now is what timeslot to bring it back in and for how long,” he said.
Channel 9 did not respond to a request for comment this morning, but yesterday said it would be monitoring fans’ reactions to the skit before making a decision about the variety show’s future.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 9:40 am ¶
atlasien wrote:

Ha, I think the United States is kind of like “The South” of the predominantly white countries of the world.

People in the U.S. like to point at the South and say “we’re not like those Southern racists. We’re DIFFERENT.” And then Australians point at the U.S. in much the same way.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 10:25 am ¶
Napalmnacey wrote:

Australia has plenty to be ashamed of in race relations. The treatment of our Indigenous Australians is appalling, and people can wave their hands and talk about integration all they want, the sad fact of the matter is that we’re still sending the military into the desert to deal with the social problems of a disenfranchised people, and treating them like criminals for merely having the audacity to be born Aboriginal.

To see this, to see people disregard it when they’ve had it explained to them clearly how racist and horrible it is… it breaks my heart. It makes me so very ashamed to be Australian. And generally, I feel there’s reason to be proud of my country.

But today is not that day. And I’m sorry to every sing person hurt by this horrible display. Not just the initial wrong, but the finger-pointing and wiping of hands afterwards.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 10:42 am ¶
fromthetropics wrote:

>And then Australians point at the U.S. in much the same way.

And when Aussies do that (which they often do) I literally roll my eyes. I’ve been living in Oz and I think it’s part of “The (deep) South” too.

>Australia doesn’t have the same racial issues and past with Africans as we do in the US.

So what if they don’t? Sure blackface doesn’t have the same historical baggage it does in the US, but so what? It’s still offensive to anyone who is black. The fact that people find it entertaining despite having a black native population shows just how deep society’s racism towards black people is in Australia. This is reflected in the state of Aboriginal Australians. And anyone who has lived in Oz will know how racist Australia is towards their native population. Even the most socially aware has admitted that they have a hard time dealing with their prejudices towards Aborigines – it is that powerfully ingrained.

But in a way I’m glad this whole brouhaha came up and that Connick called it out the way he did. It’s better these things come to the surface in view of the international public. It’s one nudge towards an opportunity to get out of denial (though whether that opportunity will be taken is another matter).

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 11:16 am ¶
Safia wrote:

Lest we forget the continued horrific racist acts that are being committed towards Aboriginal peoples in Australia and North America. The blackface skit is just proof that insensitivity is alive and well.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 11:25 am ¶
Kenny wrote:

Speechless. the phony audience who laughed and then Applauded Connick was almost as sickening as the skit.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 11:40 am ¶
Olivia wrote:

Bullsh!t. Australia, along with the US, is among the most racist of the majority white countries. Not only it’s history, but also recent years, with it’s law against non-whites going into the country etc etc
I don’t know what it is, but it seems SOME white people who are living in a land not originally theirs appear to have a deeper hatred(or just couldn’t give a shit) for those who are of colour.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 11:44 am ¶
Roy wrote:

I warned you about the sickness in Australian society with the attacks on Indian students. You guys seem to too american centric in your approach. Take it from someone who has had the good fortune to travel all over the world. Race and ethnocentrism is the next big conflagration lit by the implosion of globalization that the usual suspects will use to nefarious end in the coming years.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 11:50 am ¶
Azizi wrote:

I co-sign what other people have written about that offensiveness of that sketch. And I applaud Harry Connick Jr’s response-even if the beginning of his remarks about buffoons was subject to misinterpretation. I agree that “From the look on his face in the video, and the words “we take it really to heart,” you get the sense that he had a real, visceral reaction to the blackface thing”…

end of quote

I also was glad that Connick Jr. indicated that blackface acts are offensive to Americans regardless of our race/ethnicity.

I want to comment about another aspect of that incident. I noticed that the television host constantly referred to the adult men who formed that group as “boys”. In the past-as late as the 1960s or so-people in the USA routinely used the word “boys” as a referent for men regardless of their race/ethnicity. However, that custom has largely ended, and I think most Americans “get” that if they call any men boys, they certainly shouldn’t call Black men that because of the racist history associated with that practice.

I’m wondering if Australians have a similar history of calling indigenous Australian men “boys”, and if that is perceived as racist like it is perceived in the USA. Or is the word “boy” still routinely used in Australia for any man regardless of his race/ethnicity, as might be suggested by that television host’s remarks?

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 12:09 pm ¶
browngirlinthering wrote:

Just as another example lest anyone could still think that this is somehow anomalous, there’s been a large amount of coverage I’ve seen on various affinity blogs regarding the violence and discrimination toward the South Asian Australian population recently. Racism is real, alive, and as big a problem in Australia as the states.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 12:12 pm ¶
7thangel wrote:

being canadian i recognize the aussie reaction/denials, canucks do it everytime and add, “at least it’s not as bad as it is in the states” smh

aussies know damn well about that it’s a racist portrayal. but they still defend golliwog.

they know about ‘blackbirding’ the forced ‘labour’ of the south sea islands.
they know about their shameful practice that created palm island
they know about the stolen children
they know about tasmania

and they know denial

i’m hoping to hear what the original inhabitants have to say, those from palm island, redfern, young activist and old activist (like gary foley).

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 12:17 pm ¶
Sabz wrote:

The battle to be the least racist country? Please… I’m more interested in hearing about initiatives that actively stamp out racism/racist behaviour.
P.s. A wonderfully informative and entertaining blog BTW!

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 12:40 pm ¶
Sean wrote:

The first thing that came to mind when I heard about this was Austrailia’s ugly history with the Aboriginal Native people. Little surprise that they would be so ignorant of the history of minstrelsy, that they would invite an American on the show.

Speaking of Harry -while I appreciate his stance, he hasn’t been totally innocent in the “trying not to make black people look like buffons” arena.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooKaCbMvaZ0

There’s plenty of hipocrasy to go around.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 12:50 pm ¶
noah wrote:

I think it’s interesting that all the discussion over “which country is more racist” focuses the past, as if slavery in the U.S. and the wholesale slaughter of Aboriginal people in Australia were A. issues that no longer have relevance except as a bad stain on each country’s past, and B. as if each country doesn’t still have huge problems with racist policy and sentiment.
Claims of tolerance in Australia are easily dismissed if one just looks at the recent (December 2005) xenophobic race riots in Sydney where crowds of white men went around savagely beating up Lebanese folks.
i don’t think i have to mention issues of current racism in this country, but the point is, the discussion is focused on bad things “in the past”. it’s a cop out for everyone involved if issues of current racism aren’t part of the discussion.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 1:05 pm ¶
Mieko wrote:

I’m not so sure he’s in blackface (or rather, brownface) in this clip. The link on the youtube page shows him in another clip with the same skin color. Plus the video’s not so high quality.

He could very well have put on brownface, but this is not the video to use as proof of it.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 1:51 pm ¶
9jah wrote:

It’s hard to describe…it’s like racism has become this thing, this abstract THING that is all relative and needs a backstory.

No! If it is not clear to you in Australia/Europe that an extreme caricature of race that involves hideously painted faces and wigs and an all around grotesque imagery is highly offensive to the target – like, just on a basic human level that even a 5 yr old should understand – then you are purely racist. If not we would also (just happen to) have grotesque whiteface. But we don’t.

Harry Connick Jr –

He stepped up and i believe it was genuine. I think he is believed to have affinity with black folk by virtue of his upbringing in New Orleans. It was generally a good display of “racism is something all of us” are concerned about.

I was thrown off by the “bufoons” part though. I suspect he misspoke in the moment. But it did come across like, “yes, I concede them blacks are somewhat comical, but we are committed in the U.S. to show them in a different light.”

The statement also fails because it needlessly draws black people into the discussion instead of making clear racism is solely the responsibility of the racist. In my view, all that need to have been said is “we view this as racist and in my country we have spent so much time trying to become less racist.” This statement would have put the onus exactly on the head of the racists where it belongs.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 2:38 pm ¶
Mahsino wrote:

@Sean,
Some of the commenters from Australian sites tried to do what you did just now. That skit wasn’t to make black people look like buffoons. He’s making fun of southern preachers in general, not brown people. And he’s not wearing black/brownface, that’s his skin color.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 3:20 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:

I’ve been doing battle with them for two days now on my spot. So delusional.

I would LOVE to vacay in the oblivion these people live in for a day. It must be so refreshingly blissful to be that damned stupid.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 3:25 pm ¶
RP. wrote:

I am always surprised when I read old newspapers, until how recently (up into the 1980s) minstrel shows were common and acceptable things to be put on by e.g. the local Army cadets, the Knights of Columbus, etc., where I come from (PEI, Canada)

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 3:31 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:

Mahsino,

They showed that to me and I did not see the problem. Harry Connick has never been fair skinned to me. He’s been olive skinned, which given his features, and his background (Louisianan) I would not be surprised if Harry Connick Jr. were of mixed heritage himself.

LOL at them assuming he had on brownface. A WM with brown skin? How ghastly! *end sarcasm*

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 5:33 pm ¶
Danny wrote:

I was going to make a comment but considering what others have typed, it will be just repeating the same thing plus my opinion is quite neutral so people might jump on it.

I like this person’s reaction a tad better than Harry Connick Jr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLuK6atUyZM

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 6:12 pm ¶
Meg wrote:

I’ve been waiting for this to come up on this site and thinking i shouldn’t comment b/c for all its faults i love australia and hate seeing it beat up. My desire to defend might cloud my judgement, but here goes. I agree there’s relief that “phew, wasn’t us being a-holes this time”. Not sure that declaring an entire country racist is helpful because it takes away from the specific issue of blackface and why, even if it’s a joke, intentions can’t overcome the racist tones.

I was wondering if there’s a distinction to be made between deliberate ignorance (e.g. “rappers use the n-word, why can’t we”) and this situation where you equate dressing up as a black person, not with minstrel shows, but with a guy dressing up as a woman. In the latter case, all points about racism in australia notwithstanding, it is helpful to have someone actually spell out (& call us dumb, backward if you must) the history of it. When this first happened i think online/tv polls were running 50-50 in opinion about whether it was racist. And yes, cue verbal blasting about how backward australia is and it shouldn’t even be 50-50 BUT that’s pretty average for anything involving race – you’ll always have the talkback radio crowd, etc having a pavlovian reaction against anything that is threatening the status quo. But as the day went on and our media reported that americans, and (god forbid) the English were saying aussies are all racist, etc the pushback was huge and public opinion instead of accepting what we were being told about the history of such acts, is now ‘dig your heels in and man the barricades against the PC brigade’. And so the point and lesson was lost.

Context matters. I don’t mean, blackface is acceptable in australia, i mean our ability to perceive someone else’s pain is easier when it’s ‘us’. A sports journo blackened his face b/c he couldn’t get an interview with an indigenous player and ppl were calling for his head. In this case, white guy vs indigenous aussie, we understood that it shouldn’t have been done. Well, not everyone cos he kept his job, but the public got that it wasn’t just a little bit off (e.g. footy players wearing fishnets) it was a different kind of wrong.

My long and windy point is, if you want an ally like Harry it has to start somewhere. I wouldn’t have had a clue about blackface & the history except this site has posts about it – does that make me dumber than a 5 yr old, maybe it does. Ignorance breeds racism, but not all ignorance comes from racism and ppl can learn – otherwise what’s the point of this blog, carmen’s training/seminar stuff, etc? Not knowing history is not a reason to kick a country & laugh at how pathetic aussies are but to elucidate the point that regardless of your intention the image is loaded. Much the same as drawing Obama as monkey would be far heavily loaded than drawing george bush in the same way. Intention does not matter in certain situations and you need to respect other peoples experience.

Australia’s history, present & future with race is our own and I think we confuse ourselves trying to see it through an american prism. We can learn the lessons, but we are not in the same place (figuratively speaking) and need to forge ahead with our own understanding. Defending australia against claims we’re the last racist country on earth eats away at the very limited opportunities we have to truly discuss the place of race in our country.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 6:13 pm ¶
Sean wrote:

Mahsino wrote:

@Sean,
Some of the commenters from Australian sites tried to do what you did just now. That skit wasn’t to make black people look like buffoons. He’s making fun of southern preachers in general, not brown people. And he’s not wearing black/brownface, that’s his skin color.

Ummm.. we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. You see him making fun of Southern Baptist Ministers, I see him coonin’ and bufoonin’ with a psuedo afro wig in a mock African-American church setting. The lead singer in the Jackson Jive act had on whiteface too, but I can read between the lines.

…and

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 6:13 pm ¶
Sean wrote:

continued

…and one does not need to wear facepaint to assume an affectation. Just look at Vanilla Ice, David Carradine, yada yada yada….

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 6:18 pm ¶
Urban Suburbinite wrote:

I posted this on black snob, but it fits here as well.

Re: Harry’s use of “we”.

Harry Connick Jr. is from New Orleans, a place with a history of mixed blood people who LOOK physically white, but are not completely white. In an interview some years ago I distinctly remember seeing a photo of Harry as a child playing piano with his grandmother looking on. His grandmother was black. I tried to find the photo online to link to here, but lo and behold it is nowhere to be found. Is someone incognegro? If so that may be very well why the blackface hit so close to home, for him. So when he says “we”, I believe he slipped up and as my grandmother (who is NOLA born and bred) would say “Let the black slip out”.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 6:21 pm ¶
Tony wrote:

Speaking as a New Orleanian, while I don’t personally know Harry or his family, they are sort of public figures around here, and I believe Harry meant more “We try not to portray black people as buffoons anymore” or something similar.

We’ve all had a slip of the tongue where something came out wrong ,sometimes it’s just a slip and not a Freudian one.

His visible disgust for the act speaks far more to his character than his (still visibly upset) words.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 7:21 pm ¶
wendi muse wrote:

this is..complicated. i am not an apologist for racism or displays of racism, however, i agree with meg that context is super important. in brazil, there is blackface on tv all the time, and i clearly remember watching in shock, as my friends, black, mixed, white, other and everything in between didn’t flinch. i went to a costume party where this: (negra maluca, aka “crazy black lady”) was one of the costumes. no one complained or felt uncomfortable. that, of course, is not to say that everyone in brazil is happy or supportive of this image, but it isto say that every country has its own history, particularly in how it frames, thinks about, and discusses race. one of the biggest problems when it comes to international comparisons of race and racism is the ignorance around a nation’s particular history that makes it view race in the way that it does. now australia has an extremely dirty and bloody past when it comes to race, though one that still formed independently of america’s, and i think this is something we should always keep in mind when discussing race across national and continental borders.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 8:01 pm ¶
Mahsino wrote:

We are going to have to disagree on that one, but more to the point I’m a little worried by the use of “affectation” to lump David Carradine, Vanilla Ice, and Harry Connick, Jr. in the same category:

1. As annoying as Vanilla Ice was, I’m prone to call foul on anyone acting in a manner that could/maybe/possibly be associated with blackness with the same vigor I would call foul when people flip the script and claim Black people are putting on “affectation” to act White.

2. David Carradine donned yellowface. period.

3. Black people don’t have a monopoly on any animated southern Evangelical sermons, so calling attributing that to mockery is suspect.

We can maybe talk about cultural appropriation, but considering none of us actually knows HCJ, accusations of affectation and mockery are a little premature.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 8:07 pm ¶
vera wrote:

For the person who thinks Mr. Connick was making fun of black preachers – he needs to watch some sermons of Jimmy Swaggart – a white preacher. My stepfather loved watching that man every Sunday morning

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 8:44 pm ¶
Luis wrote:

1. I think, verbal slip aside, Harry did what I would hope any white ally would do: stand up when it’s uncomfortable and there’s no one there to congratulate you for it. Very brave, and appreciated.

2. In response to Australia not getting the “nuance” and not have a racist past, could we get the Aborigine perspective? Anyone? No one in the a. production, b. studio, c. immediate area? I thought not. I mean, I’d like to hear from the people Australians called “blacks” for so long.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 8:48 pm ¶
Azizi wrote:

While it’s true that Australia has its own unique history and issues regarding race, it’s also important to be aware that in the 19th century both White American minstrel groups and Black American minstrel groups toured Europe, Australia, and the country of South Africa. These black faced minstrels singing “coon songs” had a tremendous influence on various traditions in those nations, particularly on the customs of certain Morris dance groups in Britain who still “black up” (wear black cork on their faces during performances) and still sing some “plantation”, “coon” songs.

Here’s an excerpt from http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/orpheus_myron_mcadoo.html which provides information about a famous Black American singer and his minstrel group in Australia:

“Black and white minstrels in Oz

The McAdoo Jubilee Singers, who had become almost naturalised Australians, continued Down Under up until World War One, by which time they had toured all the states (including distant Western Australia), and New Zealand. By 1905 the minstrels included several white Australians, and Miss Claire Solly, a Western Australian Aboriginal contralto…

Before McAdoo’s death the McAdoo Jubilee Singers had extensive tours in South Africa…”

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 9:16 pm ¶
Sean wrote:

Mahsino wrote:

We are going to have to disagree on that one, but more to the point I’m a little worried by the use of “affectation” to lump David Carradine, Vanilla Ice, and Harry Connick, Jr. in the same category:

1. As annoying as Vanilla Ice was, I’m prone to call foul on anyone acting in a manner that could/maybe/possibly be associated with blackness with the same vigor I would call foul when people flip the script and claim Black people are putting on “affectation” to act White.

2. David Carradine donned yellowface. period.

3. Black people don’t have a monopoly on any animated southern Evangelical sermons, so calling attributing that to mockery is suspect.

We can maybe talk about cultural appropriation, but considering none of us actually knows HCJ, accusations of affectation and mockery are a little premature.

Thanks for respecting my opinion and not being argumentative about it.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 10:21 pm ¶
Tony wrote:

#34

Vera.
Swaggarts not the only one, look up Jesse Duplantis, he (Jesse) is from New Orleans too.

My parents watch his show.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 11:09 pm ¶
Jen wrote:

@Azizi “boy” here doesn’t really have the connotations it does when used to address a grown man that it does in America. “The boys” is a common way to refer to a group of men, particularly friends or a sports team etc.

With that out of the way, this entire thing was the biggest facepalm, horrible embarrasment OMG WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE I have seen on Australian tv in a long time.

It was racist, I don’t understand the people who are claiming it wasn’t. The very best thing you could say about them was that they were being passively racist, that they “didn’t realise” what they were doing, which quite frankly, I don’t think is an excuse when you’re a grown man. Far worse though has been the reaction of people, including “but Michael Jackson is black, so what’s the problem? They weren’t making fun of black people, just the Jackson Five.”

Anyone who says there is no history of blackface or minstrel shows in Australia is lying or ignorant of our country’s history. Touring American minstrel shows were hugely popular here from the mid 19th to early 20th century, when they were taken over by film. Al Jolson was hugely popular here. And the BBC’s “Black And White Minstrel Show” (which only stopped being made in the UK in 1978, I might add) was on air here until around 1980.

And then there was the charming time a group of Northern Terrority policemen blacked up and made fun of Aboriginal deaths in custody.

ARGGH.

The only thing I can say in defense of my country is that this went to air on the reunion show of a program that was ghastly when it was originally around, is completely out of date now, and was run on a private channel, so it’s not like the it’s official government policy or anything. Hopefully now they’ll bury the damn thing and I’ll never have to see Darryl Somers inane grin ever again.

“Blackface isn’t offensive in Australia.” Do these people live under ROCKS?

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 11:26 pm ¶
Luis wrote:

Ask and you shall receive! Here’s an article by Stan Grant, a CNN commentator of Aboriginal ancestry. It contains a high truth content, with infusions of frankness:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/09/jackson.australia/index.html

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 1:51 am ¶
Geek Anachronism wrote:

@Azizi – Australia really doesn’t have a history around ‘boy’. There’s a bit where a well known presenter had a ‘thing’ where he called everybody ‘boy’ which worked until he called Muhammad Ali ‘boy’ in the middle of a live awards presentation. That part of the Jackson Jive thing wasn’t a concious/unconscious word choice about racism (probably far more about lessening blame).

Australia definitely has a racist past. I’m not Indigenous but from my perspective as a white woman in the city, it isn’t just a racist past. We all have it lurking in our families and our pasts – my grandmother refused to attend my aunt’s wedding because she was marrying a kanaka descendant (islanders captured for slave labour). My family stops suddenly at various points going back up the family tree because you never talked about how dark grandma/grandpa was or who they were before they turned 16. There’s a great sense of shame around it all and a great deal of anger. We may not have had the American experience of minstrel shows but they were in existence as an American import (a friend of mine has more to say on that, she wrote about it at uni). The Australian relationship with the Indigenous population was far more brutal and consciously genocidal. They were the help, the criminal element or they simply didn’t exist for the majority of white population. They didn’t have citizenship until the 1960s. It’s disgraceful and the changes have been slow.

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 2:12 am ¶
Luis wrote:

RE: Harry Connick Jr.’s use of “we,” and his potential “affectations.”

We can’t forget that Harry is NOLA born and bread. His accent and manner is more indicative of his regional and class upbringing. We also can’t forget that so much of what is construed as “acting black” in this country can also be said as “acting Southern.” The large scale migrations from South to North by black Americans (which mirrored patterns of foreign migration) brought heaps of Southern culture that has been preserved in customs like speech and food. Of course, the flip-side, which should be obvious but is controversial, is that white Southerners have been deeply culturally influenced by black Southerners. Not to mention, as Urban Suburbanite pointed out, that there may be more than just influence in Connick’s roots. I’ve heard this as well.

RE: Connick in his preacher skit:

While not all white churches in the South are like this, quite a few are. Many white preachers borrow heavily from the style of black preachers, and it can be argued it’s a longstanding shared style among working class Southern churches. There’s plenty of old grainy footage of white preachers getting down like that in decades long past.

RE: The video of Kamahl commenting on the skit.

Great video, I really like his take on the situation. This line really stuck with me:

“What can I say, ‘Be kind to me?’ Can I demand kindness and respect?”

So true, Kamahl, so true.

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 3:14 am ¶
Kamala wrote:

Jen: “Anyone who says there is no history of blackface or minstrel shows in Australia is lying or ignorant of our country’s history. ”

Trust me, they’re ignorant. I never learned about minstrelsy in school– Aust history involved plenty of discussion on the initial “discovery” of Australia and consequent subjugation of the indigenous population, including the Stolen Generation, denial of citizenship rights, the White Australia Policy, etc. And keep in mind that I went to pretty good schools and read a lot about history; there are plenty of schools where Aust history is limited to jingoistic stories about Gallipoli and the ANZACs. I’m 20 and plenty of my peers consider Australia’s racist history to be irrelevant today; they honestly believe that today, Indigenous Australians have such low standards of living because they “refuse to help themselves”.

Meg: thanks for bringing up context. Don’t get me wrong, this whole thing WAS racist and offensive (not to mention deeply, deeply shameful and embarrassing for our country). But plenty of Australians just don’t know about this part of history and what the implications of blackface are; and approaching it from a strictly American perspective will not achieve the greatest results– as mentioned here, defensiveness is the first reaction to being accused of racism.

As for the who-is-more-racist debate: I really don’t think this is something that can be quantified. Most majority-white countries I can think of have their own deplorable racist histories. Within Australia, we tend to just bury out heads in the sand, or say that only the “bogans” (I guess the American equivalent is “redneck” or “hick”) were out there “Leb bashing” in Cronulla, etc. But then those people who apparently aren’t at all racist don’t want their kids going to schools with too many African immigrants (too much violence/low academic standards), or to schools with too many Asians (because they study too hard/aren’t creative/insert stereotype here).

Sigh. I guess my point is that a lot of Australians are ignorant about what constitutes racism (ie it’s not just about spewing malicious racial epithets) and about their own racist tendencies.

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 3:50 am ¶
ambre wrote:

I’m an American PoC living in Australia and I was actually watching this show live. Well…I watched about 15 min. of it and started complaining that it was stupid, and then noted the audience was filled with only white people. I was playfully deemed a hater, and I thought that maybe my lack of cultural/childhood connection to the show may have attributed to my total lack of interest, but thankfully my complaints got the channel changed *right* before the blackface skit came on. I have however, been following the aftermath.

I haven’t been living in Australia for very long (around 6 months), but I have sometimes come across the sentiment that racism is more of an “American problem” which I felt was echoed a bit in some of the reactions to HCJ’s criticism. (i.e. blackface isn’t an Australian thing, it’s an American problem). Also, in this article http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/tv-radio/articles/2009/10/08/1254701091299.html
the frontman of the group “apologises” but interestingly says that he would “absolutely not” perform the skit in America. So….why is it ok in Australia??

I felt a similar situation occurred when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, when asked to comment about the resignation of Sol Trujillo (much disliked president of communications company Telstra) back in June (?) he said “Adios!” Sol Trujillo later criticised Rudd’s comment as being racist and spoke out on racism he experienced as a Mexican-American in Australia. From what I read/saw in the media the overwhelming response was that he was a sore loser and “get over it, it was only a joke.” I also got the impression that there was an underlying, almost “post-racial” feeling of “Americans are too concerned with being PC, we don’t have race problems like that in Australia.”

I heard an interesting comment on a radio show regarding this yesterday that brought up the aspect of the Australian sense of humor. That often, Australian’s enjoy “taking the piss out of” (making fun of) themselves and others all in good fun, which can “go too far” when making fun of oppressed peoples.

I fully recognise that American history and Australian history is not the same, and there will be misunderstood nuances in culture crossings, but it doesn’t diminish the fact that both countries were colonised by white people, setting up institutional racism that shouldn’t be ignored. I don’t see how painting your face with shoe polish and acting a fool to portray a black person can be justified, regardless of whether or not you know/understand the history of blackface.

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 4:55 am ¶
Kirsten wrote:

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.

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 7:23 am ¶
Veronica wrote:

As an Australian, I am really quite unsettled by this entire incident. While the skit was an issue in itself, the bigger issue disturbing me is the follow on, specifically the large number of comments by some Australians defending the skit as being a bit of “fun Aussie humour”, thus it could not have been offensive and everyone (Americans, Brits, whoever was offended) should “get over themselves”. These comments concern me because of the general attitude of intolerance and prejudice I believe they reveals.

I think Australians sometimes believe we are not racist because we believe in egalitarianism and giving everyone a “fair go”. Also, “race” and “racism” is not something that usually comes up in our daily lives nor is it “in our face”. Compared to the US, Canada and the UK, we visually a very “white” country, despite being a melting pot of many, many different ethnicities and migrant communities, some recent and some from way back. Many institutional structures, such as the “White Australia” policy,were abolished either before my time or when I was very young. Most of our indigenous communities live far away from the coastal cities that are populated by the vast majority (approximately 85 percent) of us. I’ve never had to fill in a form that asks me to identify my “race” and neither have about 70 percent of people under 50 (since that question was phased out in our census years ago). Yet personally, I feel there is an undercurrent of racism/prejudice/bigotry that in general we have not dealt with. Just because we don’t “see” or talk about “race” does not mean that racist sentiments do not rear their ugly head from time to time. I can recall several hot topics over recent years that vexed and divided the nation, some of which have made international headlines. So we are naive if we think it isn’t so.

I agree with Meg (#27) that this has been a lost opportunity we could have used to discuss our issues of racism/prejudice/bigotry. Instead, much reaction, has been blame shifting and a “defend……at all costs” attitude. IMO, none of us anywhere has the right to say we are better than anyone else. Most nations that were colonised have a poor historical record when it comes to dealing with indigenous and disenfranchised peoples. Let’s just hope we are all learning and progressing to a better place. “Let s/he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 9:28 am ¶
Thea wrote:

@Wendi

You make a good point about recognising different racial contexts when looking at racism across borders.

At the same time, I think that we can criticise blackface in Australia (or Brazil) based on their own histories of the use of blackface. For e.g. why is it interesting or funny to wear blackface in any of those countries? How much of the culture of blackface is a unique outgrowth in those countries, and how much is it a borrowing from American culture?

While I don’t know the answer to the second question (though Azizi @36 provides some useful blackface history), to me it seems definitely possible that the reason why people dress up in blackface in other countries – the reason why it is worth doing, the reason why it is considered funny – is very similar to the reason why people started dressing up in blackface in the US. I.e. b/c as a marginalised group, people with dark skin are great for a laugh.

Even outside of the particular context of US minstrel shows, that’s obviously problematic.

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 12:45 pm ¶
RCHOUDH wrote:

I think in this global age of having information literally right at your fingertips, people in industrialized countries can easily find out information about problematic racist portrayals of others, like blackface, if they sincerely wished to learn and understand. The fact that these JJ performers were initially uneasy about performing the skit reveals to me that they at least realized that performing it was somewhat problematic. My issue is that since they harbored doubts, they could have easily looked up information about the history of blackface instead of pleading ignorance on live TV. I’ve managed to learn information behind Australian racial slurs, like “wog”, even though I’m American. If I can do that I don’t see why no one else can.

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 3:40 pm ¶
7thangel wrote:

if anybody want’s to learn more about the indigenous struggle for self determination, justice, and equality, check

The Koori history Website
http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/indexb.html

i really recommend checking it out and bookmarking it

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 3:50 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:

@Kamala:

“…plenty of my peers consider Australia’s racist history to be irrelevant today; they honestly believe that today, Indigenous Australians have such low standards of living because they “refuse to help themselves”.”

Replace Australia with Canada or US and it would be just as true.

@Thea:
Ugh, thanks for pointing out the silliness of Canada as some sort of exception. Considering our prime ministers is one of the most racist politicians I can think of the idea of Canada being somehow without racism is a form of further marginalizing Canadian people of colour. But that for another post as you said.

I have seen performances of blackface on Indian television as well without any batting of any eyelash. It was seen as fun, innocent and funny entertainment. However, there was DEFINITELY an undercurrent of mockery there, although not explicit. Or perhaps I felt the mockery because I know the derogatory ways in which people with dark skin are viewed in that part of the world. However, having said that I do believe that many of the derogatory views toward black people specifically, in that part of the world, were imports to the region via American movies and television.

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 4:42 pm ¶
Azizi wrote:

@Thea, here are links to two threads from another discussion forum about the custom of blacking up (wearing blackface) in Great Britain:

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=78748#1432911 Padstow Darkie Days*
Mudcat Discussion Forum

and

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=87981#1943526 Folklore: Padstow ‘Darkie Days’

*”Padstow” is a city in Cornwall, England which is known for its distinctive May Day celebrations.

To briefly summarize, persons on those threads who supported the custom of “blacking up” (wearing black face paint) indicated that it was a “tradition” which started as a disguise so that a worker’s boss would not recognize him when he went out begging (which was a part of certain traditions almost like the USA’s Halloween trick or treat door to door “begging”).

Those same posters to that thread indicated that “darkie” in the title “Padstow Darkie Days” referred to “the dark days”.

“Blacking up” is most often associated with Morris dancing, and Pace Egg plays. Some Morris dance sides (groups) blacken up while others don’t. I think that the original purposes of these revived traditions may not ever be totally known. However, I believe that the term “Morris” in “Morris dances” refers to the “Moors” from Northern Africa. Therefore, one reason for the custom of black faced traditions in (UK) Morris Dancing is that the Moors were/are a brown skinned people, or at least some of them were/are. A Black prince, or Turkish knight is always a character in the Easter Pace Egg plays. Those characters are portrayed by men with blackened skin.

In my opinion, the custom of “blacking up” in Great Britian may also be tied to the superstition that chimney sweeps (whose faces were black with soot) were considered to bring good luck. That particular supersition might have originated because chimney sweeps were said to carry buckets of four leaf clovers (another good luck symbol).

But there’s no question that the custom of performers wearing black face paint in the United States was to mimic and/or mock Black people. Notwithstanding any other reason for blackface practices, I think that that touring American minstrel groups had a significant influence on blacking up traditions in Great Britain, Australia, and South Africa. And I think that black face paint was also worn by performers in those countries to mimic and/or mock Black people. People can debate whether that is still the reason why this custom persists. But, whatever the reasons for its origin, I-for one-find people wearing black face paint to be offensive.

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 4:42 pm ¶
londonmabel wrote:

Well, maybe the audience of that show get credit for one thing–when that same group performed for the first time 20 years before, doing the same routine, they won. At least this time they got gonged out.

On another topic, I’d be curious to know what Racialicious makes of the Australian show Summer Heights High, where the comedian (Chris Lilley) plays 3 roles including an “Islander” kid named Jonah. The episodes are all on youtube.

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 5:27 pm ¶
Thea Lim wrote:

@londonmabel

Alas no credit is due. You notice in the video how the audience boos loudly when the judge hits the gong? It was the judge who gave them a “1″ who put a stop to it, and the audience booed really loudly when he stopped it. Some people have misinterpreted the booing as being aimed at Jackson Jive…they were actually booing because they wanted to see more of JJ.

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 8:03 pm ¶
Meg wrote:

I think reading more and more comments just shows how hard the issue is & the myriad of things aussies don’t get a chance to talk about so we latch onto an american site Watching the old vs new clip again i can’t help but think the key joke was meant to be that 20 yrs ago “michael jackon” was black but this time around his face was white. Which is a rehash of every MJ joke from the past 15 or so years, but totally tone-deaf to the implications. Since one of the guys is a plastic surgeon surely he could have constructed a dodgy nose and left the shoe polish at home.

Jen: “Anyone who says there is no history of blackface or minstrel shows in Australia is lying or ignorant of our country’s history”.
Well you’ll have to take my word i’m not a liar, so i guess that leaves ignorant. Not sure how old you are but i wasn’t alive in early 20th century so yeah no clue how they decided to entertain themselves without ipods. There’s been lots of al jolson references and i had to consult google – again no idea. Australians are terrible at learning about our own history. We don’t want to be (apologies to our american friends) ‘like america’ who only learn about themselves (or so it seems to us) so we spend a heap of time looking outward and forgetting that we have our own house to get in order. Does that excuse the routine? No. But, my original point about not having an american context was not to suggest that we shouldn’t have known better, but it was that we probably didn’t think it mattered that much. I think there’s a tendency to place it with e.g. dame edna dress-up.

@ambre re ‘taking the piss’; It’s interesting how non-aussies (regardless of race) react to our humour cos when you stop and think sometimes it looks like the best of friends hate each other. I think a british columnist also said something along the lines of aussies being “viciously self-parodic” or something to that effect. It definitely goes to humour being a high wire act, when is criticism/satire deserved (Sol Trujillo was a disaster) vs crossing the line (adios; 3 amigos). One article around that time with Sol, basically said that australians were racist – like everyone else; but we were really bad at hiding it. So in oz a cabbie will tell you “don’t go there cos it’s full of blacks” but in america they’ll quietly suggest not to go into certain “urban” neighbourhoods.

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 9:08 pm ¶
Veronica wrote:

Re: Context

@Azizi – thanks for the posts re: Australia and blackface in the *context* of touring minstrel groups. I must say, however, most of us would be ignorant of these because they were way, way before our time being early in the 1900s. I remember black and white tv shows as a kid with Al Jolson so know of minstrel groups but as a kid, it was just entertainment. Many of the generation even younger than I (gen X) may have never seen or heard of minstrel groups.

@Thea – To your question – “How much of the culture of blackface is a unique outgrowth in those countries, and how much is it a borrowing from American culture?”

Personally, I think it’s the latter, if we are referring to blackface minstrel groups, but I’m happy to be corrected. That may be why many Aussies have raised the issue of “context”. Now if the group had chosen to do some slapdash parody in blackface as aborigines, I hazard a guess that (1) firstly, it would not have been allowed on air, and (2) secondly, if it had been, it would have tweaked many more radars as being racist because, in our historical context, it is something we’d be more conscious of.

Anyway, IMHO, the following is a reasonable approach about how to build bridges when these sort of things happen – “Hey, Hey, It’s Taboo for You.” (http://www.deltaknowledge.net/2009/10/hey-hey-is-harrys-taboo-for-you.html).

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 9:27 pm ¶
NamesnotAnnie wrote:

Thea: I am anxiously awaiting your post on race discussions in Canada. Our country is soooo in denial.

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 9:32 pm ¶
Jen wrote:

@Kamala re: being taught about blackface at school – how depressing. I’m 28 and absolutely certain I learnt about it in history at school (in the context of racist and negative depictions of aborigines with possibly links to the civil rights movement in America? Can’t quite remember). I’m sure Aboriginal history was on the compulsory curriculum in NSW in the 1990s, I guess it’s been changed (although you would think it would have been extended…)

@Veronica “I agree with Meg (#27) that this has been a lost opportunity we could have used to discuss our issues of racism/prejudice/bigotry. Instead, much reaction, has been blame shifting and a “defend……at all costs” attitude.”

Yes! Instead we like to pretend there are no race issues in Australia, until Anglo boys and Lebanese boys are beating the crap out of each other on the beach, and then people wail, “Oh no, how could this come to be?”

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 9:32 pm ¶
Eurasian Sensation wrote:

@ Londonmabel:

Yup, the audience booed because they were enjoying the JJ and wanted to see more. To their credit, they seem to have a bit of a realisation both times that Harry speaks. Of course, the majority of the Australian public are being ignorant wankers about it.

Re: “Summer Heights High” – personally I love the show. I give Chris Lilley a pass on the Islander character because he does it so well – it’s a clever and nuanced portrayal – and because it’s damn funny. However, I haven’t heard from any Pacific Islanders whether they like it or not. While the Jonah character is very likeable, he is also a stereotypical dumb bully. So yeah, possibly problematic.

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 11:36 pm ¶
Eurasian Sensation wrote:

Speaking as an Australian, the sketch was stupid and embarassing. I don’t actually think it warrants the major fuss that’s been made over it, even though I find it very interesting and have blogged about it myself.

But the bigger issue is what it represents in terms of Australian views on race and so on. And what has disturbed me the most is the general public’s attitude that somehow HCJ was insulting to Australia. Or that this is “PC gone mad”.

At the same time, it is quite amusing to see some Americans looking at us and thinking we are more backward in our views on race than you. We are pretty much the same. Better in some ways, worse in others. We have many things to be ashamed of in our past. But at the same time we have never had anything approaching the KKK, for example. Or slavery per se. I think that’s why many Australians cannot handle the concept of criticism on race from Americans, because the US has arguably an uglier history on race than we do.

Posted 11 Oct 2009 at 12:10 am ¶
Emmeaki wrote:

What’s crazy is that most of them are POC’s.

“I am an Indian, and five of the six of us are from multicultural backgrounds”

Indian-origin doc in race row over MJ skit:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Indian-origin-doc-in-race-row-over-MJ-skit/articleshow/5103725.cms

Posted 11 Oct 2009 at 1:37 am ¶
Azizi wrote:

Just to clarify, the beginning of blackface minstrelsy in the USA was in the early 19th century-for instance, in 1828 the song & dance “Jump Jim Crow” was performed in blackface by the White Thomas Dartmouth (T.D.) “Daddy” Rice. However, it wasn’t until the late 19th and very early 20th century that Black minstrel groups toured Great Britain, Australia, and South Africa.

I keep referring to Great Britain and South Africa in this discussion because White people from those nations (and from the USA) who immigrated to Australia in the late 19th and early 20th century probably contributed to the attitude among White Australians that blackfaced minstrel performances was an acceptable form of entertainment.

By the way, here’s an excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface about Black performers and blackface:

“In the early days of African-American involvement in theatrical performance, blacks could not perform without blackface makeup, regardless of how dark-skinned they were. The 1860s “colored” troupes violated this convention for a time: the comedy-oriented endmen “corked up”, but the other performers “astonished” commentators by the diversity of their hues. Still, their performances were largely in accord with established blackface stereotypes.”

-snip-

I hope my posts didn’t give the impression that the USA, Great Britain, Australia, and the South Africa were the only nations that have had (and perhaps still have) blackface minstrel performances. To that point, in that Wikipedia article whose link I provided, I was interesting to read about a history of blackface in the Netherlands . I was also interested to learn from Sobia’s (#50) post in this discussion about blackface performances on Indian television.

Posted 11 Oct 2009 at 9:16 am ¶
Donald wrote:

Well I can remember when the Black & White Minstrels were on TV in Britain. Even the debate which happened when colour TVs meant the BBC decided to give the men brown rather than black makeup. At the time it wasn’t considered racist. Only towards the end were the any complaints on that basis and by that time the format of the show had got tired.

I think I noticed the sexism rather than the racism. The men were turned into identical cartoon characters whereas the women had some individuality. I didn’t even identify the men with black people because they looked nothing like the few I had met at that time.

So yes I needed the racism pointing out to me but it didn’t take much empathy to understand how offensive such a stereotype could be.

The problem now is that blacking up has been so buried in the past that most people in Britain under the age of fifty are unaware of the practice or its associations. Sure they could find out if they knew what to look for but why bother? It means nothing to them. That’s why a responsible TV station would have guidelines which should have red flagged it.

Regarding Morris dancers this is a classic example of transfering assumptions across differing cultures.
As far as I know there is only one troupe who traditionally blacks their faces and no one really knows the basis of the tradition. It became a story when some journalist saw them and wrote an article accusing them of racism. It is highly unlikely that it has anything to do with the blackface of 19th/20th Century minstrels as Morris dance traditions go back far earlier. The identification with Moors is possible as is an association with coal miners. Furthermore Morris dancers don’t sing and the dances are performed to pipe and drum music totally unlike anything I’ve heard of as “plantation” songs. Interestingly I recently saw a performance of an Indian dance which was very similar. Parallel development or a common origin?

Posted 11 Oct 2009 at 9:26 pm ¶
anon wrote:

Much love Harry Connick Jr.!

Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 2:24 am ¶
Eurasian Sensation wrote:

@ Emmeaki –
“What’s crazy is that most of them are POC’s.”

Absolutely. What I also find crazy is how they use their ethnicity as an excuse. As in, “We’re Indian/Lebanese/Sri Lankan, therefore we are incapable of racism against black people.”

Not to say that they had racist intent, but from my own experience, my ethnicity makes me MORE sensitive to how things can be offensive to other cultures.

Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 7:12 am ¶
Roy wrote:

The Indian Doc who led is a manifestation of the latent racism in Australian society that forced him to unwittingly to vent the prejudices of the dominant Australian society that used to him portray this purposely for obvious deniability reasons. Immigrants have this pressure to conform to the majority white and buy credibility by denigrating their own group of people often. I live in the US and have been to the virulently racist state of South Carolina where the whites tried to gauge my stand on things by running vicious Black jokes by me and openly displaying garden furniture that would have been offensive to POC like signs saying feed the black babies to gators etc…

Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 11:29 am ¶
chicagorose wrote:

“Regarding Morris dancers this is a classic example of transfering assumptions across differing cultures.
As far as I know there is only one troupe who traditionally blacks their faces and no one really knows the basis of the tradition. It became a story when some journalist saw them and wrote an article accusing them of racism. It is highly unlikely that it has anything to do with the blackface of 19th/20th Century minstrels as Morris dance traditions go back far earlier. The identification with Moors is possible as is an association with coal miners.”

Massaging my temples with closed eyes now. You cannot possibly be that obtuse. Please, I pray, please, please, please. Blackface is blackface is blackface no matter its point of origin. The target is the same.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_dancers

"While there is still some dispute as to the origin of the term "morris," the most widely accepted theory is that the term was moorish dance, morisques in France, Moriskentanz in Germany, moreška in Croatia, and moresco, moresca or morisca in Italy and Spain, which eventually became morris dance.[4] Dances with similar names and some similar features are mentioned in Renaissance documents in France, Italy, Germany, Croatia, and Spain; throughout, in fact, Catholic Europe. This is hardly surprising; by 1492 Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castille succeeded in driving the Moors out of Spain and unifying the country. In celebration of this a pageant known as a Moresca was devised and performed.” ]

Ever heard the term Blackamoor?
Meet some of Google’s definition results:

[Black: a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa)
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A person with dark skin, especially (but not necessarily) one from northern Africa; a blackamoor slave, a blackamoor servant; and hence any slave, servant, inferior, or child; a stylized Negro
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blackamoor

Negro figure usually dressed in a colorful costume, used as a support or as decoration during the Italian Renaissance and revived in the Victorian period.
newel.com/Glossary.aspx ]

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors

The description Moors has referred to several historic and modern populations of Muslim (and earlier non-Muslim) people of Berber, Black African and Arab descent from North Africa, some of whom came to conquer and occupy the Iberian Peninsula for nearly 800 years. The North Africans termed it Al Andalus, comprising most of what is now Spain and Portugal.]

I have to go now. I just can’t take it. I’ve hung out in Uk forums where people defended their Golliwogs as mere childhood toys and didn’t seem to know the origins of those either.

Posted 13 Oct 2009 at 3:20 am ¶
Thom wrote:

“But what’s more fascinating is how the whole scandal has prompted a conversation about…(drumroll please)…the Least Racist Country!

Witness the battle to be the Least Racist Country! on this Gawker comment thread (sent to us by reader Carleandria): “In Australia, Blackface Is Still Only Slightly Offensive”. The article is basically about how America must be waaaay better than Australia, and its comments section is rife with anxious Australians trying to defend their country:”

And what’s really sad about it? What a pointless argument. It’s real purpose is to say, “sure we have some racism, I supposed…but look at those guys! They have way more work to do on the issue than we do!”

It’s fruitless, and isn’t helping end racist attitudes. Instead it tries to justify them or ignore them completely. Places like the U.S., Australia, the U.K., etc have racism ingrained in their national identities. So what are we doing about it? Trying to say someone else is worse? Great. Problem solved.

Posted 13 Oct 2009 at 4:05 pm ¶
n wrote:

“Yup, it’s also about appearance. He didn’t say “We take racism against black folks very seriously,” but we try to not make black people look like buffoons.”

Well, I think that was quite appropriate. He is an entertainer and this was a show that featured an act that made blackness seem ridiculous.
Making a serious effort to cease making black people look like buffoons is something that people in the USA have had to work hard at.

We have had to work hard at eliminating certain depictions of black and other people. No more Aunt Jemima, no more Golliwogs, no more Steppen Fetchit, no more Darkie toothpaste, no more grinning Indian mascots, no more pickaninnyy dolls in tourist spots ,no more mammies on kids cartoons.

Ending offensive portrayals of black people IS ending a form of racist behavior, not merely worrying about “appearances”

Posted 13 Oct 2009 at 4:16 pm ¶
londonmabel wrote:

Well, anyone who wants to talk about racism in Canada (I’m Canadian) – the whole Têtes à Claques cannibal skit would be a good start. A lot of people defended it the same way: “We Quebecers just have this sense of humour, we’re easy-going, you don’t get it, bla bla bla.”

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2007/05/04/cannibal-video.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIJa50A0eG0

Posted 14 Oct 2009 at 3:41 am ¶
Squidfly wrote:

Meg wrote:

Australians are ignorant of their own History. Among the first convicts that settled in Australia in the 18th C, were a dozen or so Black (American) Soldiers, that had been residing in the UK from the Revolutionary war, living in poverty and like most Vet’s, mistreated and ended up in prison, so they were shipped out with the others.
DNA testing on Aussie’s would yield fascinating results.

Posted 14 Oct 2009 at 12:45 pm ¶
Orville wrote:

I am proud of Harry for speaking UP about this racism! I am just proud that somebody said this was WRONG and it is. It is very offensive and racist!

Posted 14 Oct 2009 at 4:53 pm ¶
Khrystene wrote:

Australians are racist, we try to push it under the carpet, make a joke about it or get defensive about it. We don’t like to discuss it and try to address it, and least of all, we don’t like it when someone criticises us, no matter what it’s for.

This is a fact.

This is the status quo.

And this makes me angry.

It makes me angry because we should address our racism and arrogance, because that is the only way to move forward, to acknowledge and do something about this ignorance, yet all we (as a nation) do is get on our high horse and whine that ‘no one understands us’… for f*ck’s sake. PLEASE!

The Sorry Day apology on the 13th Feb 2008, was an amazing day for all Australians, it held such potential, but where have we gone from there?

There are, a great number of Australians, myself included, who abhor racism and try to be aware of it’s pernicious nature. In this instance, Hey Hey it’s Saturday was an early morning (8am as I recall) TV show, more kid/teen friendly, with a puppet ostrich and host (Darryl) duo, that I grew up with. It was silly, and somewhat funny. In later years, particularly when it moved to a 9pm Saturday evening slot, it became perhaps what it’d always wanted to be, misogynistic, racist, sexist… the team revelled in it. I cannot even begin to understand how Channel 9 could have allowed the Reunion show to show such an un-funny, ignorant, racist ’skit’, so many years after the fact. It wasn’t funny the first time and it’s even less funny now. This suggests a lack of mindfulness and a lack of thought on the part of the producers, etc.

There have been a bunch of overtly racist public incidents again lately, it’s like a tide, it rises and falls. For my part, I’m forced by my own conscious to speak out when I hear it, whether it be to the cab driver or to my supposedly liberal minded friends, because I’m really fed up with it. And yes, I get indignant.

I try to watch my own racism, and find it pops up in subtle ways, ways I perhaps hadn’t really noticed or thought about before – not till I started really reading and listening to other’s opinions, such as yours.

We, in Australia, have a hell of a long way to go, and I’m often despondent about the road… it really does make me sad, because there’s a lot of good stuff we can be proud of here, but the overwhelming ignorance and attitude of denial overshadows it time and time again. I just hope we can defeat the ignorance that leads to this kind of crap by addressing it publicly and making it clear that it’s “not on”.

Thanks.

Posted 15 Oct 2009 at 12:35 am ¶