Harry Connick vs. Jackson Jive - Australia considered racist

KungPOW · 10-08-2009, 07:05 PM

I found it racist.

It comes down to the style of makup used. As Wheetfield explained, "blackface" is the problem here. Not the parody of the jackson Five.

I'm sure there are plenty of Jackson five skits that didn't resort to "Blackface" for comic effect.

figmental1978 · 10-08-2009, 07:59 PM

hmmm, tough topic. I'm an Australian with a Spanish background and now live in Japan where I'm the definite odd one out and to certain degree felt the annoying sting of some type of discrimination, not necessarily racism. I've seen parodies in Japan of white and black people by Japanese comedians and to the Japanese, it's pretty funny. To me, it's not but I see it as ignorance, not racism. So I'll have to agree that certain types of comedy are only funny in their country and an outsider would consider it offensive or humourless.

Because African American's are not a part of Australian culture, do Australians have the right to parody them? Why not make fun of Aboriginals then? (imagine the shit storm that would cause). Also, If these guys performing the skit are of darker skin colour, why would they need to paint themselves black?

PS - Yayyy....500th post!

**Ash** · 10-08-2009, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by KungPOW

I found it racist.

It comes down to the style of makup used. As Wheetfield explained, "blackface" is the problem here. Not the parody of the jackson Five.

I'm sure there are plenty of Jackson five skits that didn't resort to "Blackface" for comic effect.

Sorry you feel that way.
I don't quite understand how makeup makes the difference in calling it racist.
The act was intended for comedy, not slander.

If by the Wiki definition even the simple act of stereotyped performances (like this one) without makeup constitutes this negative connotation, then we'd all have to remove all sorts of parody against any group of people from comedy to avoid being called racist/prejudiced/whatever.

Australia has accepted that ridiculing indigenous Aussies can stir up trouble because of its history, but should there be parody of the Aboriginal people overseas, that would barely make a mention in Australia... and I'm not sure the indigenous people would react much if it did.

**Ash** · 10-08-2009, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by figmental1978

Also, If these guys performing the skit are of darker skin colour, why would they need to paint themselves black?

They're obviously not dark enough...
So should they have even worn wigs? Or what about MJ's bling outfit - perhaps he shouldn't have worn that either...

KungPOW · 10-08-2009, 08:27 PM

First it is the type of makeup and the way it is applied that is the offense. Blackface makeup is a symbol of a negative racial stereotype. There is nothing funny about it.

Second, the group behind "Micheal", does not portray the Jackson Five in any way. Without the visual conection to that specific musical act, they become a general parody of a single racial group. Again, not funny.

**Ash** · 10-08-2009, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by KungPOW

First it is the type of makeup and the way it is applied that is the offense. Blackface makeup is a symbol of a negative racial stereotype. There is nothing funny about it.

Second, the group behind "Micheal", does not portray the Jackson Five in any way. Without the visual conection to that specific musical act, they become a general parody of a single racial group. Again, not funny.

Sounds like, therefore, the show, intended only for Australians, should have just stayed in Australia. No offense would have been taken, some would have had a laugh, and life would have gone on with no bad feelings from anyone.

This is obviously causing people to be uncomfortable unnecessarily.

figmental1978 · 10-08-2009, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Ash

They're obviously not dark enough...

Neither was Michael

What you said though about Aboriginals maybe not taking such offence, I disagree. Aboriginals are fairly sensitive about their past and they have a right to be and I doubt they'd like it if some white boys in America were taking the piss out of Yothu Yindi.

**Ash** · 10-08-2009, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by figmental1978

Neither was Michael

What you said though about Aboriginals maybe not taking such offence, I disagree. Aboriginals are fairly sensitive about their past and they have a right to be and I doubt they'd like it if some white boys in America were taking the piss out of Yothu Yindi.

But they're a great band - quite exemplary to Indigenous folk!

They, as well as most other Aboriginal people, aren't very controversial/unusual to be able to take the Mickey out of them anyway...

The Jacksons on the other hand...

figmental1978 · 10-08-2009, 09:09 PM

You're right, they were taking the piss out of the Jacksons, not black people but I guess the make up went too far and pushed a few buttons.

lithos · 10-08-2009, 09:18 PM

Well, better Harry Connick Jr. than Sol Trujillo.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pvpbRxfkn0[/yt]

deadwolfbones · 10-08-2009, 10:05 PM

As others have said, the problem is with "blackface" itself, and not with sending up the Jackson Five. It's ignorance of the history of blackface (primarily in the USA) and not explicit racism. It's just ignorant use of a racist symbol, no malice intended I'm sure. I think Connick reacted the way most educated Americans would react if they were shown a completely unironic blackface routine in 2009.

Wheatfield · 10-08-2009, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Sounds like, therefore, the show, intended only for Australians, should have just stayed in Australia. No offense would have been taken, some would have had a laugh, and life would have gone on with no bad feelings from anyone.

This is obviously causing people to be uncomfortable unnecessarily.

Well, you did ask.
It is interesting that the only thing the Americans have had to say about it is to try to write off the racial aspect of the Civil War as a non starter, and the Canadians are the ones to be somewhat touchy though.

deadwolfbones · 10-08-2009, 10:14 PM

Also, here's a funnier version of this thread on a generally funnier board:

Hipinion.com :: View topic - Harry Connick Jr. vs. Australians in blackface

**Ash** · 10-08-2009, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Well, you did ask.
It is interesting that the only thing the Americans have had to say about it is to try to write off the racial aspect of the Civil War as a non starter, and the Canadians are the ones to be somewhat touchy though.

I did, and it's certainly given me food for thought, having been reasonably well travelled and hopefully becoming a little more tolerant with time...

res3567 · 10-08-2009, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Well, you did ask.
It is interesting that the only thing the Americans have had to say about it is to try to write off the racial aspect of the Civil War as a non starter, and the Canadians are the ones to be somewhat touchy though.

Yea that it interesting. I have a lot to say but I aint.... Im just gone see how this plays out..... As I would be the one to ask if I was offended.....

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People HARRY	Taff	Post Your Photos!	10	02-25-2010 06:12 AM
NY Times Tech Blog interview - Harry Benson	MrApollinax	General Talk	0	02-24-2010 09:15 AM
what's considered fast enough?	Deiberson	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	19	01-16-2010 10:49 AM
Pentax in Harry Potter Movie?	germar	General Talk	6	08-06-2009 04:18 PM
I've been practicing on poor Harry again	roscot	Post Your Photos!	5	12-24-2007 04:41 PM

10-08-2009, 07:05 PM	#16
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	I found it racist. It comes down to the style of makup used. As Wheetfield explained, "blackface" is the problem here. Not the parody of the jackson Five. I'm sure there are plenty of Jackson five skits that didn't resort to "Blackface" for comic effect.

10-08-2009, 07:59 PM	#17
figmental1978 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 789	hmmm, tough topic. I'm an Australian with a Spanish background and now live in Japan where I'm the definite odd one out and to certain degree felt the annoying sting of some type of discrimination, not necessarily racism. I've seen parodies in Japan of white and black people by Japanese comedians and to the Japanese, it's pretty funny. To me, it's not but I see it as ignorance, not racism. So I'll have to agree that certain types of comedy are only funny in their country and an outsider would consider it offensive or humourless. Because African American's are not a part of Australian culture, do Australians have the right to parody them? Why not make fun of Aboriginals then? (imagine the shit storm that would cause). Also, If these guys performing the skit are of darker skin colour, why would they need to paint themselves black? PS - Yayyy....500th post!

10-08-2009, 08:12 PM	#18
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	Originally posted by KungPOW I found it racist. It comes down to the style of makup used. As Wheetfield explained, "blackface" is the problem here. Not the parody of the jackson Five. I'm sure there are plenty of Jackson five skits that didn't resort to "Blackface" for comic effect. Sorry you feel that way. I don't quite understand how makeup makes the difference in calling it racist. The act was intended for comedy, not slander. If by the Wiki definition even the simple act of stereotyped performances (like this one) *without* makeup constitutes this negative connotation, then we'd all have to remove all sorts of parody against any group of people from comedy to avoid being called racist/prejudiced/whatever. Australia has accepted that ridiculing indigenous Aussies can stir up trouble because of its history, but should there be parody of the Aboriginal people overseas, that would barely make a mention in Australia... and I'm not sure the indigenous people would react much if it did.

10-08-2009, 08:14 PM	#19
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	Originally posted by figmental1978 Also, If these guys performing the skit are of darker skin colour, why would they need to paint themselves black? They're obviously not dark enough... So should they have even worn wigs? Or what about MJ's bling outfit - perhaps he shouldn't have worn that either...

10-08-2009, 08:27 PM	#20
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	First it is the type of makeup and the way it is applied that is the offense. Blackface makeup is a symbol of a negative racial stereotype. There is nothing funny about it. Second, the group behind "Micheal", does not portray the Jackson Five in any way. Without the visual conection to that specific musical act, they become a general parody of a single racial group. Again, not funny.

10-08-2009, 08:36 PM	#21
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	Originally posted by KungPOW First it is the type of makeup and the way it is applied that is the offense. Blackface makeup is a symbol of a negative racial stereotype. There is nothing funny about it. Second, the group behind "Micheal", does not portray the Jackson Five in any way. Without the visual conection to that specific musical act, they become a general parody of a single racial group. Again, not funny. Sounds like, therefore, the show, intended only for Australians, should have just stayed in Australia. No offense would have been taken, some would have had a laugh, and life would have gone on with no bad feelings from anyone. This is obviously causing people to be uncomfortable unnecessarily.

10-08-2009, 08:52 PM	#22
figmental1978 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 789	Originally posted by Ash They're obviously not dark enough... Neither was Michael What you said though about Aboriginals maybe not taking such offence, I disagree. Aboriginals are fairly sensitive about their past and they have a right to be and I doubt they'd like it if some white boys in America were taking the piss out of Yothu Yindi.

10-08-2009, 09:03 PM	#23
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	Originally posted by figmental1978 Neither was Michael What you said though about Aboriginals maybe not taking such offence, I disagree. Aboriginals are fairly sensitive about their past and they have a right to be and I doubt they'd like it if some white boys in America were taking the piss out of Yothu Yindi. But they're a great band - quite exemplary to Indigenous folk! They, as well as most other Aboriginal people, aren't very controversial/unusual to be able to take the Mickey out of them anyway... The Jacksons on the other hand...

10-08-2009, 09:09 PM	#24
figmental1978 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 789	You're right, they were taking the piss out of the Jacksons, not black people but I guess the make up went too far and pushed a few buttons.

10-08-2009, 09:18 PM	#25
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	Well, better Harry Connick Jr. than Sol Trujillo. [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pvpbRxfkn0[/yt]

10-08-2009, 10:05 PM	#26
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	As others have said, the problem is with "blackface" itself, and not with sending up the Jackson Five. It's ignorance of the history of blackface (primarily in the USA) and not explicit racism. It's just ignorant use of a racist symbol, no malice intended I'm sure. I think Connick reacted the way most educated Americans would react if they were shown a completely unironic blackface routine in 2009.

10-08-2009, 10:05 PM	#27
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Ash Sounds like, therefore, the show, intended only for Australians, should have just stayed in Australia. No offense would have been taken, some would have had a laugh, and life would have gone on with no bad feelings from anyone. This is obviously causing people to be uncomfortable unnecessarily. Well, you did ask. It is interesting that the only thing the Americans have had to say about it is to try to write off the racial aspect of the Civil War as a non starter, and the Canadians are the ones to be somewhat touchy though.

10-08-2009, 10:14 PM	#28
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	Also, here's a funnier version of this thread on a generally funnier board: Hipinion.com :: View topic - Harry Connick Jr. vs. Australians in blackface

10-08-2009, 10:25 PM	#29
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	Originally posted by Wheatfield Well, you did ask. It is interesting that the only thing the Americans have had to say about it is to try to write off the racial aspect of the Civil War as a non starter, and the Canadians are the ones to be somewhat touchy though. I did, and it's certainly given me food for thought, having been reasonably well travelled and hopefully becoming a little more tolerant with time...

10-08-2009, 10:30 PM	#30
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by Wheatfield Well, you did ask. It is interesting that the only thing the Americans have had to say about it is to try to write off the racial aspect of the Civil War as a non starter, and the Canadians are the ones to be somewhat touchy though. Yea that it interesting. I have a lot to say but I aint.... Im just gone see how this plays out..... As I would be the one to ask if I was offended.....