Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Oct 8, 2009 0:11:00 GMT -5
WTF, mate? (YouTube link) So the story to this video is thus: a long cancelled Australian TV program called "Hey Hey It's Saturday" has a reunion show. They have a "Gong Show" like part of the show with amateur performers and celebrity judges. Harry Connick, Jr. is one of the judges. A group called the Jackson Jive comes out, all in blackface, and performs their "tribute", which is just random buffoonery. Connick is very offended, gives them a zero, is booed. The show later apologizes to him and lets him explain why he's offended. There's controversy now in Australia about this. Not about the blackface, but about whether Connick is being too prissy. Foreigners are awesome.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Oct 8, 2009 7:57:35 GMT -5
Well if Americans are not being too racist, they are being too sensitive about race.
If they are not being too imperialistic, they are being too isolationist.
If they are not being too capitalistic, they are being too religious.
If they are not being too puritanical, they are flooding the world with filth.
If they are not working too hard, they are being too lazy.
This is what I've always enjoyed about anti-Americanism. You can quite easily find the opposite charge being made for the same cause- which let's always be clear is to take the top dog down a peg or two.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Oct 8, 2009 8:22:25 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Oct 8, 2009 9:27:30 GMT -5
There's controversy now in Australia about this. Not about the blackface, but about whether Connick is being too prissy. Foreigners are awesome. I just watched exorcist's links and I was pretty impressed with how Connick handled it. He tried to explain why it was offensive and didn't get too wrapped up in outrage. He also treated it seriously and didn't make it about himself. I doubt a lot of celebrities could have handled that as well. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Oct 8, 2009 11:38:41 GMT -5
Connick is a pretty impressive guy all around I think.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Oct 8, 2009 14:02:45 GMT -5
There's controversy now in Australia about this. Not about the blackface, but about whether Connick is being too prissy. Foreigners are awesome. I just watched exorcist's links and I was pretty impressed with how Connick handled it. He tried to explain why it was offensive and didn't get too wrapped up in outrage. He also treated it seriously and didn't make it about himself. I doubt a lot of celebrities could have handled that as well. I totally agree. Connick clearly voiced that he was offended and then did his best to educate the audience why. He definitely represented himself and his country very well. And I agree with bin that there's a real double standard when it comes to stuff like this. What's really annoying are some of the commenters on the articles theexorcist links to, who are informed of the history of blackface yet stubornly remain intentionally ignorant as to why this could cause offense. |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Oct 8, 2009 18:51:02 GMT -5
The biggest nonsense is the claim of "hypocrite" because Connick played a black character on a sketch show.
Playing a character of a different race versus performing blackface is about as far apart as you can get. Yet somehow this is being presented as a reasonable counterpoint.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 8, 2009 19:19:45 GMT -5
I've argued over some pretty dumb stuff, as I think we all have at one time or another, but this "controversy" if one exists is something else. How big is it in Australia? Are we talking Skip Gates big or public option big?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 8, 2009 19:37:00 GMT -5
It is probably at this point that I should note that, in the Jesuit high school I attended, we had an "air band" competition every year.
In my senior year, I and four others dressed in white suits, put black makeup on and "performed" a couple of Jackson Five numbers.
At no time did anyone ever mention anything about it being offensive (and yes, while it was majority white, there were a fair number of minorities of different races at my high school.)
I suppose one could argue that they may not have felt comfortable raising their objections, but most of us were all pretty good friends (and, in part because it was an all boys school I think, no one ever seemed to have a problem on other occasions with telling a classmate they were Editeded at him), so I'm pretty sure they would have said something to one or all of us privately even if they didn't want to raise the issue publicly.
We were not trying to mock or denigrate a race, we were trying to do a fun tribute to a band a lot of us liked (we were also trying to win prizes...we didn't). Everyone seemed to get that concept and be OK with it.
Personally, I think we may have moved backwards as a society since then.
But, for what it's worth, to Harry Connick and anyone else, I apologize if I offended you all those years ago.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Oct 8, 2009 20:37:43 GMT -5
I Personally, I think we may have moved backwards as a society since then. I don't think society's opinions towards blackface have moved one inch since whenever you were in high school (late 80's? early 90's?). It's been taboo since the 1950's or 1960's. Didn't Harry Connick, Jr go to a Jesuit HS? |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Oct 8, 2009 20:53:28 GMT -5
It is probably at this point that I should note that, in the Jesuit high school I attended, we had an "air band" competition every year. In my senior year, I and four others dressed in white suits, put black makeup on and "performed" a couple of Jackson Five numbers. At no time did anyone ever mention anything about it being offensive (and yes, while it was majority white, there were a fair number of minorities of different races at my high school.) I suppose one could argue that they may not have felt comfortable raising their objections, but most of us were all pretty good friends (and, in part because it was an all boys school I think, no one ever seemed to have a problem on other occasions with telling a classmate they were Editeded at him), so I'm pretty sure they would have said something to one or all of us privately even if they didn't want to raise the issue publicly. We were not trying to mock or denigrate a race, we were trying to do a fun tribute to a band a lot of us liked (we were also trying to win prizes...we didn't). Everyone seemed to get that concept and be OK with it. Personally, I think we may have moved backwards as a society since then. But, for what it's worth, to Harry Connick and anyone else, I apologize if I offended you all those years ago. There's a difference between a white person portraying a black person and a white person performing in blackface. For one, blackface involves smearing black shoe polish all over your face. No actual person is that color. Secondly (and more importantly), blackface minstrely is about lampooning black people in general, not a specific black person. Look at that Australian skit. It's striking that their act isn't really reminiscent of the Jackson 5 in any way. No crisp synchronized dance moves, nothing. Instead it's just a bunch of people acting like buffoons. This is a minstrel show, and humor comes from portraying black people as buffoons, as HCJ correctly notes. This is why Darrell Hammond's portrayal of Jesse Jackson, Orson Wells' portrayal of Othello, or Fred Armisen's Obama impression are not the same thing. All three are portraying/lampooning specific people, not the entire black race, and all three were using dark makeup, not shoe polish. These portrayals tend to unnerve us a little bit because they remind us of blackface, but they're not intrinsically racist portrayals themselves. The Aussies keep pointing to "Tropic Thunder" and Robert Downey's performance in such. What they're missing, besides the fact that it's a spoof of method acting, is that he's portraying a racially deaf Australian. Ye gods. So Boz, unless you were wearing shoe polish and jumping around like a complete idiot, I think you're ok. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 8, 2009 20:54:45 GMT -5
Oh, we had the crisp, synchronized dance moves, baby!
Believe it!
;D
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Oct 8, 2009 21:21:53 GMT -5
Also, it's worth noting here that Connick didn't call anyone a racist, yet many Australians' reaction has been "How DARE you call me a racist?" It's amazing how people will dig in on the defensive and continue to look like fools rather than acknowledge the possibility that this might have been offensive.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Oct 8, 2009 21:25:21 GMT -5
The biggest nonsense is the claim of "hypocrite" because Connick played a black character on a sketch show. I just read about this and Connick didn't even play a black character in that skit - the media had it completely mixed up. The Australian media must be less accurate and more sensational than our own...that's saying something. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 8, 2009 21:33:54 GMT -5
What I don't get is why everyone seems to think we all need to be offended by the same things.
If someone is offended, they should explain why (as Connick did). From that point on, if you're the offender, I guess you have to decide whether or not you'd like to continue to make that person feel bad versus whatever bad you feel by not doing what you're doing. And live with the consequences either way.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Oct 9, 2009 14:17:52 GMT -5
The art of "blackface" pantomime has a pretty ugly history that most semi-educated Americans are familiar with. I don't think the Australian men in question are necessarily racist, afterall blackface isn't a part of THEIR cultural history, so I'm not really angry at them....but I can still applaud Connick's actions because he does know the history and he did the right thing without getting too preachy. I can see why Connick felt the need to state why he found it offensive in nature to an American- without going overboard and actually saying he was offended himself because he understood that it might not be the same thing to an Australian. Let's be real....he had to say what he did to protect himself and I think he did it perfectly. He represented well in a tough diplomatic situation.
While I'm the last person on earth to say we need to be MORE sensitive about race in this country, blackface is a no-go area as far as I'm concerned. I think it has been such as someone else mentioned for many decades. I think there are probably ways for whites to portray blacks, but this seemed pretty much textbook Al Jolson, shoe polish, playing-the-buffoon blackface. Close enough anyway that the smart play would always be staying away from it/expressing distaste in it when confronted with it on camera and then being asked for a judgement.
|
|
