As Sophie Black says: “twits (myself included) love nothing more than tweeting their moral outrage and indignation about everything from Cheesybite to racism and everything in between.”
Last night’s Red Faces skit? Racist. There is just far too much cultural baggage, and are not “post-racial” enough to ignore it. Harry Connick Jnr dealt with it well: he actually explained why it was offensive, rather than just declaring it so. If only the everyone involved in the “debate” were capable of it then we’d be making huge strides in actually dealing with the issue rather than joining in on a weekly offended-a-thon.
Because now we’re in another stupid-PC-gone-mad/but-I’m-offended media circus that lumps the Chaser, Kyle Sandilands, Bill Henson and a bunch of doctors into one group of baddies that lets us ignore the actual context and meaning and just be for or against something. Who cares what that is? We’re a nation divided into those who have a sense of humour, and those who don’t.
Snark: good or bad? Apparently that’s a question that one can simply give a one-word answer.
David Denby adds his condemn. There are many reasons why snark is bad. For instance, it’s misogynist:
Misogyny is so lame that you would think no one would dare pull it out of the trunk of properties, but it keeps popping up and grinning at the audience. Snark appeals to a layer of knowingness, as follows:
When [Hillary Clinton] reacts the way she reacts to Obama with just the look, the look toward him, looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court, OK? (Mike Barnicle on MSNBC, 23 January 2008.)
As Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, once told me: ‘[Clinton's] never going to get out of our faces … She’s like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won’t stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone.’ (Maureen Dowd in the New York Times.)
[Sarah Palin's] primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion. (Carol Fowler, South Carolina Democratic chairwoman, 10 September 2008.)
These are all misogynist, apparently. Snarking that Hillary Clinton is like a shrewish first wife is just as bad as snarking about Republicans who only care about women who are “pure”, and to hell with being intelligent and qualified.
Bill Henson photographs naked children. Child pr0nographers photograph naked children. See? It’s obvious. Naked always equals sexy. It’s just scientific.
And blackface is always or never offensive, whether it’s Robert Downey Jnr satirising Hollywood actors, or a bunch of doctors re-hashing a 20 year old sketch in which blackface is the entire joke.
PharaohKatt describes a weird story in which the dangers of not getting it shine through:
During the course of conversation, one of the people there mentioned that his (brother? cousin? young person he knew?) was acting very racist, making an arse of himself by “pretending to be Aboriginal”. Generally, a racist prat. Said person countered this with “Act your colour!”
Apparently, I was the only one at the table offended by this choice of words. I don’t think that you can combat racism by being racist, and I though what he said was racist. No one else there agreed with me, and one person even laughed when I said that it was racist an inappropriate.
…
Was it racist? Was I wrong to point it out? LM tried to explain to me why it wasn’t racist, because he was calling out the racism of another, but… I just don’t get it. Help?
Pretending to be black isn’t offensive because it’s pretending. But this kind of illogical weirdness happens because the “offense” is all that matters. Intentions are good? Can’t be racist then, can you? Because only bad people are.
Crikey’s email intro says:
Who’d have thought things had changed so much in two decades. We’re not talking here about community standards … chances are as many people would have found the Hey Hey blackface sketch as offensive in its original mid-eighties incarnation as they did last night. The real thing that’s changed has been the audience’s capacity to make its feelings and displeasure heard.
And in many ways, that’s a very good thing. The voices of the people can be heard. But too often volume is more important than meaning. Degrees of offensiveness are imperceptible as the crowd shouts louder. Who’s being offended, and the underlying meanings are irrelevant. Action is based on how many people are doing the condemning and how important they are. Which leaves us with a culture that is both more genuinely offensive and more bland.
Channel 9 is a cess-pool. It’s the same station that brings us ‘The Footy Show’ and is so terrified of the fragmenting media landscape and so bereft of anything that appoaches a creative idea, it’s only solution is to resurrect a variety show that was rancid 20 years ago. Complete with cute, lovable racists. Connick did an excellent job with his comments. But I actually can’t be bothered being outraged because it’s ‘Hey, Hey’ and wtf can you expect from them? It’s a tv series in which a head on a stick gets more air time than a woman ever has.
Yeah, point is – its just so damn lame. Anti-PC can be hilarious (eg Doug Anthony All Stars at their peak) – but that requires some actual wit.
HHIS was canned because it was unfunny, outdated, low rent shit. Probably the rise of reality TV encouraged some clueless twit at 9 to exhume the dead.
Reminds me of the Simpson’s epsiode where Crusty’s career nose-dives, and he pulls out his “A-material” fake Asian teeth, yelling “Me so solly!”. Crickets can be heard chirping in the audience.
HHIS is much like that – without the self-conscious irony. Hopefully they’ll bin it within weeks.
Perhaps Harry Connick is a hypocrite?
Excellent post. The point that volume or sheer weight of numbers has become more important than meaning is a good one.
I don’t think that nuance will survive this onslaught!
I find the post above, very ambiguous. However, I believe that was the point of the post. You could take it either way depending on your perception.
Daphon – I have no idea how that makes him a hypocrite.
Harry a hypocrite?
That youtube video can’t be ignored, I s’pose.
I suppose its perspective. Harry wouldn’t think twice if was in his country and the other black performers didn’t mind. Which was the case. And of course some of the ambiguous racist subjects tackled by American sit coms like Seinfeld or the current crop of animations like Family Guy make me think maybe they shouldn’t be pointing the finger too hard..
I do wonder though, if its such a sensitive taboo issue over there, how come South Park’s only black kid is called Token? Where is the uproar about that?
A Australian Plastic Surgeon of Indian heritage playing a ‘white-face’ Michael Jackson backed by ‘blackfaced’ collegues playing the jackson Five?
There are too many levels of irony for it not to spark something. I wonder how the Indian media are running it? I wonder what would have happened if HCJnr hadn’t said anything?
No, it wasn’t.
Holy crap, I don’t know why I even bother.
Fuckit people, watch the youtube of Connick on the Channel 9 show last night—he is very dignified, he explains why it’s an ugly stereotype to depict black people as generic buffoons.
He doesn’t hector, he educates his audience as well as he can with the brief time he has. The same with his TV news soundbites.
This pushback against him stinks to high heaven. Who is drawing attention to a sketch he did on ‘Mad TV’? Why are they doing this? Anyway, that particular show was aimed at a very young, African American demographic, IIRC (just like those terrible Wayans brothers’ comedies).
I find it troublng that that youtube link is being used as evidence of ‘Harry doing blackface’. Blackface is a particular type of performance, and its cultural legacy goes way beyond actors just putting on make up. (I’ve just switched on the TV to see that ‘A Current Affair’ is promoting that clip as “hyprocrite Connick performing as a BEEP preacher.” It’s a goddam PR fightback. Bastards.)
(BTW, I didn’t realise the famous ‘snark is bad’ article was by a British writer. Wot about that tradition of Evelyn Waugh & all those other funny nasty pom? That certainly predates the Internet.)
If you’re looking at a MSM outlet like The Punch or other news.com.au or MSN fodder, there is a veritable tsunami of “Wah, PC has gorn too far, get over it already, get a sense of yumour”, rinse and repeat and repeat again. So I don’t think it’s fair to apply the “crowd shouts louder” argument to people who oppose the blackface. They’re still the minority, and getting beaten up in those comments threads, but now they have a voice thanks to Blogger and Wordpress and others.
And I understand Anna you may want to distance yourself from the Tims and Debbies that absolutely do exist in this world (Incomprehensible, to younger people and non Australians, comedy reference) but I saw more intelligent comments from the anti side than the pros. I think “offend-a-thon” is a bit Miranda Devine-ish, to be honest.
Helen, there’s a common response in the feminist blogosphere to the men who cry “but that’s not what I’m like” which is that if it’s not about you, then it’s not about you. The same applies here, and I would ask you to re-read the post if you think your comment is a response to anything I actually argued.
My point is that the outrage-o-meter means we end up caring about the outrage more than the underlying meaning. It’s not a competition about which side is more reasonable and thoughtful, it’s a comment on the overall effect.
Anna Winter: “Holy crap, I don’t know why I even bother.”
That is not a reply. I think you could just as easily dismiss both things without getting all offended: the silly Red Faces sketch, and the silly nic given to the only black character in the very popular American anmatiion South Park.
The dividing line for this issue is between satire and parody but even then it’s not clear-cut.
Parody is not funny because we know black-face started because people of colour-other-than-pink were not allowed on stage/film, and even earlier it was used to demean Arican slaves for entertainment. Its continuation with black people stripped the performers of their dignity and culture but that was all thework they could get. Even in the ’80s on HHIS it was wrong.
Satire cannot be found on HHIS in any form whatsoever. It should not be watched.
The Robert Downey Junior character in Thunder is actually a cast as white character playing black to add cred. It’s meant to be offensive. I like offensive satire, but that’s me. I know a lot of people don’t. Nor am I sure it worked in the film, which I saw on a 15 cm screen attached to the headreast of an airline seat.
Some-one mentioned channel 9 and The Footy Show. The person on that who sh!ts me the most (not watched the since its first season but I listen to footy commentary sometimes and can’t escape him totally) is Gary Lyon. Not in your face misogyny like Sam, but subtler, sleazy and immature. He’s like the little kid in the playground who sucks up to the playground bully and eggs him on. “Cumon Sam, say something dirty, say tit.” “Piss off, you little tit”. “Oh, her her her, Sam said tit”. “Look, there’s a girl, I bet she’s got tits.”
Partway through the year at the Carlton-Collingwood game that the ABC did not broadcast, he interviewed Andy and Megan Gale. The questions all revolved around terrible single entendres, asking Gale why she went out with such a fugly bloke, dropping unsubtle hints about dropping a poofy comedian for a set of much more manly blokes in the commentary box. Radio off – no more footy for me.
And he has the gall, whenever someone biffs some-one else on the footy field, or drinks too much to come out and comment publicy on football and respect. Don’t make me vomit, you immature little prick. Learn what respect is, first.
(Sorry, had to get that off my chest)
What is really pissing me off in this whole debate is the question of who is or should be offended.
The moderator at ABC news lead off with the question “Did you find the skit offensive?” Darryl Somers said “If there were any Australians who were offended … on behalf of the show I apologise. To most Australians I think it’s a storm in a tea cup.”
It is totally irrelevant if a bunch of Australians watching some dippy TV show find this particular sketch offensive. The point is, a very large part of the world community find it personally offensive. Blackface has history, of which only a few respondents on various forums seem to be aware. Blackface has been banished from entertainment because it is racist. Whether a few Aussies are aware of that and sensitive enough to take offense is irrelevant. It is not about them.
That the producers allowed the sketch to go to air is bad enough. That they did it in the presence of an African-American guest displays a capacity for stupidity and insensitivity that is almost beyond belief.
I wonder if there would have been such an outrage here if the lead character in the the act wasn’t of Indian descent. Indians and Lebanese immigrants can be forgiven for thinking Australia has a set against them.
First it was Doctor Mohamed Haneef, now Dr Anand Deva:
“I am an Indian, and five of the six of us are from multicultural backgrounds and to be called a racist,” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26181529-12377,00.html
This multiculrural bashing must stop. Or something.
Anna, I’m really confused here. Is there some sort of person or community out there that is equally opposed to racism, sexism and (gasp) Bill Henson? Because I can’t find anyone who is on the same page on those three issues and I think you just may have chucked them together because anti-Hensonism is a much easier target to argue against than people who call out sexist and racist bullshit whenever they see it.
Adopting a patient, Harry Connick approach to your Hilary comments: this is why they’re sexist:
Because “shrewish wife” is a stock character that relies on prejudicial attitudes towards woman. Here’s an exercise: let’s replace “shrewish wife” with “black criminal” or “gay fashion designer”. The fact that those two classes of people both exist is no excuse to use them as a thought-terminating cliche insult when describing other individuals. Here’s the thing: Hilary got described much more frequently as a shrewish wife than, say, John McCain did. Why do you think that is, exactly?
These people may not be republicans, and the rhetoric may not be centred around an explicitly conservative, right-wing Christian view of women – but guess what – Christian right-wingers aren’t the only people who are sexist towards women!
What are they actually saying? Oh, yes, she’s just an irrational, poor-tempered, sticking-out-like-someone-who-has-some-inexplicable-difference-from-most-other-people-in-this-contest person whose primary relations of interest are to her (potentially unborn) children or her spouse respectively, oh and she just happens to be a woman. But, you know, that’s totally not attacking her for her gender.
I’ve enjoyed the daggy Hey Hey nostalgia, but let’s leave blackface in the 1920s. If that makes me a PC kill-joy, so be it.
I thought Harry Connick handled it well, politely explaining why it was offensive (though why anyone would need that explained to them in 2009 is beyond me). Grace and guts, good on ya Harry.
Interestingly, apparently all these hilarious minstrels are doctors. Many seem to believe – including many at LP, no doubt – that racism is confined to blue-collar workers in the outer suburbs. This just shows it’s alive and well in the professional upper-middle class.
Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Tell me, there’s the definition of racism – i did not see any hatred or intolerance to another race.
I grew up in New Zealand, which must be said is at least relatively much less racist than many other countries. Maoris and Pakehas went to school together, and for me at least at the time there was no thought about race during that time. My Pakeha parents also didn’t corrupt me with racism, despite them both being of English heritage and my father being a conservative farmer. Perhaps they felt differently, but they certainly couldn’t be bothered with preaching to me about it.
It was therefore with much surprise and displeasure when in America in the early ’80′s, that because I was in a discussion with a black guy over there and also in disagreement with him, he said (and I quote) “You’re just racist, that’s why you don’t agree with me”. The conversation wasn’t even about race, or anything similar.
A while ago I was linked to a local American newspaper blog by an American online friend, and invited to post on it. I was the only foreigner on the site. I was stunned to find you couldn’t post the word “black”, in any context. The site said that the post could not be put up because of the offensive word, and the word was highlighted: “black”.
As an utter leftie I’m usually the first to jump up and down about these sorts of things. Yet last night I watched it and thought it was just hilarious. Anyone from down under would understand the local cultural context it was in; fun with no offence intended. We all understood it in that sense for the comedy it was.
Yet we have now a situation where an American is in our country telling us what is supposed to be offensive. This is Australia, not America, something that Harry Connick Jnr doesn’t seem to realise.
Yes, Australia has had a very dubious past re race and all, but huge strides have been made. Of late I suppose Rudd’s apology to the stolen generations? There are anti discrimination laws in place through equal opportunity employment, and we have a much more diverse population than even America, with a much higher proportion of our population born overseas than them.
I find it horrifying as a leftie that we’re even bothering to listen to some loudmouth American, least of all one with moral indignation about racism. They should be the last ones to talk.
YANK GO HOME!
Crass and tasteless it would appear to be,don’t know for a fact, I have better things to do with my time than waste it watching a revival of this type of tripe.
The thing that concerns me is that there would appear to be so little to watch on commercial TV that this sort of garbage is revived and actually attracts a large audience. Gaia help this country.
Good post, Anna.
It’s a pity that anything with nuance gets misread in such a predictable fashion. Perhaps that’s part of the point.
I took these to be the core arguments:
I can understand why you wonder why you bother (though I think you most certainly should). It’s also disappointing to me that so many posts are read so cursorily, as if they say entirely predictable things, when their whole purpose is to highlight the vacuity of stereotyped responses to events and phenomena.
Mark:
“I can understand why you wonder why you bother (though I think you most certainly should). It’s also disappointing to me that so many posts are read so cursorily, as if they say entirely predictable things..”
I agree. If posters can’t be bothered, they maybe shouldn’t reply in the first place. Its must easier to read carefully those who agree with you and dismiss those who don’t.
And may I point out why there is no outrage when Little Britain utilise Blackface, and when Whoopi Goldberg does at the Oscars.
From Little Britain:
Double Standards from everyone here.
The worst thing is we are going to have to endure a Miranda Devine column on this.
Mark my words, we’ll be the racists.
I think that most of the comments above illustrate the point of the post quite well.
But if doing so is in just as snarky a tone, I fail to see how anyone comes out ahead.
Rather I would prefer a Connick approach. Despite his anger, Connick explained why something like that was offensive (intention matters not at all) and then, privately, demanded an apology, which Somers gave (though he’s pathetically trying to back out of it now).
Getting all huffy at people who have missed your (you must admit, somewhat tortuously made) point, or disagrees with it serves no useful purpose, and just alienates those you’re trying to have a conversation with (I hope you are, anyway) leaving you with naught but an echo chamber. The alternatives are much better.
I’ll own up: I didn’t read the post per se, just figured it was ‘about’ TEH INCIDENT and hit the auto-rant button. Mea culpa!
Still, if blogging has taught me one thing, its that the author gets to decide the point of a post: but the thread … not so much.
I find it helps to think of blogging as a form of deliberative democracy which takes place in an Hieronymous Bosch painting.
Storm in a teacup, all of this stupid diatribe is a testiment to how much time latte sipping left whingers have to proclaim their self percieved moral superiority upon everyone else.
What is a Cheeybite?
Oops – cheesybite!?
monkeytypist, @17: perhaps a thousand monkeys reading the post might have come up with a more sensible reading of what I wrote. Read the whole thing again and explain to me how what I wrote was in defence of sexist criticisms of Clinton.
Brendon, the reason I cannot be bothered with you, is because you have completely missed my point in order to do exactly what I was criticising people of doing. South Park calling the black character “Token” is mocking the act of putting a person of colour in a token role. Do you honestly believe that anyone would be self-aware enough to know that a character (in a cartoon) was really a token but clueless enough to do it anyway and DRAW ATTENTION TO THAT FACT?
I know this is the internet, but still, I stand by my holy crap.
Anna,
What you said re Token. The South Park crew are are a weird bunch politically, but they’re generally better on race and calling the black kid “Token” is an obvious satire on just about every mainstream US show from the late sixties onwards which always had a token black character who was always devoid of any character except blackness.
Smokey,
Take an aspro and have a good lie down. Connick’s dad was a civil rights lawyer, so I think he has some idea of what he’s talking about.
More generally, if someone wants to go on about political correctness gone mad and peppers their rant with assertions that they’re an “utter lefty” then, (to borrow a phrase from them folks at South Park) I cry “shenangans!” Show me your ASIO file, or some evidence of such alleged leftism before I accept your self description.
In any case, even if we accept all your claims about a black (sorry, African-American) bloke in the US falsely accusing you of racism and a website with an inexplicable aversion to the adjective “black”, what is your point exactly? Are you suggesting that your inability to type an adjective on a website and one bloke’s unjustified evocation of the race card is of any significance?
And is this significance in anyway commensurable to the significance of the actual oppression of African-Americans which provokes all sorts of responses from said African-Americans such as touchiness about people dressing up like golliwogs to represent famous black singers?
What the significance is you don’t elaborate on, in any case, because you then go on to tell us all that you laughed at the skit on HHIS. The blokes in the golliwog wigs and boot polish singing the Jackson 5 song were dead-set hilarious because…Well you don’t say.
You just found it funny. But that’s aright because your an “utter leftie” as evidenced by your recent storming of the Winter Palace.
Also, we should listen to no loudmouth Yanks because we’re all lefties and this apparently means we hate anything said by an American. So yah boo sucks to Noam Chomsky and lets all recite Bradman’s batting average.
Aaaaand Rationalist (!) wins the Pile Cliché Upon Cliché of the Week Award! Come on down!
Actually, I think this may be some kind of hoax. You could do a sort of William Burroughs cut-up of this and it would mean more or less the same thing no matter what order you put the clichés in. ‘Self perceived stupid diatribe upon everyone else, and all this storm of time in a teacup of latte is a testiment [sic] to left whingers sipping moral superiority.’ Etc.
I remain puzzled as to why the Storm in a Teacup brigade persist in reading and commenting on posts about topics they deride as unimportant. It’s a testament to how much time they have to proclaim their self perceived common sense about things they regard as a total waste of time to begin with.
You younger folk may not recall it, but I clearly remember the ABC having something called “The Black And White Minstrel Show” from the UK (which, even at the tender age of about 10, struck me as naff). If you haven’t already guessed, it was a bunch of poms in blackface playing banjos extremely badly and singing about “Dat Ole Man Ribber”.
No-one thought twice, but the reaction to HHIS is a measure of how far we’ve come in 50 years.
Of course, Darryl Summers should apologize for just being alive, never mind the insensitive “comedy”.
Haven’t had time to read through all the comments, so all I will say is that I admire Harry Connick Jr for his polite, dignified but devastatingly accurate reply; and I condemn whatever Channel 9 IDIOT that thought that this would be an apt segment to reprise. Nongs!
Pavlov,
I’ve always wanted to see an actual storm in tea cup. It would be an astonishing sight. And if you could drink all those negative ions it would be very invigorating – better even than a latte.
Thanks for the post Anna. Heard so much rubbish about this today in the media, and ended up feeling overwhelmed by the large number of people not seeming to understand that what happened in the red faces skit was offensive whether it was intended to be or not. I feel sorry for all the crap Harry Connick Jr has had to face today and I cringe at the thought of how this will be reported overseas.
(taps nose in a conspiratorial fashion) Ah but, PC, the reason they declare it to be a storm in a teacup is because they know, deep down, that it’s actually really important. That’s just misdirection.
The right are so subtle …
I dont drink tea. I’m not sure where that leaves me.
Perhaps one could simulate a (hail) storm in a tea cup with some crushed ice and no tea?
There was one theory today that Channel 9 knew the segment would be ‘controversial’ (if they didn’t they are complete idiots) and let it go on in order to boost ratings, which were very good, I understand.
And there was another story going around that Harry Connick Jnr was allegedly on set during Dress Rehearsals as well.
re the Ratings, of the 2.1 million, 900.000 viewers were in Victoria Alone, which isn’t surprising as it did start off as a Melbourne only show in 1971.
Honestly, the people who are calling this racist simply need to harden up a bit.
Good ol’ Julia Gillard knows where the ratings/votes are. She says Australians are open and generous and repudiate racism wherever they see it. Looks to me like she has been living in a different country.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/09/2709039.htm?section=entertainment
This is the place where the Racial Discrimination Act is currently suspended and there is no getting away from the fact.
I’m curious as what conclusion about context and meaning people are
jumpingcoming too.Agree with the posts by Fine, Roger, David I and Pavlov (better not use PC while dealing with this subject). I suspect the skit was run to draw just such a reaction – not necessarily intentionally bigoted.
Nine is living on past glories. Even the revival of Hey Hey is evidence of that. As for the Footy Show, Sam and Fev – nuff said. Despite the initial ratings spike they are barking up the wrong tree if they think that long-term they’re on a winner by outraging the politically correct crowd.
From a network ratings point of view, I suspect that the bulk of the demographic watching Nine is from the older generation (like me, albeit I’m not a fan). So these type of shows and 20 to 1 have appeal to that type of audience just as Hanson did for a while. But this type is dying off. There’s not much point in being No 1 with them if they’re a minority of viewers.
I’m old enough to remember back to Sydney radio in the late 60s. 2GB was king but its stars Eric Baume, Andrea, etc were all ageing, along with their audience. They briefly arrested the slide with Pussy and Charlie (Gwen Plumb and Gordon Chater) but it was really just more of the same. There was a whole new generation not interested in that, and 2GB went into decline. I reckon the same thing is happening now to Nine.
The type of stuff Nine is doing will appeal to the oldies (me and a few others excepted, where SBS and ABC offer more) but we’re dying off. I assume James has sold off his PBL shares. Otherwise he’ll lose another bundle.
Rationalist @ 45
Typical response. I’ll harden up when you’ve been part of a race or culture that’s experienced historical racism or discrimination (often horrific). Lets see how hard you are then.
The skit was a tribute to Michael Jackson with the performers dressing up like him and his backing group. Here is a list of definitions for ‘racist’. I suggest you all read them and think about your sheep-like responses.
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
How most of you can think a TRIBUTE could be demeaning to his race I don’t know.
The only thing wrong with the skit as far as I’m concerned is that such a weirdo as Jacko does not deserve a tribute.
When I was very young – well, a teenager, I was given tickets to go and see an imported show from the US at the Tivoli. It was the Black and White Minstrel Show, and it was very professional. Just sayin’.
Tjhat said I would never watch HHIS though I’m in the age group its supposed to appeal to. I always thougfht it was trash. As for the Footy Show, I’d rather hock my TV than watch it.
btw, DW, I knew Andrea. She was lovely. (Her name was Dorothy, if I remember rightly. There’s quite a bit about her in a recent book on civilian internees of the Japanese. Which I reviewed rewcently. Don’t know if the review has been published.
I haven’t noticed anyone else commenting to this effect, but I thought a curious thing about the Hey Hey sketch was that when they showed a quick clip of the original version 20 years ago, it didn’t look as if the “blackface” then was so black. But the present day version had makeup that was so thick (and combined with the curly wigs) that it clearly reminded you of your “traditional” blackface, and you couldn’t help but be confused as to what effect they were they trying to achieve. That it would be offensive in its ambiguity to any American sensitive to race issues should have been a given, though.
I am still amazed, however, that Sam Newman’s “monkey” comments of a few weeks (as featured on Mediawatch) did not cause more of an uproar. There was absolutely no way to interpret his comments as anything other than comment racism, covering both Malayasians and a black American. For those who missed it:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2692254.htm
the difference between UK, USA and Oz in the racism stakes is that in both those countries there are black people..everywhere…on the bus, at work, in the junk mail clothing catalogues, reading the news, all across the police and armed forces, fixing your taps, appearing in all the mainstream soaps, teaching, lecturing, running huge businesses, dating white folks, marrying, having kids…..the list is….endless, and they are there because of over a century of ongoing social and political struggle, not just by accident.
so…imho the community dynamic in the presentation of the UK & USA racist attitudes, especially those relating to skin colour, changes..one has to be an extreme white right loony to spout the kind of rubbish mainstream Oz politicians/media commentators/bad amateurs on TV/journalists see as “normal discourse” and get away with. We start soooo far to the right on this, the mainstream in Oz is sooooo racist that the left (!) on this issue is often as bad, and teethless….brandrudd said sorry…(good)…complains about the gap..(good)…and then does…nothing…while his deputy prime minister says…”they were only joking…i grew up with hey hey….it’s the Australian sense of humour we’ll always have a go….”. No! It’s deeply entrenched racism Julia and it is the central problem facing the nation. We’ll sort nothing else till we sort this out….economics, climate change, social programs, education..the lot..
Of course i could be wrong, but having spent a life moving between the three counties in question my experience tells me that Oz is far far worse…in its presentation of insane racist ideas as the normal mainstream view, and as Anne has succinctly pointed out…twisting the discourse away from the actual problem as quickly as possible.
While there might be little concern for the teacup itself, there’s probably concern that the storm will overflow the teacup and rain on their parade.
I’ve always envisaged more of a water-going-anticlockwise-down-the-plughole scenario. Wouldn’t the shape of a teacup create a sort of vortex effect?
‘Rationalist’ again at #45:
OMG, s/he did it again. It must be a hoax.
Brendon,
Ahh, but Teh Left has exclusive rights to decide what is making fun of black people and what is making fun of people making fun of black people.
Anna WinterNo Gravatar
Oct 8th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
“Brendon, the reason I cannot be bothered with you, is because you have completely missed my point in order to do exactly what I was criticising people of doing. South Park calling the black character “Token” is mocking the act of putting a person of colour in a token role. Do you honestly believe that anyone would be self-aware enough to know that a character (in a cartoon) was really a token but clueless enough to do it anyway and DRAW ATTENTION TO THAT FACT?
I know this is the internet, but still, I stand by my holy crap.
I enjoyed reading your OP. I don’t believe I missed the point: lots of noise out there amongst the unwashed; incidents taken out of context and lumped together; context is nearly everything. and if I understand your agreement with Harry Connick, then you must put little weight on intent, but a great deal on the result or reaction to incidents like this. The six performers said they were fans of Jackson, it was just a fun sketch, and most of the performers have different racial backgrounds themselves. It wasn’t supposed to be racist. NO EXCUSE. Intent is not the important factor. Its the consequences of the act that is important – as Harry said.
Then you go on to defend certain people/incidents based on context. But since intent and context are linked, your position looks pretty weak: you defend Southpark because the intent was to ridicule tokenism. But then you condemn – on racist grounds – the good doctors even though their intent was not racist but just a bit of light hearted fun. That is a contradiction.
BTW and FYI, Southpark creators are right wing reactionary old-time conservatives who jumped at the chance to defend Bush, have satirized Global Warming theory, supported large corporations, attack gays, defended Intelligent Design, and basically attacked anyone who attacked the GOP. Anyone even slightly liberal is fair game for the boys at Southpark.
One of the most controversial racially charged issues of recent times in America was the Bush Admin’s sluggish, disinterested reaction to Katrina. And of course South Park did a satire on that attacking the liberal media for attacking their hero George. Based on their shows I don’t buy your take on Token. Fits in with your narrative, but I just don’t buy it.
Eric Sykes bravo you could not have said it any better. I agree whole heartedly that Australia oh so racist and for Julia to make such a statement in saying that it was only a joke. Well when the joke is on me and relating to my colour of my skin it no joke anymore. It says so much about Julie!!!! I have first hand experience with racism coming from South Africa and yes I know there are going to be comments like go back where you came from. That is fine may I should after all the years of knocks we as a family had in Australia it made me wonder why in the world did we ever migrate to this country. I could write a book about my experiences coming through Melbourne airport, my work place, the school my children went to, asking someone for direction and the list is endless. Well it took a celeb to open Australia’s eyes. These racists comments and stunts has been around for too long the bottle had to burts. I would like to know what was so funny about the act? I have seen more black faces in one night on Channel 9 than what I have ever seen in journalism. Wake up Australia this is the 21st Century and there is no place for this kind of prejudice
Some information on comedy and humour for the uninformed. This is especially for those who think that an action is the same no matter where it is performed, or that simply just being “funny” is enough to avoid offence (e.g., get a sense of humour you wowsers).
Parody and satire are different. Parody is an inclusive humour where the performer and the audience form a group. It’s about us, as the performer tries to bond with the audience and make them laugh. The object of the parody can be the performer, a character within a group that can be identified by the set of the performer and audience, or a character outside the group used as a butt of humour shared by the group. In each case, it can be a specific person or an archetype.
Self-effacing parody is obviously safer, whereas parodying an external character is not. When adopting minstrel blackface in a parody, then the in-group reference for Australia is where we all used to watch the black and white minstrels and were entertained. “Goodness, they were talented and we all laughed, so it must be funny.”
However, here there were two external targets. Michael Jackson and African-Americans who were originally parodied by white performers and later parodied themselves in the B&W Minstrels as a parody of the parody. The joke was playing on the white to black of blackface and the black to white of Michael Jackson, with some Indian performers (non-white) thrown in for good measure.
The problem with that is that the third parties may object. And they do, for many good reasons that have been articulated by Anna and a number of posters. So, to disregard that is to say “I don’t need to respect that objection”. Reasons that have been put forward for not needing to show such respect are that “This is Australia, not America where the offence is given”, and “They did it over there, and people laughed so it must be ok” and “It was ok then, so it is now”.
So let’s explore a similar routine in an Australian context. Australian policemen/soldiers/footballers are videoed in blackface doing Aboriginal jokes – these events have all happened. Funny or not? On the video, the audience is laughing uproariously. Is that it was done in private any excuse? What about when these men (especially the police) come into contact with Aboriginal people. What about Aboriginal deaths in custody, over representation in jails, social disadvantage? If it was done in America, where Aboriginal people are not widely represented in society, would it cause any less offence? Dehumanisation=racism.
Satire is different. The bond is not one of group identification of a character or stereotype so much as the identification of behaviour that is hypocritical or exhibiting double standards. The use of parody of a third party to expose those double standards is still risky, as the Chaser boys found out when they parodied concern trolling using kids with cancer. Interestingly, some kids who had cancer, said “yes, we’ve seen that behaviour and it bothers us too”, but too many people were offended and they had to withdraw.
But to use instances of blackface satire to excuse blackface parody is not a legitimate excuse either.
A good comedy writer will understand all this. So should a good comedy producer.
Sorry, Anna, for taking so much space. You may not agree with all this, but at least it has nuance.
Thankyou for your post Eric Sykes. All that has been written so far leaves me thinking that with so much entrenched racism here in Australia it is little wonder that people are often very unaware of what their underlying intentions may actually be. Their self awareness is just the tiny tip of the iceberg, with all their unconscious beliefs, motivations and intentions lying hidden beneath the surface. Thus they can honestly believe that they do not mean to be racist when they actually are.
And then their are the others who know they are being racist but easily hide thier racism as “humour” if they try to hide it at all.
sandra dayce, I sympathize with you if you have received racist treatment in this country. But I don’t agree with you tying it in with the cringeworthy Jackson Jive act on Red Faces.
I don’t know how many times it has to be said but five of the six performers were from ethnic backgrounds.
Oh and for the self righteous amongst us, would you complain about a BLACK Comedian such as Dave Chappelle donning whiteface to mock a newsreader in this
(segment starts at 2.05)
Anna: Nice post.
Many others: Well missed.
I think it’s interesting to compare the reaction to different “outrages” especially how ideological(?) these things sometimes are. E.g. those that attack or defend Bill Henson by and large will swap roles for this incident. Although that statement is a broad generalisation and probably quite unfair to many people. This i think contributes to the volume without adding to the depth of the debate, when partisans reflex without thinking.
It’s also a shame that it’s only under the banner of these outrages that we find ourselves having these discussions. It would be better if we could get past all that comes with the venting of outrage and actually have a more nuanced discussion of the issues e.g. sexuality and representations of the human body in art or and racial identity and tolerance. I like the idea of a ‘teachable moment,’ a point at which we say that an issue has raised but instead of looking to punish and assign blame we use the incident to learn a lesson.
Brendon, what on earth has that got to do with anything? Apart from anything else, everyone is from an ‘ethnic background’ of one kind or another. (You, for example, are probably partly Irish if your name is anything to go by.)
Your comment is a classic ‘othering’ argument based on the notion that there are two kinds of people in the world: there’s Us, and then there’s all manner of assorted brownish folks. But racism isn’t the prerogative of white folks. All sorts of people are racist about all sorts of other people.
Kinda off the topic of the post but i can’t resist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican including…
“I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals.”
Somehow i don’t think they’re in love with Bush, in that article it references that they really describe themselves as libertarians.
It’s always good to see people picking the cool kids on their team.
Pavlov’s Cat,
Given that this is in part about Australia being racist, and given that I was replying to someone who was saying as much, I’d say its relevant.
You are accusing these men of being racist. That is a classic case of ill informed name calling. They say they aren’t, they have apologized, they say they are fans of Jackson. But thats not good enough for you. They have to be racist, don’t they.
And of course the Indian doctor who played the frontman made the unforgivable comment that he finds Australia to be one of the least racist of countries. Man, that must make you angry, no?
Roger Jones
It’s not even slightly relevant, given that they have all lived here for at least 20 years. They are Australian is the point.
“I don’t know how many times it has to be said but five of the six performers were from ethnic backgrounds.”
It’s not intent, it’s outcome. Kind of like when people go to court and say “I didn’t mean to kill them/her/him” – Doesn’t change the outcome, whether they meant to or not. They can “mean” whatever they want – the outcome remains what it is. And what it is today is that we, as a whole, look like some racist backwater bog hole that condones this blatant racism. You can cry me a river about intent all you like, it won’t change the outcome.
In regards to skin colour how is this an exemption? Read the Jackson Jive’s public statement. While they say they didn’t “mean to” either, they also clearly articulate that they knew it was risky. They also have said there is no way they would do it in America. Do you think people of colour are not capable of racism?
It is racist and let me tell you why. The international lightning strike response to it testifies to it’s active racism. Why else would anyone care? Why such a big deal if it was not racist?
Anna WinterNo Gravatar
Oct 9th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
“It’s not even slightly relevant, given that they have all lived here for at least 20 years. They are Australian is the point.”
Oh, OK. Given your need to be right you strip them of their ethnic identity and background. Fair enough.
CaseyNo Gravatar
Oct 9th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
“It’s not intent, it’s outcome. Kind of like when people go to court and say “I didn’t mean to kill them/her/him” – Doesn’t change the outcome, whether they meant to or not.”
Can’t it be both intent and outcome that can be measured with good judgement?
For instance, Connick is offended. A national icon – recently deceased – from his country seems to be sent up in a foriegn country on a show his appearing on. Also, blackface is a big no-no. Connick has every right to be offended and to speak out.
The guys who performed the act are fans of Jackson. They think it is a hoot. Because they are not white Americana, or even white anglo Australians, it does not hit them right between the eyes the offence this may cause. It did me. I was fumbling for the remote straight away when I saw it, it was so embarrassing. And I got it straight away. and I thought Connick would be offended. It looked like a trainwreck to me from the first moment they stepped out. But I can understand and forgive it. So did Harry.
Why don’t you.
Brendon
You don’t have to feel sorry for me I think you should feel sorry for all these uneducated people of Australia who are so ignorant and fearful of black people. Is that not what racism is all about? Secondly racism whether it is mocking black people in a comedy show, the treatment of people of colour ect. they all fall under the same umbrella. These stunts has been going on for years in Australia and nobody took the liberty to stop it and I say good on you HCJ. I do not care two hoots whether the contestants were from an ethnic background. What is that suppose to mean and define ethnic for me please.
At my local cinema, there’s going to be a black face tribute to Al Jolson, being performed by Issi Dye. It’s called ‘Mammy’. Some of you very long memories may know him as a minor pop-star of the early ’70s, who morphed into a late night tv saleman. He’s Jewish, as was Jolson fo course. But I find the whole idea so tremendously absurd – who is the audience fo this?
Rationalist, I’m enjoying your contributions immensely. Where did you get your copy of the Dictionary of cliche and Stereotype, ‘cos I’d love one too.
Sorry Roger Jones I missed your comment first time round. I just wanted to say thanks. You didn’t take up too much space at all!
Yes, what Eric said.
For the last hundred and forty years, individuals and groups supporting the elimination of institutionalised discrimination and biogtry have been pointing out to all and sundry when behaviour and speech exhibit ignorant or deliberate prejudice, and sometimes I despair of such efforts ever achieving their goals. “Some of my best friends are” or “they want to stick with their own kind” or “why can’t they just be x instead of African-/Chinese-/etc-x?”, not to mention the vitupritive, spit-spraying, hate-filled words and actions, seem never to go out of use. The “political correctness gone amok” excuse is only the latest in a long drawn-out rebuttal to an accusation of racism, or even of the simple pointing out of an insensitive and offense word or action. It seems to me that many Australians, despite the presence of so many members of other ethnicities and cultures than the Anglo standard, still regard this country as a monoculture, a bastion of northern European whiteness adrift in a vast sea of otherness, clinging to a deliberate insensitivity to anyone else’s history or feelings. It doesn’t matter that these performers were themselves of varied ethnic background. They clearly felt themselves entirely at home with mocking an African-American whose own racial identification was an example of the damage otherness inflicts, and expected to be applauded for it. I’m glad to know that so many have reacted otherwise, even as I cringe at the kinds of idiocy I’ve encountered peppering this thread.
Brendon, you have been refusing assignations of racism using the ethnic identity of the performers all the way down this thread, but when you start talking about forgiveness as a rebuttal and you start explaining how you grabbed your remote because you knew how it would be received, that kind of collapses your own argument.
I was ignoring this, but finally decided to look at the thing. I’m wondering if anybody saw it as I did – that those guys were making fun of themselves. The ‘performance’ was so bad, and the blackface thing so stupid that I thought the humour of it was “see what dags we are – we did this stupid gag 20 years ago and now, as mature adults, we’re prepared to get up and do it, because there’s something funny about Australian dagishness.”
I think the Jackson Five and the blackface business was incidental to the performance and there probably wasn’t any racism involved. Not a good example to pick to talk about Australian racism – if you provide such a trivial example it makes your case seem trivial.
Russel, that’s pretty much how I saw it particularly given that it was red faces.
I know that I found Julia Gillard’s apparent defence of the sketch cringeworthy. While I understand that she suffers from an impulse to play to the braying mob in the peanut gallery she might have restrained herself with something more non-committal such as:
Oh I think Mr Somers recognised the offence given and quite rightly, apologised on air. We do have to be sensitive to the feelings of others and questions of context …
Ms Gillard ought to know that it is not merely the author of text that determines what it can mean. Once the text is uttered, its meaning is a matter of its location within cultural discourse. At the moment, if Gillard is to be relied upon, the “meaning” of this skit is a robust statement of plebeian Australian exceptionalism, now accompanied by an “up yours” to the critics, which she presumably endorses.
To sections of America it is an endorsement of Jim Crow and to me it is as I said above, a marker of the social and educational marginalisation of whole tranches of the populace, who, if NewsRadio is to be believed, have no acquaintance with US history and the ways one can derive meaning from it to understand “blacking up”.
What people intend is only one of a number of interesting considerations in evaluating texts.
Frank Calabrese: there’s a difference between making fun of blackface and blackface. And actually being funny – and clever – makes a difference, too
Lots of people say it was just a joke, take it in the spirit it was intended – as though ignorance of what minstrel shows mean make it OK.
And reading these posts I wonder how laid back and how much of a sense of humour Australians really have – we’re very defensive about a Yank telling us a joke wasn’t funny. We all have thinner skins than we like to let on – Australians included.
What I hear a lot of people saying is: please PC fun police, don’t take our racist humour off us – it’s all we have left to feel superior. If comedy like this is so meaningless, then we won’t miss it when it’s gone.
I think someone on another site clearly identified the problem in Australia about critising racism, sexism or bullying.
The overiding social norm is still “STFU or GTFO”
CaseyNo
Oct 9th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
“Brendon, you have been refusing assignations of racism using the ethnic identity of the performers all the way down this thread, but when you start talking about forgiveness as a rebuttal and you start explaining how you grabbed your remote because you knew how it would be received, that kind of collapses your own argument.”
Collapse?? Yes, you are right, it did. After I was aware of extra information, and after I thought about my first reaction – which was a bit unforgiving, like many here – I changed my mind.
When I saw Connick himself dressed up as a black preacher on youtube, I didn’t shout out “hypocrite!”, but I thought, maybe he was unaware at how ambiguous sometimes the messages we get from America re their culture. And when I realized that these fellows had a variety of different ethnic backgrounds and that I suppose they don’t have the same black/white relations antenna I do as a white anglo, I was a bit more forgiving.
Where I grew up, my neighbours were of different backgrounds and I can remember the smells (food), the accents, the conversations of the adults. It was like another world for a little kid to visit their homes. And I think back at how the migrant kids would try to fit in at school, but sometimes get it wrong. So, if those hard working young doctors stuffed up, they sure got a hard lesson, didn’t they? Very embarrassing. But given what they have said since, I can forgive it.
I’m not really into being self righteous, sanctimonious, inflexible. If some new infromation comes along, I’ll consider that, too.
P.S. I shouldn’t say “inflexible”. Some of the arguments used to hang these guys are super flexible. People are turning themselves inside out to justify their angst.
“whole tranches of the populace, who, if NewsRadio is to be believed, have no acquaintance with US history and the ways one can derive meaning from it to understand “blacking up”.
“as though ignorance of what minstrel shows mean make it OK.”
If that’s right – the ignorance – and I think it is, then to say to people “What I hear a lot of people saying is: please PC fun police, don’t take our racist humour off us” won’t invite a discussion, but a shouting match, as Anna writes about. First you need to convince people how it was racist, and if it was, why so much of a fuss needs to be made about it
“And I think back at how the migrant kids would try to fit in at school, but sometimes get it wrong.”
Here is the problem Brendon ok? Right here in that sentence. And it has been implicit in your arguments all along. Do you even get the race privilege in your statement? Indeed, do you even get how you are speaking from a discourse of whiteness at all? Probably not right?
Listen: about “somehow get it wrong”. Hiding behind all that kindness you are feeling is a nice benevolent discourse on race. Perhaps when you are ready to come down off the lofty heights, we could talk sometime – that is – if you are prepared to talk to one of those long ago migrant kids who “somehow got it wrong”, but you know, without all the racially benevolent noblesse oblige crapola if you don’t mind.
Good bye.
@50
“hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.”
This is probably the one you’re looking for. Although it may not appear intolerant it does in fact deride the idea of blackness and invites the reader to laugh at a white construction of blackness that has been deliberately made to seem valueless although the “minstrels” are unaware of this, which completes the joke: they are too stupid to see that they appear unsophisticated – stupid if you will – to our civilised eyes, how else would you explain the intended humour? Go on have a go, lets all have a laugh at your ham-fisted, rightwing attempts at debate.
In fact would have been much funnier if a bunch of white guys had parodied themselves by trying to pull of the Jackson 5s moves, a bit like Vanilla Ice did.
“It wasn’t supposed to be racist.”
I see, Brendon is using irony, almost is valuable as goldy and silvery.
Casey,
you are entitled to your opinion. But thats how I see it. I just don’t see it as you do. And you certainly find that annoying. What can I say.
I’d add that racism doesn’t just involve outright hatred. You can show your contempt for other races by representing them as ridiculous.
Just because you haven’t given much thought about what constitutes racism doesn’t mean you’re not a racist.
Robert at #34:
“In any case, even if we accept all your claims about a black (sorry, African-American) bloke in the US falsely accusing you of racism and a website with an inexplicable aversion to the adjective “black”, what is your point exactly? Are you suggesting that your inability to type an adjective on a website and one bloke’s unjustified evocation of the race card is of any significance?
And is this significance in anyway commensurable to the significance of the actual oppression of African-Americans which provokes all sorts of responses from said African-Americans such as touchiness about people dressing up like golliwogs to represent famous black singers?”
Yes, it is significant. I lived in America for 3 years in the very early ’80′s. I in no way considered myself a racist. Yet I was accused of being so, simply because I disagreed with a man who was black, about something that wasn’t even related to race. To me Americans have been, and it would appear today also, that they are far far too sensitive about it all.
Very likely that’s a great balm in their own domain: IN AMERICA. However, as I’ve stated, this is not America. Yet here we have this Yank with delusions of grander, thinking he’s so important that he can come to Oz and have a go at us about race, when his country is far far behind us on this issue. As far as I’m concerned he can fuck off back to Yankland and preach to his own bloody people, before condemning us over an innocent skit.
Aussies have the ability to laugh at ourselves. That’s something many other countries don’t do. We have a sense of humour, so dry it’s rarely understood overseas. Not even in England. But that’s who we are. I’d hate to see us lose that.
It’s local comedy, not meant for the world. Ironically Connick made it for the world by his being a self absorbed wanker. If not for him no one overseas would have ever ever seen the skit. HE made it global, no one else.
And who the hell is he anyway? Some singer who can do little more than covers from yesteryear, in the style of his father. Is HHIS supposed to make judgment about their programming according to this delusional? Come on, what a stupid scenario.
Thank you HHIS for a fine and stupid sketch, that meant bloody nothing other than to evidently the leftie true believers who condemn it.
I think the OP was brilliant, in that it talked about just this sort of thing.
It’s not just black and white, and there are many shades of grey. Too many it seems for some.
Don’t put me in a box Robert…..
Well, the blackface group on Hey Hey certainly seemed to be putting someone in a box. But hey, it’s only fun.
“Just because you haven’t given much thought about what constitutes racism doesn’t mean you’re not a racist.”
No, but you wouldn’t want the word racist flung at you for laughing at a stupid gag on a stupid TV show when you’re unaware of the implications of ministrels to Americans and perhaps weren’t laughing at the race part of the gag.
An earlier commenter used the phrase “teachable moment”. When Mr Ward died in the back of a roastingly hot police van it was a very good teachable moment because everyone was appalled and could recognise how easily racist it had been to keep some clapped out vans going because they were ‘only’ used to transport Aborigines. If you pick this stupid TV show as your teachable moment, most people will just think “get a life”.
smokey
No Gravatar
Oct 9th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
“To me Americans have been, and it would appear today also, that they are far far too sensitive about it all.”
Reverse it: Australian celebrity is Hugh Jackman is a guest on an American variety show with their version of a Red Faces segment. Its a month after Steve Irwin died. A couple of American joksters come on doing an over the top verion of Irwin and a few are doing hamfisted versions of what they think Aboriginals would do in the bush, all in blackface.
Would you condemn Jackman for thinking “What the hell is this all about and why are they doing this!?”
I don’t blame Connick for taking a stand.
Sam Newman. Vomit.
Ok, will you now all attack Marlon Jackson for NOT being offended by the skit ??
http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=9191_Marlon_Jackson_Okay_About_Hey_Hey_Jackson_Jive
[Marlon]Jackson told Access Hollywood “they probably weren’t trying to be offensive about it, or anything of that nature, with the family. We want to thank Harry for speaking out but we also understand that they weren’t trying to be disrespectful to the family.”
http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=9191_Marlon_Jackson_Okay_About_Hey_Hey_Jackson_Jive
Oooops. crickets chirping…….
Oh and here is Issi Dye on his show and what has happened in the last 48 hours.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/tv–radio/2009/10/08/1254701103969.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Of course, they weren’t trying to be offensive or disrespectful. That’s the nature of racism – that you think what you’re doing is so ordinary – just funny really. Don’t you understnd that the nature of racism is that it’s internalised? It’s not necessarily people frothing at the mouth about how they hate the darkies.
And why should Marlon Jackson be arsed being demonstrably angry about it? Why is it his responsibility?
What Marlon Jackson’s comments show is that intent, to reasonable people, matters a lot in forming one’s reaction to an incident like this. The degree of condemnation was too high for the transgression, such as it was. In the end it means that the people crying ‘racists’ will be ignored by the rest – surely not what they wanted, unless what they wanted was, indeed, to feel morally superior.
FineNo Gravatar
Oct 9th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
..”Don’t you understnd that the nature of racism is that it’s internalised?”
There has been an undercurrent of racism against Indians in Australia of recent. The lead performer on Red Faces is of Indian descent. Are you sure your angst against him isn’t a internalized form of racism that you are unaware of. There is a lot of it going about.
Apparently.
Of course not! But see how easy it is to point the finger at anybody about anything when you start giving yourself the right to assume people’s motives beyond (and despite) what they themselves state.
I am done with this kangaroo court.
Marlon Jackson’s lack of being offended is really not even slightly relevant, for two reasons.
Firstly, because as I argued in the post, “offence” is not the point, it’s why people are offended that should matter.
Secondly, because people aren’t upset about them having a go at Michael Jackson. It’s the blackface, which has a long racist history.
I’m particularly surprised at Frank’s contribution to this thread.
Anna – I don’t quite get that …. isn’t Marlon’s reaction relevant because it shows that your degree of offendedness will partly depend on what was intended. He could still feel offence – not help but to feel it – but, in a mature way, contextualise it and come to the conclusion that this incident was no big deal.
Frank is DEVOTED to popular radio and TV – like the ALP they can do no wrong.
Conceptualising all this in terms of personal offence is precisely the wrong way to go about it. It’s at the root of the questioning of whether that offence was intended, and throws the spotlight onto the person purporting to be offended. It also suggests that it’s mainly a matter of courtesy, and/or the relations between two discernible people (one of whom is the representative of the ‘offended’) and Darryl Somers (or whoever) issuing an apology will make the whole thing go away.
Mark, I think the more ways this can be conceptualised, the richer our understanding will be. One of those ways is to look at how each party interprets this incident: interprets their own actions, the other party’s actions, and their own response to the other party’s actions.
But now that Anna has cited the long racist history of blackface, I’d like to explore that. Except my eyes are too tired for looking at this screen for much longer.
We always watched The Black & White Minstrel Show (‘not surprised’ you’re saying) and in Australia I don’t think there was anything racist about it. Nothing. It had completely no impact on our feeling about American negroes or Australian Aborigines. It was a British program. The blackface was purely a reference to where the songs came from originally.
Did it’s resonances reinforce an unconscious prejudice that black people were silly and only good for singing? Absolutely not. We didn’t confuse white British men wearing black make-up with Paul Robeson or Marian Anderson. We were perfectly aware of the civil rights in the U.S. The movies we saw at the time were In the Heat of the Night, or Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Blackface may have been offensive to people in the U.S. but it was received differently here. I don’t think it has a racist history here.
Russell, sure, it can be conceptualised in different ways. But I’m not sure you’re taking my point.
I’m suggesting that – in general – seeing racism as an offense to individuals is unhelpful. It’s the way it’s usually thought of, for a whole range of reasons, but I think it’s not the best way to think of it, for the reasons I outlined above.
I’m a bit tired too – so apologies if I’ve only really sketched my argument!
For people who don’t get what the problem is with blackface, have a look at this. The full entry is very interesting and detailed but if you don’t have time for it, a quick squiz at the four introductory paragraphs should be enough. Especially this bit:
I’ll look at it tomorrow, but a quick look lets me see that blackface it entirely different in the U.S. to here. We didn’t connect it to anything real – it’s not our history. It was purely harmless entertainment here. That page reminds me of a time before golliwogs were a scandal, and my favourite showbag was the Blackboy Licorice bag!
Russell @ 108:
it’s not our history. It was purely harmless entertainment here.
Well said, Exactly.
We’re Aussies, not a little America.
Which is why it would also be fine for an Aussie to burn a cross on someone’s lawn or walk around wearing a white hood…
Probably most of us here in Australia know something about burning white crosses and white hoods, but probably far fewer of us know about the cultural baggage Americans have that is associated with ‘blacking up’. I vaguely knew it was an issue for Americans but didn’t understand why until yesterday when I hit wikipedia. It’s pretty obvious the producers of HHIS didn’t realise it either.
I think it’s one of those cross-cultural things that you don’t know is offensive until someone tells you, like wearing shorts in a Greek-Orthodox church or pointing your feet towards the Buddha in a Thai temple or sticking two chopsticks upright in a bowl of rice in a Chinese restaurant. There is a difference between knowingly and unknowingly giving offense.
Which is why I think what we saw was ignorance, not racism. Julie Szego has a good article on it in today’s SMH. She makes the point that race relations in the US are impenetrable to most Australians. She talks about being ‘infantilised’ by Harry Connick Jnr’s little sermon. And she ends with what I think is an excellent summary of the whole event. “…forget the cant about this episode revealing something darker in the nation’s psyche. Hey, hey it’s not really subversive, it’s just plain stupid.”
Yes, I’m sure Aussies ability to laugh at themselves is true (although it often seems more bullying than not in its delivery) but it’s not exclusive to Australia and it’s not what these blokes were doing. They were mocking a recently deceased African-American and his still-grieving family in an insensitive manner – not parodying, not satirizing, mocking.
That mythical “dry” Aussie sense of humour and exclusive ability to use and understand irony? Get some. This wasn’t any of it.
PC@107,
I find the inference that the Australian public would take that Red Face act as a serious representation of black people, that it would influence their perception of what African Americans are like, as an insult to the intellect of the Australian people.
I’m off to the suburban football today.
As a little harmless entertainment, I’m going to be wearing orange, I’ll have a snare drum and a fife, a UVF banner (what does that stand for anyway?), and I’ll probably sing that “do you want some bread and butter Bobby Sands” song that was so funny when I saw it on youtube.
But it’s not my culture, so anyone who gets offended can fuck off.
Desipis, if any ‘inference’ (I assume you mean ‘implication’) was made, then it was you who made it, and it’s only being made in your own mind. When I linked to the Wiki entry I was merely trying to provide some actual information and facts to leaven all the spluttering opinion, and if you don’t understand the impact of a cultural symbol with heavy and horrible baggage attached to it then there’s not much I can do about that. Further to Liam’s orange outfit accessorised by fife and drum and a charming little ditty about Bobby Sands (actually, Liam, many people won’t get that reference either; is it an insult to the Australian people’s intellect to say so, do you think?), I take it that you also thought it was perfectly okay for Prince Harry to turn up to a fancy dress party in a Nazi uniform complete with swastika, on the grounds that ‘the Australian people’ know perfectly well the poor little dodo isn’t an actual Fascist and anyway the Nazis are nothing to do with Australia and therefore we can read that symbol any way we like. No? Why not? It’s the same argument as the one you’re making.
Russell: everyone seems to agree that this is just a silly skit on Hey Hey – yet everyone seems to want to comment.
Like I said, if racist comedy doesn’t mean anything, then we won’t miss it when it’s gone. But a lot of people are tenaciously defending it – it obviously means something to a lot of people.
I’m usually on the other side, against the humourless and those perpetually waiting to be offended, but blackface in 2009 is ridiculous.
And let’s not forget there’s political correctness on the Right as well – talkback loved getting into a lather about The Chaser.
I don’t have a problem with these things (ignore the whole burning something is generally a bad idea), as long as there is no threat or incitement of violence. If done without a context that indicates they are not serious reproductions of the original symbology then I could understand a reasonable person interpreting them as a threat or incitement and being upset.
Yes. That was another example of a storm in a teacup.
Having never watched HHIS, I happened to be channel surfing at the time of the “skit”. Frozen by incredulity, I stayed to watch.
I take it that the “Red Faces” segment is where non-talent amateurs are invited on the teev to make idiots of themselves.
Those Jackson chappies succeeded brilliantly.
So, there we have it. In 2009 HHIS is back on the tube as a cheap-to-produce 1980s nostalgia trip. And on that 1980s nostalgia trip was presented a Jim Crow vintage nostalgia trip schitck.
Cutting-edge television…
Can’t wait for “20 to 1: the Best Aussie Boong Jokes.”
Will that be ironic too?
This is just a discussion we do not have to use such offensive language just because someone do not agree with you. I presume we are all learned people who uses this site. That is what I call uncultured!!!
The irony, the irony.
Hear, hear, PC. I thought the zenith of the black face gigs was years back when Norman Gunston did Othello on TV with a Rastus-type voice. That was funny only because the Gunston character was so easily recognized as a dork.
Otherwise, it’s a murky area for comedy, albeit a rule with satire and black (no pun intended) comedy is that just about no topic is off limits.
Desipis …
It is the people who watch HHIS and think Red Faces funny who are an insult to the intellect of the Australian people. You Tube then becomes the vehicle for washing our dirty laundry in public.
“I’m off to the suburban football today.
As a little harmless entertainment, I’m going to be wearing orange, I’ll have a snare drum and a fife, a UVF banner (what does that stand for anyway?), and I’ll probably sing that “do you want some bread and butter Bobby Sands” song that was so funny when I saw it on youtube.”
Bravo.
Anne making a good point:
“Because now we’re in another stupid-PC-gone-mad/but-I’m-offended media circus that lumps the Chaser, Kyle Sandilands, Bill Henson and a bunch of doctors into one group of baddies that lets us ignore the actual context and meaning and just be for or against something.”
Anna, later on:
(Russell: “it’s not our history. It was purely harmless entertainment here.”)
Anna: “Which is why it would also be fine for an Aussie to burn a cross on someone’s lawn or walk around wearing a white hood…”
Anna, can you see that you are contradicting your earlier observation about lumping things together when you now lump the Jackson Jive act with the KKK burning crosses.
Oh ,oh Bobby Sands/irish jokes- right oh then-
” Seen the lastest grafitti in Dublin?
It reads ‘George Sands we won’t forget you !’”
UVF – Ulster Volunteer Force?
Brendon can’t you understand the purpose of an analogy?
I used an analogy to demonstrate the stupidity of the argument.
If Russell’s correct that being American history means we can ignore it, then surely that must apply to KKK references too, which we also never had here.
But then, you’re also shown you don’t really understand satire, so perhaps not.
Fran,
One does not have to be unintelligent to appreciate non-intellectual humour; to state otherwise is just elitist snobbery.
@ Brendon, dude, your heart is in the right place, but your comprehension needs a bit of work. Oh and your point about how the doctors can’t be blamed because they’re from ethnic backgrounds… that’s rubbish. My ethnic background makes me even more sensitive to that kind of thing.
People, no one with a brain is suggesting that what happened on the show was a racist act. There was no racist intention there. What it was, however, was stupid and insensitive. Imagine I went on Red Faces dressed in Nazi regalia. That’s not intrinsically racist, but given the history, it is entirely inappropriate.
@ Frank Calabrese – if you can’t see that there is a big difference between smearing black paint on ones face to look like a golliwog, and what HCJ did on Mad TV, or what Robert Downey Jr did in “Tropic Thunder”, there is little hope for you.
It rather depends, Desipis, on what one means by ‘appreciate’ and ‘elitist snobbery’ as well.
Where ‘elitist snobbery’ describes an arbitrary or unfounded valuing of usages associated with those who are privileged ‘appreciate’ means valuing I disagree. Lionizing misanthropy and valuing it as a contribution to human culture is a step towards endorsing misery and barbarity as if it were progress. It’s a reactionary political opinion rather than an exercise in humour or in the relief of contemporary angst or ennui. Those who mistake it for the latter are at best stupid or ignorant. Those who defend this, pace John Docker because it is culturally plebeian are worse yet, as they add to the currency of ignorant and retrograde populism, a weapon that, sooner or later, will be wielded against them.
Yes Anna, I get the analogy. Do you get that using KKK cross burning as an analogy might not be such a good analogy to use with a hapless group of performers as the Jackson Jive. But, since you don’r seem to remember what you write (lumping things together?), maybe it works for you.
Yes I get satire. A group of white bread types trying to be offended on behalf of black people only to be told by the Jacksons themselves they don’t see the harm it. These white breads were telling us that its not intent, but the consequences ie, the hurt it may cause. But when it comes from Marlon there was no damage done they still rant. So condescending are these people they now dismiss the Jackson’s comments as irrelevant. Do you get the contradiction?
So, in the end the only people offended is an American entertainer who might be worried about what it might look like back home, and a group of local whitebread types determined to be offended (moral highground, anyone?) and willing to sacrifice even muliculturalism – which they were championing, it seems like only a couple of days ago.
I LOVE satire. As a matter of fact I would love to see you do John Cleese’s part as leader of the People’s Front of Judea from the Life Of Brian. You are made for that part, I think.
Satire? You couldn’t make this stuff up. Its a hoot! LOL
Holy shit.
I mean, fark.
Fran Barlow at #129: don’t forget that the word ‘elite’ has a completely different meaning in this country from the one it had in 1996. It used to have positive connotations. Now it just means ‘Anyone with different views from mine, higher qualifications than mine, and/or more power and influence than me must be a complete arsehat, and wrong as well.’
Someone really should analyse this whole “storm in a tea cup” thing. It seems to be the all purpose argument for avoiding ethical judgement.
I have no idea why, but after reading the rest of the thread this afternoon, I have to keep on stopping myself from opening my lounge room window and shouting “The horror, the horror”, to anyone who is prepared to listen.
Mark,
I think it’s more about avoiding the universalisation of highly contextualised issues.
Quite so, and Howard cultivated this new meaning assiduously precisely so he could create a context for his politics to appear beyond objection. To use the word ‘elites’ in this way is to both mark yourself as non-elite and to set yourself up as the arbiter of what is culturally apt. One very much recalls Howard’s defences of hazing in the military and “boys will be boys blowing off steam”.
Your observation does however underline a point I raised here earlier which is that it is not merely the intent of the author of texts that determines what texts mean.
“We have a sense of humour, so dry it’s rarely understood overseas.”
Yeah, we’re so funny. I almost crap myself laughing at Hey Dad, Kingswood Country, Kevin Bloody Wilson, comedy gold that’s what we do down here. Forget Monty Python or Seinfeld, those foreigners wouldn’t know a good darky joke if it leapt up and bit ‘em.
Brendon #130: “A group of white bread types trying to be offended…”
“These white breads were telling us…”
“and a group of local whitebread types determined to be offended…”
For my own education, can you please tell me, what is a ‘white bread type’?
Thanks for your assistance.
@113
“an insult to the intellect of the Australian people.”
I think this incident demonstrates that the “national intellect” is at a fairly low ebb. We love to scoff at the insular, ignorant Americans but I’d say this episode, taken with the PMs “adios” to Sol, puts us a the Morlok category. I can’t believe this bs about being “Aussies” and having some unique sense of humour. Look at what plays on TV, it’s %90 US. The person making these kind of comments is having a serious delusion-ary episode. Next they’ll be trying to tell me that the Kokoda track won the war in the Pacific.
Fran,
I’m not sure I see any misanthropy going on. I’ll also point out that restricting cultural expression is one step towards a homogenised and sterile culture. Of course taking any action to its extreme will likely end in undesirable outcomes.
PC,
I used elitism as a qualifier on snobbery, not as an insult in itself. Your meaning is a reaction to what I’ve described as elitist snobbery, that is: “Anyone without the (wealth, education, etc) privilege to appreciate the ‘finer’ things in life is an inferior person”, or perhaps more relevantly: “Those who enjoy the simple things in life must be simple themselves.”. Elitism, that is striving to be the best, is different from using success in one dimension to imply superiority over others.
And yes, I have a strong aversion to any topic being taboo in a general context particularly when it comes to humour.
I’m old enough to remember “Little Black Sambo”, “Eeny meeny miney mo, catch a nigger by the toe”, Jackie-Jackie, the cast-iron negro that ate coins, “Amos ‘n’ Andy”, and yes, the above-mentioned “Black and White Minstrel Show”. I’m also old enough to remember Little Rock, Selma, the Birmingham Bombings, and right here in Australia that Aborigines were disenfranchised, and that Aboriginal children were prohibited from swimming in the Moree municipal pool.
When anyone argues that my childhood rhymes and playthings had nothing to do with the world of racial hatred and discrimination, I say “bullshit”.
If you are young enough to have missed these influences, then the least you could do is to educate yourselves.
When doctors, NT policemen, or Sam Newman black up they make it just a bit more possible that the world of my childhood may return. If this is called reacting to a storm in a teacup, then so be it.
Because a storm in a teacup is still a storm.
What Katz said.
Seems a bit retroracialphobic to me. I’m reminded of all those who think that rock music or computer games will lead to all the kiddies joining satanic death cults.
Sounds familiar.
I think the Australian vernacular version Harry Connick Jr. misunderstood is that as a foreigner, he should have left his ancient ethnic hatreds and history at home. In this country they scrub foreign context off your boots at the Quarantine gate at the airport.
For the record, at the football they loved my “Macedonia is Greek” jokes and my “ooh ooh ooh” imitations of a gorilla whenever the Somalian bloke got the ball. Uniquely dry Australian sense of humour, you see.
j_p_zNo Gravatar,
Means white people, I think. Glad to be of assistance.
Hey, could you help me with: “the universalisation of highly contextualised issues”
He’s a bit of information for you desipis.
If there are any satanic death cults, they are tiny.
Racial discrimination was during my lifetime universal in the world.
Did my playthings create racial discrimination? No. My playthings were a product of racism and in turn helped to justify racism.
In other words you seem not to understand the difference between cause, effect and catalyst.
Liam,
I don’t have a problem with the reaction from Harry Connick Jr. or for that matter the on air apology. I do think that should have been the end of it a lot of the “outrage” since has been over the top. The mistake in my mind was having a guest judge an act that would be likely to offend the guest, not the act in itself.
Katz,
I think the past tense you use is critical to the issue. There fact you assume younger people will be unaware of the racial context only serves to highlight they no longer can be used to justify racism. They are inert part of our cultural heritage only being historically proximate to racism, no longer a cause or catalyst of it.
One of the very few things that was interesting in Paul Kelly’s weighty tome was his record of the fact that Paul Keating believed we had narrowly escaped being as despised and isolated in the world as white South Africa.
There is no doubt that racism is an ever present danger. It’s not surprising in this instance that refusals to name it for what it is are accompanied by a defensive and projective nationalism.
Brendon/No gravatar,
So, then why don’t you just say ‘white people’ when you mean that?
Thanks as ever for your assistance.
As for the other thang you bring up, you spelled “universalization” wrong. Also “contextualized”. Don’t much know how else to help with this sort of biznis tho’.
Patently incorrect.
I am still alive and there are many, many people older than me for whom these cultural inheritances are anything but “inert”.
In 40 years you may be correct. But in the interim, we need to take care with these things.
As for the other thang you bring up, you spelled “universalization” wrong. Also “contextualized”.
Jesus wept.
But I LOL’d.
If you think that racism is “inert” why did Nicky Winmar so recently do this?
j_p_zNo Gravatar
Oct 10th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
“So, then why don’t you just say ‘white people’ when you mean that?
Thanks as ever for your assistance.”
Don’t mention it. In future I’ll try to use “white people”. Don’t ever read Joyce. It would send you bonkers.
“As for the other thang you bring up, you spelled “universalization” wrong. Also “contextualized”. Don’t much know how else to help with this sort of biznis tho’.”
Thanks for the spell check. Thats what I asked for. But I have a confession to make, I copied and pasted it from Liam. Its all his fault.
(pssst. Sorry Liam)
err wrongly (adverb to modify verb …)
Skitt’s/McKean’s/Hartman’s Law rules
Just a word to the wise, Brendon. Might not be the best idea to mention “copy and paste” and “Liam” in the same sentence…
I didn’t say racism is inert, just certain cultural artifacts are. Unless there are groups in Australia that I’m unaware of using blackface and “Eeny meeny miney mo” as a justification for racism.
These cultural artifacts aren’t necessarily only justifications for racism. They can also catalyse and mobilise pre-existing racist ideas and actions.
Why else are Aborigines sometimes called “Coons” or “Niggers”? These words are direct cribs from American racist epithets.
As far as I know Afro-Americans are never called “Abos” or “Boongs”. The reason for this is very easy to understand. American popular culture is far more dynamic than Australia’s. These racist epithets are transported and nourished by American cultural artifacts like blackface.
“For the record, at the football they loved my “Macedonia is Greek” jokes and my “ooh ooh ooh” imitations of a gorilla whenever the Somalian bloke got the ball. Uniquely dry Australian sense of humour, you see.”
Hey, Liam, you haven’t been up in the Alice selling totally inoffensive t-shirts have you? Everything is just so bloody politically correct these days, innit.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/02/2703351.htm
(Note the name of magistrate….)
you spelled “universalization” wrong. Also “contextualized”.
Don’t impose your US spelling on us. “Universalisation”, “contextualised”.
I don’t have a problem with the reaction from Harry Connick Jr. or for that matter the on air apology. I do think that should have been the end of it a lot of the “outrage” since has been over the top.
Oh really! Next time someone complains to me that the “left wing PC brigade” (or similar epithet) want to control what can and can’t be said, I’ll remember that one!
re 155,
Mark,
I’m a huge fan of Liam, and if I’ve done anything to offend him I apologize. Where I come from cutting and pasting isn’t seen as something sinister. LOL
PC @ 131
“…don’t forget that the word ‘elite’ has a completely different meaning in this country from the one it had in 1996. It used to have positive connotations. Now it just means ‘Anyone with different views from mine, higher qualifications than mine, and/or more power and influence than me must be a complete arsehat, and wrong as well….”
JWH was a bit more cunning than that. His smirking subtext was rather…”People who think *snigger snigger* they have higher qualifications than mine and or more power and influence.” His subtle and not unnoticed point was that while he called certain people elites, he certainly did not think they were elite, nor did he intend that the great mass of the population think they were.
I suspect that in JWH’s eyes, Shane Warne was more ‘elite’ than those he merely called ‘elite’ meaning smug knowitalls. I guess that says it all.
For the record, I do resent JWH for that. I always reserved the term ‘elite’ for the Nobel prize winners, Victoria Cross recipients, Olympians. Not yer average dime a dozen person with one or two uni degrees. Smart enough, but never elite – Until JWH grrrr.
Brendon: “Don’t ever read Joyce.”
Okay, gotcha, that one is officially noted. ….Umm, but, who’s Joyce? –just so I know to avoid, for my own well-being?
joe2 and Fran Barlow — fine, OK, here’s your candy; but you do realize it isn’t Halloween for another few weeks.
Good Lord.
I’m wanting to edge into a career in sound effects for film, and this thread has provided an absolutely awesome series of audio samples.
Now what do you think I could make from the sound of jokes and crucial points of argument flying over heads?
Brendon, I’m difficult to offend. Pleas refer to the domain name at which I irregularly and poorly blog. Regarding cutting and pasting: it’s LP’s uniquely dry sense of in-humour at the expense of hapless others, y’see: the phrase “cut ‘n’ paste” has nothing to do with me; you may find universal context here.
Joe2, I’d seen that story but the name of the magistrate is as they say an outstanding footnote.
“Someone really should analyse this whole “storm in a tea cup” thing. It seems to be the all purpose argument for avoiding ethical judgement”
Mark, you’re referring to this thread and the book reviewing imbroglio? I don’t think I used the phrase, but it’s apt for the book review fracas because it was an issue confined to a very small interest group, Hardly anyone could give a toss about some perceived conflict of interest in book reviewing.
The HHIS issue is not confined to a small group – it’s global! Plus most people will see racism as a topic with more serious implications. Accuse half the population of being racists because they can’t see any connection between that stupid skit and actually existing racism in Australia, and you invite the shouting match that this post is about.
Apart from the feeling that the PC left chimes in on these things because they do feel morally superior and they do enjoy lecturing others on their moral failings, a lot of people are annoyed that the PC brigade never clearly explains what they mean. I felt that in your comment “Conceptualising all this in terms of personal offence is precisely the wrong way to go about it… I’m suggesting that – in general – seeing racism as an offense to individuals is unhelpful. It’s the way it’s usually thought of, for a whole range of reasons, but I think it’s not the best way to think of it, for the reasons I outlined above” you didn’t actually say why it was wrong, or what you think is the best way to think of it. It may be obvious to you, but I don’t think you’ve really made your case – just implied that others are looking at it wrongly.
I’ll have a go in words of under two syllables if it’ll make you happy Russell.
Five dumb clouts with boot polish smeared on their faces on TV just made Australia the most pathetic fucking laughing stock of the planet. Lots of clouts with keyboards doing their act where they pretend not to understand what boot polish on the face means just made the Australian internet that much less classy a place.
Ask me again I’ll do it in limerick or haiku. Just for you.
Russell, I can’t speak on behalf of “the PC left” because I don’t know who they are. Nor do I comment here to feel morally superior. I am not remotely interested in cultivating such a feeling.
Let me see if I can make it plain.
Racist comments and representations are wrong, cause harm, and cannot be wished away by seeing them as matters of discourtesy for which an apology can suffice.
They are far too common, and it’s precisely when they are excused as “humour” and broadcast to an enormous audience, many of whom will subsequently make extremely worked up comments while disavowing same as “a storm in a teacup” that the intention is totally irrelevant.
Liam that’s exactly the ‘shouting’ which, I guess makes you feel good, but cannot persuade anyone of anything. A bit like the earlier comments comparing blackface in the skit to the holocaust.
No Mark, you haven’t done it – how did this skit cause harm? How much harm?
OMFG, Russell. No-one compared blackface to the holocaust.
I warned you Russell.
…
If you don’t accept anyone’s claim
That the Hey Hey act ought to get shame
Maybe moonlight’s a crime
Or is it just the good time?
Perhaps it’s the boogie to blame?
I must have missed that bit — could you give the numbers of the comments you mean when you say things like that? If you’re right and somebody did do that (no time to read the whole thread again or I would check), how very silly of them. One of those things has its origins in racial hatred, and the other one, um, has its origins in racial hatred. Nothing in common at all.
Regarding the book review discussion (Russell, you are a mine of information; I never knew ‘imbroglio’ and ‘fracas’ were synonyms for ‘discussion’, or indeed for each other), I take it you have some information to which the rest of us are not privy when you say that hardly anybody cares about these things. That of course will be why there was almost no discussion anywhere by anyone about it.
That discussion was not about book reviews per se, but about ethics, just as this discussion is not about HHIS per se, but about racism. The particular events are instances of important abstractions, and the abstractions are what the discussions are about.
Anna, there was this from PC:
“I take it that you also thought it was perfectly okay for Prince Harry to turn up to a fancy dress party in a Nazi uniform complete with swastika, on the grounds that ‘the Australian people’ know perfectly well the poor little dodo isn’t an actual Fascist and anyway the Nazis are nothing to do with Australia and therefore we can read that symbol any way we like. No? Why not? It’s the same argument as the one you’re making”
I think Nazi means holocaust, doesn’t it?
No, Russell, ‘Nazi’ means ‘Nazi’.
I was drawing an analogy (which is not the same thing as ‘comparing’) between one powerfully negative cultural symbol and another powerfully negative cultural symbol and the way that in each case, ignorance of the meaning and history of the symbol produces indifference to what it signifes. But if you think that’s the same as ‘comparing blackface to the holocaust’ then you are such a bad reader that there’s not much point in trying to explain what the difference is. Or anything else, really.
Russell, if you want people to explain concepts to you, you have to meet them half-way, and actually work at understanding the words people use.
FFS.
Anna – your post is about how an issue becomes a shouting match. If you can’t understand what happens when one side starts talking about Nazis, then you’ll never understand how these things go.
As for explaining – I haven’t had explanation, just assertion that “Racist comments and representations are wrong, cause harm…” Yes racism is wrong, what needs explaining is how this stupid skit is racist act in Australia.
There was also this from Katz:
“the above-mentioned “Black and White Minstrel Show”. I’m also old enough to remember Little Rock, Selma, the Birmingham Bombings, and right here in Australia that Aborigines were disenfranchised, and that Aboriginal children were prohibited from swimming in the Moree municipal pool. When anyone argues that my childhood rhymes and playthings had nothing to do with the world of racial hatred and discrimination, I say “bullshit”. If you are young enough to have missed these influences, then the least you could do is to educate yourselves”
I think this is also linking things without evidence: The Black and White Minstrel show on Australian TV, in Australia, with what happened in Selma and Birmingham. The Black and White Minstrel show as an ‘influence’ on Aboriginal children banned from a swimming pool. From my own experience there was no connection. If Katz’s experience was such as to lead him to feel they were linked, I’d really like to know how. What did watching the Black and White Minstrel show make you feel, Katz?
You might not need it explained if you had black colleagues at work – whose eyes you had to meet the next day.
But of course, here in Australia, where most indigenous people still live in camps, or on the urban fringes, like some backward 19th century colony, we can still pretend its just abstract moralising – of the sort that warrants occasional deflating.
The only folks who need to ‘harden up’ are those who can’t handle any criticism of their nation.
Mate I’m not trying to persuade you at this point. I’m using banal sarcasm to see if I can express my point more, ahhh, clearly. And I’m drinking some very nice Scotch at the moment so my feeling good is entirely unrelated to my use of language.
…
Also, to push the point, “the Australian People” don’t know that Harry isn’t a Fascist. The guy has a family history of Fascism, he’s had military training and he’s a veteran of interventionist wars, he’s had implicit contact with traffickers of illegal drugs (he’s been alleged to have used cannabis and cocaine), he reportedly supports a Premier League team known for racist hooliganism (Arsenal), he wore a Fascist insignia in public (the Afrika Korps uniform with swastika).
Fascist is as Fascist does. If I were a DIAC assessor I’d have second thoughts about allowing him entry into Australia on his next official visit—if he were a Serb he’d be handcuffed and sent to Villawood on landing at Sydney.
“You might not need it explained if you had black colleagues at work”
Possibly true. I don’t know any Aboriginal people, and never have. It would be good to know what they thought about it.
You really are an ignoramus Russell.
When in the last decade of the nineteenth century, the Australian Constitution was being written, the drafters of the Constitution looked around the world for models. The Australian Constitution is modelled closely on the US Constitution.
At exactly the same time that the Australian constitution was being drafted the US Supreme Court in Plessy versus Ferguson, and all of the states of the old Confederacy and many non-Confederate states were drafting laws institutionalising racism. Collectively, these laws have come to be called Jim Crow.
At this time Australian drafters proposed and the Australian electorate accepted a provision in the Australian Constitution called the “race powers” provision. This provision allowed legislators to pass racist laws. Many were passed. Moreover, Aborigines were specifically excluded from citizenship.
How was it that the Australian electorate came to accept the proposition that people should be discriminated against on the basis of race? Two large causes were the example of the United States, and also our common inheritance of racialist ideas communicated through many channels of popular culture, including blackface.
Russell there have been links and explanations aplenty to help you understand if you really cared to. Now all that’s left is banal sarcasm and mocking.
Katz you claimed that a TV show like the Black and White Minstrel show was an influence on racism in Australia. Since I can’t see how, I asked you to explain by saying how it made you feel, watching that show. Apparently you can’t.
Anna – no, the banal sarcasm and mocking starts early on – instead of explanation. This is exactly why the left lost a chunk of its traditional supporters in the 90s, and, it seems, hasn’t learnt anything from it.
PC wrote “I take it you have some information to which the rest of us are not privy when you say that hardly anybody cares about these things. That of course will be why there was almost no discussion anywhere by anyone about it.”
I just did a quick media search of newspapers etc and found over a thousand hits on the HHIS issue, and precisely one on the book review issue.
Did you click on Dr Cat’s links at all?
Man if by the 1990s you didn’t realise it wasn’t cool to blackface, what the hell were you doing in the 1990s? Did you miss the vast amount of press coverage, cinema and literature about American race relations we even got as far away as Australia? I don’t know if Perth counts as Australia—never have—but seriously, Russell. That was Spike Lee’s time.
An historical and personal note. I loved Hey Hey It’s Saturday when I was a kid. I think that’s still it’s audience: seven year-olds in 1987. So if it’s 1987, and you’re in primary school, I give my permission as an adult, drunk Australian to find Hey Hey it’s Saturday hilarious.
Nabakov, it’s your shift.
I was a child. I accepted that somehow black people were very amusing, infantile and not proper, serious grown up people. But they could play the piano well even though they wore white gloves.
Liam – why did you put that quote there and then write about something else – or do you mean that the ALP was well rid of the racist ignoramuses who deserted it?
I don’t think I missed much of the news about U.S. race relations, from say, Angela Davis on. I just don’t think it’s that relevant to this discussion. Same about Katz’s lecture on constitutional history – I knew that too, just don’t think it’s that relevant. Of course, it does show how clever you are, if that’s the point of the discussion.
Anna, I read about half the Wiki article (I had actually read a couple of the sources mentioned, imagine that!) but it wasn’t really relevant, I thought, to the situation now, in Australia.
My personal and historical note is that one of the advantages of being a snob is that I never saw one minute of HHIS – new or old versions.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘a quick media search’, Russell. I did a quick Google search and found discussions of the Monthly book reviews affair in The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald, at Crikey and at Andrew Norton’s blog among many other sites. The amount of time and effort you’re putting into insisting that something is of no interest, including dragging this thread off-topic with it, is really quite suspicious-making. I also find it weird that you think assessing the importance of an issue is a simple matter of counting heads.
PC Brigadier@#167 Oct 10th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Liam’s comment is (unintentionally) revealing. He lest slip that the “black face” moral panic is about the global status ranking of Australia’s arty-farty, touchy-feely, mumbo-jumboing politically correct brigade after all. This is cultural cringe-inducing in more ways than I can be bothered to enumerate.
As if the screen jockeys at the Shanghai Stock Exchange could give a rats ars* about ideological flim-flam in the Antipodes.
The “dumb clouts” are all medical practitioners. But what would they know, eh? Not fully versed in the latest po-mo razzle dazzle they just save peoples lives (one is Indian, I believe).
Have any, you know, actual African-Americans complained about this skit? Not that anyone in this debate is genuinely interested in their opinion. After all we are not directly competing with that demographic for the relevant status goods (which in this case is peer social esteem, see Maslow).
Political correctness on race is the contemporary framework for a moralistic arms race for status amongst educated white persons. (It used to be social correctness on sex but certain Eminent Victorians smashed that taboo.)
The editor of “Stuff White People Like”, not to mention Max Weber and Tom Wolfe, would not be surprised by our outrage. White people “being offended” on the part of black people ranks #101 on the SWPL list.
My interest in the larger world coincided with the worldwide upsurge in protest against institutionalised racism — Sharpeville in South Africa, Briminham, Selma, “I have a dream” in the US, the Freedom rides in rural Australia.
If I had come of age ten years earlier, perhaps I would have accepted institutionalised racism as both good and natural, and never interrogated the nature of Australian society.
If I had come of age ten years later, perhaps I would have assumed that Australia had never been a racist society and that racism was a phenomenon of the long dead past.
I became aware of the world during a period of revolutionary change in sensibilities and in institutional arrangements that became irresistible in the 1960s. I am perhaps one of the youngest people on this planet to remember how the world was before those changes overtook the world.
I guess I should be more understanding of people who haven’t experienced that change. And more sympathetic as well. They have missed out on an exciting ride.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/188_10_190508/letters_190508_fm-1.html
With respect LE @177.
PC I searched a database called EBSCO Australian and New Zealand Reference Centre, it has most Australian newspapers and news feeds, but it wouldn’t cover blogs etc. The point is the mainstream news coverage was very small and died out almost immediately, which I think is justification for saying most Australians weren’t interested in it, probably didn’t even know about it. So, a storm in a teacup.
Clearly, I’m not dragging the thread off-topic, I’m the one keeping it going! The reason I mentioned Mark’s point about the ‘storm in a teacup’ response was that the original topic seemed to be dying out. That’s another thing about the PC Brigade – not only can’t explain, not only the abuse, but also always ready to suspect anyone else’s motives. As a way of dragging the dicussion off-topic, I suppose ….
“I was a child. I accepted that somehow black people were very amusing, infantile and not proper, serious grown up people. But they could play the piano well even though they wore white gloves.”
Katz, are you sure you weren’t watching Winifred Atwell?
Either you were a very clever child, or a very stupid one. Stupid, because it was perfectly clear that they weren’t black. Or clever, because you thought long enough to think out that those white people were demeaning black people because they deserved to be demeaned. But, for Heaven’s sake, they were so proper and nice …. and British.
This thread is full of explanations, most of them given carefully and in good faith. Either you haven’t read them or you haven’t understood them. I suppose mindless catch-phrases like ‘storm in a teacup’ and ‘the PC brigade’ act like a kind of firewall.
Liam’s right, it’s Nabs’s shift …
I knew they were white. Yes I was a clever child, as you suggest.
I wasn’t clever enough to work out that they were British or that they were being terribly nice in the way they lampooned coloured folk.
Did Winifred wear white gloves while tickling the ivories?
Nope, none of the pictures here show Ms Atwell wearing gloves while playing the piano.
Another of your theories shot to pieces.
Yes indeed SC. Much of the very good commentary on this thread unfortunately implies that the racism is hard to accept for Australians because Black people are not among us but are at the periphery and beyond view, unlike other countries where “they are everywhere” as someone commented above. But Indigenous people live with us, and among us. They were even here before us. We just do not see them. Never did. It was Terra Nullius from the beginning. So it’s for various reasons to do with our history – which is what all this disavowal of racism relates to anyway IMO.
If we can’t even acknowledge that one skit was racist towards African Americans then what hope do we have for acknowledging our own racist past. All this anxiety to relegate it to a storm in a teacup attests to a deeper anxiety. The defensiveness on this thread gestures beyond the immediate refusal to acknowledge the obvious, to our own shame over our own history of disavowal where Indigenous people are concerned. Acknowledging racism is a hard thing to do. We do not see racism in this skit because we do not see Black people at all. The cost would be too much. We cannot see nor accept that we caused offense to African Americans because that would involve seeing their history, which would then cause us to consider ours. If we see Aboriginals at all, it is only momentary before we disavow them again, and their rights and their country which we claim as ours.
Chris Healy comments on this appearance and disappearance throughout history:
“Settler Australians have, since the beginning, too often thought of indigenous people and hence Aboriginality, as either absent or present – imagining that they were once in place but are now gone, belong somewhere else or out of place, because they are out of time, finished and done for…Indigenous people and Aborigines keep on appearing, often in the eyes of settler Australians as if for the first time. From Bungaree at Sydney Cove to Catherine Freeman at Stadium Australia…Aboriginal people and things appear and disappear from public culture in strange but definite ways. Aborigines are recognized and identified, then they are overlooked and disregarded”
From “Forgetting Aborigines”. An interesting read if anyone is curious on how we manage issues of race in Australia.
Katz – not that I recall. My grandparents were great fans of Winnie’s. Her only rival in that area was Liberace. They had seen Winnie when she came to Perth (“a lovely person”) but, unfortunately, Liberace, in his stage show, told jokes that were a little more risque than he did on TV. Liberace was dropped. I spent hours listening to those Winifred Atwell records.
“If we can’t even acknowledge that one skit was racist towards African Americans then what hope do we have for acknowledging our own racist past. All this anxiety to relegate it to a storm in a teacup attests to a deeper anxiety. The defensiveness on this thread gestures beyond the immediate refusal to acknowledge the obvious, to our own shame over our own history of disavowal where Indigenous people are concerned. Acknowledging racism is a hard thing to do. We do not see racism in this skit because we do not see Black people at all.”
Casey, I disagree – there’s nothing easier than to acknowledge our racist past, and present. It’s completely inescapable. And we see the problem almost everday. There’s an article in today’s West Australian about Kununurra which I couldn’t finish reading. There have been so many articles like that. Government reports, coroner’s reports, on and on, decade after decade. I just finished reading Richard Flangan’s novel ‘Waiting’ – when I saw the subject matter I didn’t want to read it, Tasmanian aboriginals, just too depressing. But I picked it up, thinking, oh Flanagan is a good writer, and anyway, we deserve to have to read this stuff! I don’t think you can avoid the issue.
One of the points I wanted to make – about ‘teachable moments’ is that we lose opportunities to move things forward by picking on this kind of incident – it loses too many people, alienated by yet another polarising, accusing row.
That’s true, it was part of what I argued in the post even, but it works both ways. For instance, when the other side accuses you of comparing a red faces skit to the holocaust, then teaching moments aren’t really going to happen, are they? It’s no-one’s job to spoon feed you. It’s important not to put off reasonable people by patronising or dismissing their views. But you were trolling in order to “prove” that others were being unreasonable.
Hats off to those with the patience to try and explain the obvious on this thread.
Can I just also point out that aside from our Indigenous population, we also now have significant and growing minority populations of African Australians in every capital city and some regional centres. One can only wonder (and cringe) at how they felt if they saw this skit.
I’m not sure that things can’t move forward from picking on such an incident, Russell. In the AFL 90s the reaction to the Michael Long complaint, and also the Nicky Winmar chest-bearing incidents from many of the establishment figures at the time was, “What’s all the fuss about? It’s just in the game. We’re all friends off the field.”
A lot of others thought that Long and Winmar had legitimate concerns and they needed to be addressed. I’d say the AFL, along with the media and (shudder) the PC crowd has made a reasonable fist of addressing the issues. There is now a much higher level of indigenous participation and aspiration in AFL than there has ever been. We have moved forward.
The Red Faces performance was buffoonery gone awry. The concern is really the number of people who cannot see what such things do to everybody. It’s not all that long ago at that coppers booze-up video that they did a black face and noose send-up of aboriginal deaths in custody. Harmless Fun?
During the time of slavery in the US, some American jurisdictions banned the use of the word “slave” or slavery”. This would have to rate as an early and important example of “political correctness” enforced by the “nanny state”.
Instead, slavery was referred to a “our peculiar institution”. This “peculiar institution”, it was argued, was not a necessary evil, but rather a good thing.
Outsiders, who insisted on talking about “slavery” were ignorant and worse, malevolent. Critics of slavery did not understand the peculiar nature of Southern society. By talking about “slavery”, rather than about a revered “peculiar institution” these outsiders were bent on destroying Southern society.
History repeats itself as farce.
In Australia in 2009, racism deniers point to Australia’s “peculiar institution” of a wickedly dry sense of humour. According to these deniers, outsiders (and lefty traitors in our very midst) who don’t understand the unique qualities of Australian culture, are bent on destroying Australian culture.
Slave owners in the antebellum South didn’t want to own up to being owners of slaves.
Admirers of racist “humour” in 2009 Australia don’t want to own up to the racist elements in their own make-up.
Personally, I don’t want legislation to ban hate speech or anything as trivial as the skit under discussion. Such legislation, to the extent that it is effective, drives such expression underground.
Better hold it up to ridicule.
I have heard literally thousands of racist jokes during my life. Thirty years ago they were rife. Since then, fewer and fewer racist jokes are told. Even the most bone-headed bore in a bar has learned that they aren’t funny any more.
We’re winning.
Harry Connick said:
Thats a laudable sentiment.
But whilst [white] Americans have over the past two generations been trying to dignify the black race many of the recipients of all this attention (at least in the entertainment industry) have been going in the other direction. Could any art form be more calculated to hold the black race up to ridicule than gangsta rap? (NSFW)
Thirty years ago they were rife. Since then, fewer and fewer racist jokes are told. Even the most bone-headed bore in a bar has learned that they aren’t funny any more.
We’re winning.
Katz, I think they’re still rife. At least in my experience. It wasn’t so long ago I got the “Muslim Pussy” “joke” email in my inbox, blogged about it, and got a full on blog invasion from T*m Bl**r’s monkeys who filled in the entire bingo card (get over it/ sense of humour / can’t say anything anymore / femin*zis / etc, etc.) I remember back in the late nineties/early noughties thinking much the same as you, then discovering the news discussion forums on 9MSN. I was horrified/fascinated to learn just how much overt racism there still was. That culture hasn’t had time to die out since then, that’s for sure.
Katz,
have you ever considered how patronizing and condescending you sound to black Americans with your childhood stories, 19th century history lessons, and such?
You really seem to think that de poor black folk in the US aren’t smart enough to get it like you. You have to guide them and tell them that white people in Australia are racist.
I’m guessing by the Jackson family’s measured and astute response, they are a darn sight smarter than you think they are, and a darned sight smarter than you. I’m sure they have got over their childhood nursery rhymes too, at least.
I look at this issue, and I am yet to see anything other than patronizing white talking heads beating this story up.
Further more, I grew up here, I’m in my 50′s and I didn’t have “Little Black Sambo” dolls or whatever. Nor did we chant racist nursery rhymes like you say you did. My parents wouldn’t have allowed it. Your parents were obviously racist to allow such thing. But you aren’t the centre of the universe and you shouldn’t judge Australia by what went on in your household in the 50′s and 60′s. As far as I can remember when I was growing up we were moving – as much as we could – from our more racist past. The ending of the white Australia policy, the 1967 referendum, the election of the Whitlam government with its socially progressive policies…. don’t know what was going on in your household, though.
This is a photo I took of a toyshop window on Elgin St, Carlton, on Friday afternoon. http://twitpic.com/kt5o2
I am very interested to see how Red Symonds is going to be viewed at the ABC in the light of this, since he was involved in the red Faces segment.
At my husband’s grandfather’s funeral a couple of weeks ago I was talking to a nice ordinary woman, the ex-wife of one of the dead man’s sons. It was all perfectly civilised but without missing a beat she started to talk about how she can’t believe how different Brunswick is now to when she grew up there; she said you hardly ever see an Australian face there now, and as for the shops….. We’d just met and this seemed like appropriate small talk to her. I must have looked aghast because she added, ‘of course I’m not racist or anything’…
Thanks Sublime Cowgirl, I’m from Brisbane and its not quite as bad there or in NT – but worse further south. Plus, you’d have to look at workforce participation to really bear upon the argument – and those figures are worse.
My “what do they know of Australia, who only Australia know” moment happened when I moved to the UK in the early 90s. The thing that I noticed most in the first few days was that black people had jobs.
And in that environment – that sort of humour being out of date would only be questioned by a few ideologues from BNP. It wouldnt “divide a nation” etc etc.
Brendon, I got Little Black Sambo at kindergarten and at primary school. Did you never say “Eeny meeny”? I find that very unusual.
Duringthe 1960s, as I mentioned above, we were moving from our more racist past. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Please point out where I have made any comment about what Afro-Americans do think or ought to think about these events.
And after you have failed, I’ll accept your apology with graciousness.
“when the other side accuses you of comparing a red faces skit to the holocaust, then teaching moments aren’t really going to happen, are they? It’s no-one’s job to spoon feed you. It’s important not to put off reasonable people by patronising or dismissing their views. But you were trolling in order to “prove” that others were being unreasonable”
Anna you have that completely around the wrong way, but once again, it allows you to question someone’s motives rather than argue the point: I was not trolling. I didn’t introduce nazis into this discussion, PC did. The reason nazis are unspeakably horrible is the holocaust. When we are talking about a stupid skit on TV and somone introduces the nazis, where do you think intelligent discussion is going to go.
As for spoon feeding – Mark said that my perspective (personal offence/personal harm) was ‘the wrong way to go about it”. So I asked what his correct perspective would be, and I didn’t get an answer.
Like Brendon my 50s/60s upringing was not terribly racist despite Blackboy licorice, lampstands of naked Africans carved from ebony, and singing along to The Black and White Minstrels etc. Everyone has some racism (instinctive?) in them, but I’m talking about degree and harm.
Don – thanks for the only piece of good news in this thread. I don’t know anything about football but I’ll take your word for it. Some good will come from this brouhaha in increased awareness, but there will also be some reinforcement that the left-wing PC brigade is still here, ready to condemn people they disagree with. Here’s a thought for Liam, Anna and PC – how much did you contribute to keeping John Howard in power for so long? How many crucial votes did the ALP lose because the PC left couldn’t listen, couldn’t talk?
When people use illogical arguments it is common practice to point to something more extreme to demonstrate that if their logic was correct it would make the more extreme thing true as well.
So if it’s OK to use blackface in Australia because we never had slaves, then it’s OK to use KKK imagery because we never had the KKK, and it’s OK to wear a Nazi costume because Hitler wasn’t from Melbourne. Since neither of the latter is true, it demonstrates that the argument doesn’t hold.
I am not explaining this for you Russell, because you are being a troll. But I will take what you say on board and explain it for the ignorant masses who are also reading this thread.
I was not trolling.
Up until my last sentence, about how much the highly intelligent left PC Brigade were responsible for us having Howard as PM for so long. And I only raised that because it seems we have nothing else to say to each other about racism
‘Its continuation with black people stripped the performers of their dignity and culture’ (#14)
‘presentation of insane racist ideas as the normal mainstream view’ (#53)
‘Well when the joke is on me and relating to my colour of my skin it no joke anymore.’ (#58)
‘The international lightning strike response to it’ (#69)
‘it does in fact deride the idea of blackness and invites the reader to laugh at a white construction of blackness that has been deliberately made to seem valueless although the “minstrels” are unaware of this, which completes the joke: they are too stupid to see that they appear unsophisticated – stupid if you will – to our civilised eyes’ (#86)
‘Stereotypes embodied in the stock characters of blackface minstrelsy played a significant role in cementing and proliferating racist images, attitudes and perceptions worldwide.’ (#107)
‘we had narrowly escaped being as despised and isolated in the world as white South Africa.’ (#147)
‘These cultural artifacts aren’t necessarily only justifications for racism. They can also catalyse and mobilise pre-existing racist ideas and actions. … Why else are Aborigines sometimes called “Coons” or “Niggers”? These words are direct cribs from American racist epithets.’ (#157)
‘Five dumb clouts with boot polish smeared on their faces on TV just made Australia the most pathetic fucking laughing stock of the planet.’ (#167)
It may be, Russell, that you don’t think any of these things constitute ‘harm’. In which case one can only ask you what you think ‘harm’ means.
I saw a an African guy go past a similar scene at a market stall in country Victoria, Laura@204. He noticeably shook his head in disbelief.
As for Red, I heard him on radio arguing that the segment was a send up of The Jackson Five and nothing more. A bit of a copout and brings up the other issue of the appropriatness, if that was the case, of a pisstake so close the death of Michael. Which he chose not to address.
PC – I am setting out on my usual Sunday afternoon of family visiting, and I hoped, leaving this thread behind me because it really is depressing that after so many comments, a bunch of people who would all think of themselves as progressive, left-wing, educated and concerned about racism etc could have had that conversation.
Harm – well, if I were to pick at Anna’s explanation I would have started with “So if it’s OK to use blackface in Australia because we never had slaves, then it’s OK to use KKK imagery because we never had the KKK, and it’s OK to wear a Nazi costume …”
No, the point was it was thought OK to use blackface in Australia because it wouldn’t cause any harm/offence. And that, because blackface (and in some ways this wasn’t really minstrel blackface so we’re getting a bit confused) doesn’t signify anything in our past or race relations here. There is no parallel with deliberately and methodically killing 6 million people.
I have to go now, and I’m happy to let this go, but I’m also happy to take part in any discussion that doesn’t include name calling or accusing people of having underhand motives etc
Shorter Russell: No one should tell the truth to ignorant bums who think blackface is hilarious because if they do, then said bums won’t vote for the Labor Party.
Huh?
Telling the truth is more important to me than a million votes for the ALP.
Not relevant, Russell. I wasn’t talking about it being “OK” to use blackface. My point is that either you are being ignorant about logic, or deliberately trolling when you suggest that anyone here puts blackface and Nazi insignia in the same category of wrongness.
You are also being obtuse in continuing to declare that no-one here has bothered to examine or explain why blackface is wrong. In the words of one comrade Bird, you are LYING about things that are right here to be read by all in order to troll. And rather than ignore that, I am calling you on it.
I’ll make one last try.
The way that offensive speech has typically been conceptualised is in terms of manners. That is to say, if you say something that is or could be racist, you have given offence to individuals who are supposed to identify with the group identity being dissed. The way that you escape from culpability is to apologise, and disclaim any intent to offend, and/or claim that your speech wasn’t meant to stereotype an entire group.
If the apology isn’t accepted, or if people persist in naming your speech as racist, then you’re back on the moral high horse. There are other discursive resources here available to those who utter or defend racist speech built into the whole structure of the speech interaction – to do with the claim of non-intentionality – usually associated with “humour”.
“It was meant to be a joke”. The response that it isn’t, or that such humour is beyond bounds, leads to the charge that the interlocutor takes it all far too seriously, and that it is a “storm in a teacup”, which also puts the person who wants to utter or defend the utterance of racist speech back on the moral high ground.
Conceiving it in terms of manners and courtesy again places the person who is offended in the position of breaching a social rule – there are strong cultural sanctions against refusing an apology.
If you say something I find offensive, then apologise and disclaim any intent to offend, and I persist in refusing to accept your apology and maintaining that you were being offensive, then I’m on the back foot.
That’s why it’s not useful to think of all this in terms of offence. It quickly places the onus back on those who want to resist racism, and personalises it as a matter of their bad manners.
I don’t know if I can make it any plainer than that.
Please do excuse the use of words and phrases such as “discursive” and “speech interaction”, but they’re necessary to get my meaning across.
For what it’s worth, Mark, the following:
“Conceiving it in terms of manners and courtesy again places the person who is offended in the position of breaching a social rule – there are strong cultural sanctions against refusing an apology.”
as they say, nails it.
Mark,
I fail to see why a concept such as manners should apply to the context of a Red Faces skit.
Because the whole thing, desipis, has been framed in terms of Harry Connick Jnr having taken offence. The rest of it follows exactly the script I’ve suggested.
Thanks, Nick.
Yes Ketz,
I remember “eeny meeny”. I remember playing with my neighbours a game that we made with that rhyme in it. Mrs Cook (the mother of the neighbours’ kids) came up to us and said we had to use a different word. Something like fairy, or person, or some such. I knew at the age of 7 or 8 it wasn’t right. Thats about 1967 in a working class suburb in Melbourne. I can recall a teacher telling us about racism in primary school. Never saw a kid with a Little Black Sambo at my school or neighbourhood. I can remember vaguely pictures of golliwogs, thats about it. At high school it was a bloody melting pot at a pretty tough school. You wanted to call I– Charles an abo, I wouldn’t stop you. And if you wanted to chant “wog, wog, wog” at S Kyrokopolous, good luck with that too. See you in sick bay. One of the first books we got in Oz history was The Destruction of Aboriginal Society. That would have been in the early 70′s.
To you, all the above might be unusual, but that was my experience. I only experienced racism when I got a job with a law firm as an articled clerk. This Sri Lankan guy got mercilessly picked on. I remember saying to him to stick up for himself and he told me that its best to ignore it.
“Please point out where I have made any comment about what Afro-Americans do think or ought to think about these events.
And after you have failed, I’ll accept your apology with graciousness.”,
The whole question of racism here rests not on intent, but on consequenceas,as per the op. If the Jacksons understand it not to be offensive by intent and they were not offended by it, then that should be the end of the matter. But you keep on hammering about it, which to me is saying the Jacksons don’t what they are talking about. How else can it be interpreted?
I humbly apologize for overstepping and saying: “You have to guide them and tell them that white people in Australia are racist.”
That is what I infer from your insistence the act was racist even after the Jacksons themselves say it wasn’t. How do you reconcile that, btw? But to then go on and insist that is what you are actually doing and I’m the judge and jury on that is going too far.
Mark,
What I meant was, that I see no obligation on a group who performs a Red Faces skit to adhere to the set of social conventions labeled “manners”.
Oh really, desipis? There you have it then. That also logically implies, in your eyes, that they can do no wrong?
I don’t mean to sound snarky. But is there any standard by which such performances can be evaluated ethically in your eyes? Or does it get a free pass on the basis of ‘humour’?
That’s the other big elephant lurking in the room here. And I’d refer again to what I said about turning back the offence on those who are impugning such a skit, by decrying them as ‘humourless’, reciting ‘storm in a teacup’, etc.
It’s a perfect hermeneutical circle for enshrining complacency and avoiding judgement and reinforcing privilege. I will grant you that.
To the extent that your apology was sincere Brendon, it is graciously accepted.
Since when were the Jacksons infallible judges about what is and what is not racist? Some Afro Americans say it was. Some say it wasn’t.
Both Marlon Jackson and Stacy Brown have forgiven the skitsters the charge of racism because they were too ignorant to be considered racist.
If you think that being ignorant is preferable to being racist, then that’s your choice.
Or do you think that there is some other explanation for the behaviour of the skitsters besides racism or ignorance?
I’m amazed at the argument some are using that blackface is’nt offensive here, because it’s no part of our history. It’s as those those people think there’s no black people here either. And as though we have no history of making fun of black people.
There also seems to be an argument which is that if something wasn’t meant to be offensive, then it can’t be offensive. Colour me amazed yet again.
I’m also curious about what Russell thinks might be harmful. There doesn’t seem to be anything on the harmful list here. And the idea that it’s allright to wear Nazi insignia as long as you’re not really a Nazi tops them all.
Man dressed as a Golliwog walks into a bar in Huntsville Alabama.
Half a dozen drinkers leap to their feet, murder in their eyes.
“It’s ok fellers, you can relax. I’m an Australian.”
KatzNo Gravatar
Oct 11th, 2009
Since when were the Jacksons infallible judges about what is and what is not racist? Some Afro Americans say it was. Some say it wasn’t.
Are you putting yourself up as a better judge? If not, whats the point of that comment.
“It’s a perfect hermeneutical circle for enshrining complacency and avoiding judgement and reinforcing privilege. I will grant you that.”
Well said. Its also a way to turn into an international pariah and global embarrassment before you realise what’s happening.
Early indicators are that Indian students enrolments to VIC are down 50% this year folks – and that industry is our third-largest export income earner.
Third largest – in the entire Australian economy.
So, how about some more ‘Hey Hey its 1979′ skits about hilarious foreigners and minorities – or would you rather have a job?
I don’t see the need to ethically judge the content of such an act. We should judge actions not ideas. The idea that black men are inferior is not in itself wrong. To mislead someone into believing it is true would be wrong (and using such a belief to oppress black people would be wrong), but the idea itself is not wrong.
An act involving white man dancing in black face paint is not wrong because an idea it contains. It would become wrong if it was in some way claiming the idea was the truth, or that the idea should be a reason for oppressing black people. I cannot see how someone can reasonably argue that the Jackson Jive was meant to be a serious representation of black people.
I’m not calling anyone humourless; I can perfectly understand someone not finding the act amusing. Humour is a matter of taste I’m just asking people to respect others’ taste in humour. I also understand that some people may be offended by the act, I don’t have a problem with them stating their distaste as long as they don’t infer some form of moral obligation to not perform the act. I do think that the producers of the show had a obligation to not put a guest in the position that they put Harry Connick Jnr in; call it manners or whatever I do think that was a mistake.
No, I’m pointing out the truth.
Some Afro Americans said the skit wasn’t racist. The Jackson’s said it wasn’t racist because its perpetrators were ignorant.
Other Afro Americans said the skit was racist.
Let’s follow the logic of the Jacksons. They said the skit wasn’t racist (though it was offensive) because its perpetrators were ignorant of American history.
By extension, if the Jacksons were persuaded that the perpetrators of the skit were not ignorant of American history, but rather were well educated professionals, then it stands to reason that the Jacksons would conclude that the perpetrators of the skit were racists.
Let’s see now …
… oh yes, the perpetrators of the skit were medical practitioners. Medical practitioners spend at least 20 years in education and training. Time enough, one would imagine, to overcome the handicaps of ignorance.
Maybe they weren’t ignorant at all.
Rather than ignorant or racist, can I go with option C) Insensitive. I think they were insensitive to US race relations but I’m unconvinced that they had any obligation to be (ignoring the whole American as a judge thing which wasn’t their doing). I don’t consider being insensitive to racial issue in another country as the same as being racist.
For what it’s worth disipis, I agree with you.
KatzNo Gravatar
Oct 11th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
“Both Marlon Jackson and Stacy Brown have forgiven the skitsters the charge of racism because they were too ignorant to be considered racist.
Marlon never said any such thing. Lets forget Stacy Brown for a moment because the act was about the Jacksons. And anyway, the Jackson toured here last in the early 70′s. They were still having race riots over in America at that time.
Implied in Marlon’s comments is an ignorance of the significance of black face in American culture and race relations by the Jackson Jive group. He never said those men were ignorant. You are wrong in fact.
“I don’t see the need to ethically judge the content of such an act. We should judge actions not ideas.”
Desipis, can you not see that the words ‘act’ and ‘actions’ are just different grammatical forms of the same verb?
A performance is an action, not an idea.
Mark, you are criticising the way I’m thinking about this, fine, but you still haven’t made it clear to me what your alternative conceptualisation of racism is. Anyway, this doesn’t make sense to me:
“If you say something I find offensive, then apologise and disclaim any intent to offend, and I persist in refusing to accept your apology and maintaining that you were being offensive, then I’m on the back foot”
Why would you not accept the apology? The apology means “I offended you and I’m sorry, I didn’t know what I did would offend anyone” It implies that “I won’t do this again now I know people find it offensive”. But it doesn’t mean “I’m sorry, I’m a racist”.
I understand that Katz, being so clever, would think that being ignorant is worse than being racist. I don’t. I don’t see the point in condemning people for being ignorant. Is any of us omniscient?
It might but without necessarily implying that the person understands what is objectionable about it and accepts that objection is legitimate.
Most people want to avoid offending others, including when we think the thing they are offended by is ridiculous. We don’t wish to give offence but privately we may think we are entitled to hold the offensive attitude, or simply fail to understand what is wrong.
So really it’s a question of the bona fides of the apology.
Russell @ 237. I said I had made myself as clear as I could be. Sometimes you have to do some work to understand someone else’s perspective. I suggest you think on it.
Fine,
Yes I do understand basic grammar. The actions involved in the performance were not the problem; putting on make up or singing or dancing did not cause offense. It was the ideas that the actions were historically linked too that caused the offense.
“I don’t consider being insensitive to racial issue in another country as the same as being racist.”
the act, blackface used on a high rating, all ages, light entertainment, national icon show…has nothing whatsoever to do with America, or even the Jackson 5.
it was a racist act of the most disgusting kind, not a small thing at all, a clear and unambiguous signal to the world, to indigenous australians, to australian children, to good aussies everywhere, that it is ok to treat black people, of all kinds, with utter contempt.
ignorance, insensitivity, the backgrounds of the performers, the backgrounds of the judges is completely irrelevant.
it was a racist act, it modelled racist behaviour to vast numbers of australian children and it demonstrates clearly and unambiguously why australia is not just widely regarded as one of the most racist countries in the world, it proves australia is one of the most racist countries in the world.
anyone here on the thread or elsewhere that is desperately twisting and turning to make apologies for it simply re-confirm the deep racism inherent in both australia’s colnial heretage and its contemporary culture.
Desipis, it’s ludicrous to de-couple ideas from actions like that.
Ludicrous is what you get when you try to defend the indefensible.
That’s simply not true.
Famously, Bert Newton once opined of Muhammad Ali, in Ali’s presence, “I like the boy!”
In the US context that is an insulting and racist thing to say.
Ali had to be restrained from doing physical damage to Newton.
In the Australian vernacular, calling another man a “boy” is entirely innocent. In fact, it is meant to be affectionate.
Newton was entirely innocent of racist motives and therefore his words were not racist.
Indeed Katz.
What Newton said, though insensitive and offensive, wasn’t even racist in that most limited of ways: making a reference to race.
An instructive example.
Katz @ 232 – I don’t think that any knowledge of american history should be a prerequisite for being a well educated professional. If as is likely, they have spent most of their adult life in medical education (and trainee specialists can spend a ridiculous amount of time studying and working at the same time) then they’d have less time than the average person to read about the history of another country. I don’t think USA history has been a compulsory part of the school curriculum either, so it wouldn’t be unusual for someone’s knowledge of american history to be sourced from whatever they’ve seen on TV.
@ 244 – I think your example is a more a demonstration that intent is as important than context. Should Bert have known that it would have been interpreted as a racist comment? If someone rebroadcast the same footage in the USA would it suddenly make his words racist?
Katz…are you seriously telling me that Bert Newton had never, in his life, seen and american film where a black person was refferred to as “boy”?????? pull the other one..
and get a life.
I don’t know what movies Bert Newton may have viewed.
Perhaps, in the course of your busy life, you have constructed a list of Bert’s movies.
If so, the world may be fascinated by your revelations.
Feel free to append it to your next post.
Fine,
So ludicrous that a large portion of the Australian public appears to see them as decoupled, that the performance and racist ideals/actions are not inexplicitly linked?
Eric,
You obviously watched a very different act to me as I didn’t get such a signal at all. Judging by media polls neither did the majority of Australians (according to online polls I’ve seen). The only way you could arrive at such an interpretation would be to apply a context that is not related to either the performers or audience. It seems obsessive to me, to seek to apply such a context universally to everything you see.
So Desipis, now your argument is the majority of Australians don’t see it as a racist, therefore it can’t be racist. Is popularity polls the usual way you decide an issue?
Desipis, meaning and facts are not democracies, however much one might sometimes like them to be. If ‘the majority of Australians’ thinks or believes this or that, it doesn’t mean they must be right. Think of some issue on which you disagree with ‘the majority of Australians’ and ask yourself whether you’d accept their judgement as correct and change your own accordingly.
katz: bert newton is a vaudevillian professional. he well knows what “boy” means, and he well knows the history of film and blackface in vaudevillian tradition. he could not have had the extensive career in the entertainment industry he’s had without coming across these racist phenomena.
it is by no means a stretch to say that he’d seen a movie (or an act) which used the term….he forgot how insulting it is..he forgot to curb his manner of speech in front of a black man. that fact he forgot, or didn’t even think of it..is not proof that the term isn’t racist in australia..it’s proof that australia is sooooo racist that an entertainment industry professional with newtons experience, on prime time TV interviewing a black radical like Ali “forgot”. no wonder Ali went after him. the producers of HHIS forgot as well didn’t they? They forgot to be decent human beings….but maybe they remembered to be saomething else?
fine: you comments are beneath contempt.
PC,
I wasn’t using the majority to support my argument, just negate the assertion that it’s ludicrous.
my sincerest apols fine..i meant desipis is beneath contempt…my anger got me mixed up…will remember to breath next time.
Fine,
You haven’t put forward an argument why the performance and racist actions can’t be decoupled, or why the historical context that links them must be applied. I think pointing out the view of the majority is an adequate way to counter a “because I say so” argument.
Desipis, neither have I proven that I’ve stopped beating my wife.
But let me give you a hint: a performance is an action, or a set of actions. It’s informed by a certain set of ideas that go into the creation of that performance. Is there anyway a performance can be created except through the deployment of a certain set of ideas? Do you think a performance arrives spontaneously? It maybe that the ideas are badly and lazily thought through, it maybe that the audience doesn’t understand the ideas which underpin the performance, but that doesn’t means that they don’t exist.
If you really think that pointing out what the majority of people think is a way of countering an argument, even if you think the argument itself is terrible, then I really do shake my head in wonder.
Erik Sykes, no offence taken.
Fine, the idea behind the performance would have been to create a clear visual link between the performers and the identities they were attempting to represent. The makeup, hair and clothes were chosen to make them clearly identifiable as the Jacksons, not to create an impression of racial inferiority.
The idea of racial inferiority can only be linked when placing the performance in a context of a racist past; a context the act, performers or majority of the audience are not tied to.
Again, you’re confusing intent with outcome. But I’m glad you’re at least admitting that actions are tied to ideas.
Do you think that if something hasn’t got conscious racist, it can’t be racist?
Fine,
Can you point out the racist outcome? Are there now black people being oppressed because of that performance? Do you seriously think someone now thinks less of black people because of that Red Faces performance?
I think that any harm or offense caused by misinterpretation is the fault of the one who misinterprets the message.
No, I don’t think that there are now black people being oppressed because of the incident. I think the incident just continues the oppression of black people. And if you can’t figure out the difference between these two statements, that’s your problem.
Desipis, all these arguments have been countered upthread. I don’t think it’s worth my time to go through them all again. But try reading them again, and then try reading them again and then actually try doing some thinking.
As to your second point – the fact that someone thinks this is just too sad and depressing for words and I suggest you think about the Nicky Winmar incident and all that occurred. Another hint – indigenous footballers having to deal with racist taunts, even though the taunters didn’t think they were racist. It was just good old-fashioned sledging. And then finally change started to happen in the AFL.
desipis @ 257, the name of the act and the song were chosen to make them clearly identifiable as the Jacksons.
The makeup, hair and clothes were chosen to make them clearly identifiable as Negroes. Their awesome punchline was that a white-faced Negro would run out later on.
Bert Newton was never in Vaudeville.
The closest Newton ever got to face paint was as a sidekick of the clown Zag (the other half of Zig) indelible Melbourne popular cultural icons.
No one could ever accuse Zig and Zag of being racist, despite the face paint.
That I don’t follow.
Katz:
BERT NEWTON: Yeah, I don’t think there’s as much pressure when you’re number two, in fairness to the number one. But also, if you endeavour to do the number two thing well, without wanting to sound as if, you know, I’m skiting, anyone who’s number two – any straight man that you see in Hollywood movies or straight men in the old days in vaudeville, and certainly on the television too – the second banana has to know more than the first banana, because he’s got to know what he’s going to do, and he’s also got to know what possibly we have to search for too, and make sure that they’re coming out OK.
http://www.abc.net.au/dimensions/dimensions_future/Transcripts/s855811.htm
no bert was not in “vaudeville” dirctly, but he is of that tradition, as is most of TV light entertainment, especially in australia.
This “you have to work harder” to understand what we mean, from Mark, Anna, fine and PC is, apart from condescending, so counterproductive. You’re actually saying that to millions of Australians, who surely aren’t all ignorant bums, so wouldn’t it be a good idea to put a bit of effort into making your thoughts more comprehensible?
I’ve tried to figure out what Mark meant with his other ways of conceptualising racism and where I got to was put well by Desipis “It seems obsessive to me, to seek to apply such a context universally to everything you see”
I guess that Mark, being an academic, has a well contructed theory of racism – propositions, deductions – that no one would disagree with, actually. It’s how it’s applied in real situations where we disagree. I look at motivations, causes, harm, offence, damage. Racism can be, in real situations, wrong, but not all that important in its consequences, especially if the parties involved understand the broader context. Condemnation isn’t necessarily always the right response.
In the end our, apparently unbridgeable, differences might be those between people for whom theory is very important, and people who just practically deal with making the best of a messy, human world.
“but not all that important in its consequences…..”
jeeez….it just goes from bad to worse to worser.
@265 – Russell, I wasn’t addressing “millions of Australians” @218. I doubt they’re reading this. I was addressing people on this thread, and more specifically you. If I were writing for a mass audience, I’d write differently.
You can keep your ad homs about “being an academic” etc. I do think that it takes some work to understand someone else’s perspective, and that’s not a bad thing at all. Unless you prefer unexamined snap judgements to reflective ones. The former does not mean that we’re actually having a conversation or a discussion in good faith. If your choice is to avoid doing that, I have nothing more to say.
Mark,
Are you not an academic? It’s not, and wasn’t intended to be, an ad hominem attack on you. If you’re not an academic you definitely have academic tendencies ….
Eric,
Here’s an example: my car mechanic for many years was a man who hated the Japanese – to the extent that he wouldn’t work on a Japanese car! I’m certain that no Japanese would have found their way up the laneway to his backyard shed/workshop, but if they had they wouldn’t have had a very nice reception.
He hated the Japanese because of his experience as a prisoner of war on the Burma railway. Many of his mates had died there, he had severe health problems which kept him in and out of hospital for the rest of his life. He was a good man. I don’t think it would have occurred to any of us who knew him to give him a little lecture on the evils of racism. What harm did his racism do. Certainly didn’t affect his son, who’s also a car mecahnic. He does work on Japanese cars.
russell @ 268..racism is not acceptable under any circumstances..you should have pulled him up.
certainly pulling racists up is tricky and especially in australia doesn’t make you many friends..refusing to allow an uncle in law to insult indigenous australians in front of my children, in my house at an xmas was one factor that led to divorce (oh its only uncle blah and he’s had a few beers he does it every year)…yeah he does, and you all let him do it, well unfortunately he is gonna hafta leave because that behaviour is totally and completely unacceptable, especially in front of children….as you say, no black people were directly harmed by his rants, but my children heard the rants, and then saw year after year that these rants were acceptable because no adult ever pulled him up on it.
my father was in a prisoner of war camp from 1941-45…he did not hate anyone, he was in the war to stop racism and to stop hate….that’s what the good ole diggers were there for russell…to stop racism taking over the world…get it?
it is never an easy thing to do. but if we don’t do it, history quite clearly and unequivocally teaches us that these small unchecked moments of racism allow the unending potential for bigger ones to happen, they lead inevitably to bigger things…i choose to look and learn from history.
Russell at 268 : http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26196697-5006784,00.html
“Certainly didn’t affect his son, who’s also a car mecahnic. He does work on Japanese cars.”
Clearly, the son is at the very least a superior businessman.
But you seem to be suggesting that the son servicing Toyotas is evidence of the father’s racism having no adverse effect.
Can you see the problem?
Great son, racist father.
Also, what SC said.
Well, linked.
Eric and SC,
That’s the difference between us – Eric refers to history, and SC to some bloke, but not the one I’m talking about. But I’ll tailor my reactions to that particular person – the whole person, the situation we find ourselves in, and my assessment of the potential for any harm that exists in that particular situation.
Eric – I should have added, I’d also take into account whether I had the right to speak. Your father, having been a POW might have been the perfect person to have spoken, but I wouldn’t have been.
yes indeed russell you demonstrate the normal australian attitude. you are an exemplar in fact, well done. it must be hard to sleep with those blinkers on, especially when you need to roll over….perhaps the lack of sleep…??
“Eric refers to history, and SC to some bloke, but not the one I’m talking about”
So you want to be able to generalise from your own anecdotes, but no others?
Russell, I can’t say I agree with your position that your car mechanic is beyond criticism for his views. I’m not saying he doesn’t have a right to feel anger and resentment but those feelings should be directed at the Japanese military of WWII not the Japanese people of today. He might have been a good man, but good men are wrong all the time. It is possible to approach the issue respectfully without using loaded terms such as ‘racism’.
Yes, Russell, among other things, I am an academic. But you might like to go back and reread what you wrote to see why I might reasonably take your comment as an attack (“condescending”, inapplicable to the real world, etc.)
FDB – Generalising is just what I’m warning against. I’m recommending that we look at particular situations. We’ve all read plenty about racism and we all adhere to the generalisataion that racism is wrong. But before we condemn anyone, we should try to understand what’s going on in that particular situation.
Sort of why we have judges and juries rather than just say ‘well you killed someone, that’s murder’
i am sorry russell but “trying to understand what’s going on in that particular situation” seems to me to be exactly what you are stubbornly refusing to do.
No, more likely the producers of HHIS didn’t “forget” at all. They knew what they were doing and decided to demonstrate their okker hair-chestedness by making a spectacle of their insensitivity and callousness and deliberately allowing an act to cross the line.
Bert Newton, either didn’t know, or forgot, or misspoke on the spur of the moment.
I give Bert a pass. I condemn the producers of HHIS.
“I can’t say I agree with your position that your car mechanic is beyond criticism for his views” – that’s not my position, his views can be criticised, but don’t think I was the person, in that situation, to criticise him. Nor did I need to because his racism was unimportant in its consequences – the only person harmed was himself.
“He might have been a good man, but good men are wrong all the time” – that’s partly my point. We should keep the goodness part in mind before we bring out the lash.
I’ve just picked up SMH’s weekend paper (we’re a long way behind here in W.A.) and read that John Safran (darling of the left wing intelligentsia?) has done a program on race “I have the feeling it’s going to be fine. I could be wrong, but the context and motivation are so different (compared to Hey Hey)”. Context! Motivation! The knives are surely being sharpened again.
” Racism can be, in real situations, wrong, but not all that important in its consequences, especially if the parties involved understand the broader context”
So, Russell, you seem to be implying that racism can be right as well. Is that correct?
I agree that it’s better to talk to people rather than condemn them. But it seems you actually don’t think those sorts of conversations should take place, if the person is a good person, Yes, as you say, good people can also be racist people. A proposition I agree with. But I think you’re really arguing that people shouldn’t be questioned about their racism, except if they’re actually causing harm. But how do we measure harm? Look at the article sublime cowgirl linked to. Where did that person learn his hatred of Japanese people?It doesn’t come out of nowhere. Perhaps he too had a father who hated the Japanese and learnt it from him. And then chose to take it one step further.
Fine – no, I don’t think racism could ever be right.
I do think these things should be talked about – as I suggested earlier maybe Eric’s father would have been the perfect person. I don’t think it’s always OK for everyone to feel they have the right to wade in – I’m talking about these situations where the harm is so relatively slight. We have enough friction between people in the world without fruitlessly creating more of it.
I don’t read The Australian because I don’t find it contributes much to my understanding of the world – to others it might be like The Bible. Perhaps the person in that story was mentally ill.
Russell, try reading the article sc linked to – it won’t kill you. Think about its implication in the light of what you’ve written.
Fine – if you look back you’ll see that I did read it. Is your rudeness because you think I’m a monster – do you think I deserve rudeness?
I’m sorry that you think I was being rude. I certainly didn’t mean to be. What you’re picking up is my frustration with you not engaging with this point. How can we know when harm is being done? When you create an atmosphere in which it’s allright to hate another group of people, then there’s a very good chance that someone will turn that hatred into violence. Stating that maybe he’s mentally ill is a bit disingenuous and seems to be a way of not engaging. You know – maybe it’s because he’s a Leo and they were having real bad day. Or maybe he’s been taught to hate and he’s expressed that physicallly instead of just verbally. BTW, verbal hatred can be incredibly damaging as well.
“Russell, try reading the article sc linked to – it won’t kill you” (when I clearly had read it)
“I’m sorry that you think I was being rude”
So you weren’t being rude, it’s just that I think that you were.
You could have an argument, but you can’t really have a discussion with people who respond with consistent rudeness or by telling you you’re lying, you’re an ignoramus, you’re arguing in bad faith, stubbornly refusing to understand etc etc etc
I’m a bit tired of it; signing off for now.
Russell: “So you weren’t being rude, it’s just that I think that you were.”
This seems quite instructive^^, are you saying damage has been done, without intent?
A majority of people in this thread are disagreeing with you, and it’s this chorus of disapproval that makes you want to disengage? Surely there is no single comment in this thread that has caused you harm, but over time it starts to wear a little thin, right?
You have been ‘othered’, and it’s not really a great feeling, is it? Now imagine it when the thing that has caused you to be ‘othered’ is not merely an opinion [something that is mutable], but something you can’t change – say it’s your race, your gender, your sexuality…do you now understand the harm that happens even when there is no violence in someones actions or their rhetoric?
You’re tired of it? Yeah, that’s understandable – it’s exhausting, it’s frustrating, it’s sometimes even dehumanising.
Furious Balancing. Respect.
Agreed, Casey.
Desipis @ 263,
See the anachronism lurking @ 261.
Told myself I wouldn’t look at this for awhile, but had to write a letter, then flicked over to have a look …
FB – wrong from beginnning to end. Obviously I wasn’t clear in my reply to fine – I was objecting to the fact that he was apologising if I thought he was being rude, when I think he should have apologised for actually being rude. I think the rudeness was done with intent, not without it.
“A majority of people in this thread are disagreeing with you, and it’s this chorus of disapproval that makes you want to disengage” – disagreeing with is fine, I’m happy to engage, but disapproval doesn’t add much to a conversation, does it? When the disapproval is in the form of insults, well, that’s meant to end a conversation and start a fight. (We’re back to the topic of the post again).
I’ve had enough experience of ‘otherness’ my whole life to know that being discriminated against is exhausting, frustrating and dehumanising, thanks very much. I also know that I’ve never had an experience as horrible as I would almost certainly face, often, if I were an Indigenous person in this country.
What made me tired was wanting to have an intelligent, civilised discussion about race with people who don’t want an intelligent, civilised discussion with anyone with a point of view different to their own.
On the contrary, Russell. People with different point of views to your own, and to each others, just had an intelligent, civilised discussion with you.
Russell, I’m a she, actually but that’s irrelavant. I wasn’t trying to be rude and I apologised for it You’ve been arguing that racism is doesn’t matter if there’s no racist intent. I didn’t intend to be rude. Yet harm was done to you. Can you tell me what the difference is?
[Please note, I'm not having a go at religion here, I just wanted to pick something that people can see as important but that also causes similar problems]
Let’s consider some other cases of ‘othering’, say gender and sexuality. With gender we could look at something like the hijab which is something that has been used to oppress and other women for centuries. I take it you condemn any public display of the hijab? Remember it’s not the intent that one wears the hijab but rather the outcome of othering it causes that matters. Note it also doesn’t matter that many women accept the hijab, they’re just ignorant.
And sexuality? The bible and Christian symbols have been used to oppress and kill homosexuals for centuries. Displaying such symbols offends and others queer people. I take it you condemn any public display of Christian symbols, or public reading of the bible? Remember it doesn’t matter the virtuous intent that one displays these symbols, or that many queer people are Christians; what matters is the othering it does to queer people (not to mention atheists, pagans, etc).
Or maybe there’s more to it. Maybe its important to balance whatever harm is done by our words or deeds with the value those words or deeds have to ourselves. This will mean different people have different views on the issue on the basis of their differing values, not on ignorance, indifference or intolerance as presumed by the arrogance of the racially hypersensitive.
I find it interesting that in the OP Anna claimed “Harry Connick Jnr dealt with it well”, while missing one of the important things that he did. He respected the views of those who disagreed with him, he acknowledged their side and put forward his views on the issue. On the other hand we have Anna claiming “Racist”, assert her view, rejecting any alternate views outright, and then claiming to be advocating for discussion.
desipis – you’re aware that it’s possible to both encourage discussion and yet have a firm opinion on the matter, aren’t you? Harry Connick Jnr wasn’t open to being convinced that the sketch wasn’t racist either.
I didn’t ban or moderate anyone out of this thread so I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
“You’ve been arguing that racism is doesn’t matter if there’s no racist intent”
No, I’ve been talking about the harm from any racist incident, and that intent should be taken into account before condemning people.
When I was living in other countries I had to be constantly educated, as I transgressed every boundary of polite behaviour “Don’t touch people on the head”, “Don’t point with your foot” etc but people weren’t angry with me. Other Australians there didn’t say to me “You did what? OMG I’m so ashamed to be Australian”. Don’t we usually take people’s motivation and context into account? Do you think we should forget the ‘battered wife syndrome’ and just go back to “You killed him, do the crime do the time”
Harm – there are so many dreadful examples of the harm of racism in the news. The death of Mr Ward in the back of the police van is a good example – and to form an opinion an that I didn’t rely on a newspaper report, I read the coroner’s report so that I could comment knowing the whole situation – the racism/harm of not replacing the clapped out vans because it was ‘only’ Aborigines being transported in them had to be loudly condemned because we needed to get those vans replaced now. It was critically important and we could get that done.
You and I could go on with any number of other examples: suicides of young men in remote communities, child health …. and we see that per capita there are far fewer resources given to those people. Government action/lack of action can cause immense, obvious harm. If we raise our voices to loudly condemn a stupid skit on TV then we’ll be shouting a lot of the time and no one will be listening.
I’ve known many older people who you could describe as racist, because they might say something like “Oh I wouldn’t trust Asians” yet they are the kindest, gentlest people who, when they actually get to know an Asian – a doctor, a shopkeeper – completely change their attitude. These people don’t need our judgment or our lecturing and don’t deserve rudeness
Racism, like people, comes in many varieties, and reactions to it can be appropriately varied. I think awareness can be better raised in ways other than by shouting ‘Racist!’ at every occasion.
… which was precisely the point Anna was making in the post.
Yet ironically, she still shouted “Racist!”.
Anna, I’ll have to recheck the response by Harry Connick Jnr however I recall it being more of a presenting a subjective opinion, than an assert of an objective judgment.
I’m so over the racist thing now … can we move on to the Midgets Cup?
the link
Hyperbole much?
hrmm, I didn’t read it that way…
300+ comments and we’re back at “Holy crap, I don’t know why I even bother.”
There’s “an intelligent, civilised discussion” somewhere in those 300 comments, that’s gotta count for something…
There was indeed, it’s a pity you missed it.
Anna, I think you are a reader of Threadbared, but for other people who don’t know that blog this is a link with some very interesting commentary on blackface and ‘white’ bodies: http://threadbared.blogspot.com/2009/10/blackface-and-violence-of-revulsion.html
Russell, I offered a long list at #213 of the various harms done, as identified by various commenters up to that point, and asked you a question about it, which I notice you haven’t answered. You’ve just kept banging right on about how the up-themselves left-wing PC types refuse to engage, and are all dreadfully unkind.
Does Mr Ward have to die of neglect in the back of a van before you’ll use the word ‘harm’? And even if he does, can you not see, even now, the harm in any public statement or broadcast that expresses, legitimises and perpetuates (a point you have steadily refused to engage with, all through this thread) a climate of national opinion in which Mr Ward is allowed to die of neglect in the back of a van? There is a connection between these things.
Laura,
I clicked on your link. Quelle horreur!
A couple of weeks ago Stephen Colbert explained the usefulness of shoe polish when doing a little ‘blackwashing’ -
“Prevent your valid criticisms of Barack Obama from being unfairly associated with racism by putting on a little blackwashing.”
“shoe polish – it’s the traditional way for racists to show they have nothing against black people”
check out his segment:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/250386/september-24-2009/the-word—blackwashing
PC not ‘unkind’, rude was the word I used. Though the two probably go together …
Re your list of harms. Several of them are about the harm to our international reputation. Once again there are degrees of harm – what we did to refugees, I imagine, did a lot more harm to our reputation than this skit which will probably be forgotten in about 5 minutes.
The ones about minstrelsy stereotypes perpetuating ‘racist images, attitudes and perceptions worldwide’ I’ve written about. I don’t think minstrelsy has the same baggage here and thus doesn’t connect to or create any powerful stereotypes. It doesn’t for me anyway – for Katz it does.
The only one of your quotes that did make me think, the first time I read it in the thread was the one from Sandra Dayce. I would really like to hear from coloured people about this. I hadn’t seen the name Sandra Dayce before, and this being the internet, I don’t know if ‘she’ is a real person or not. The point raised is a good one – I was just waiting to see if any other comments or cited comments elsewhere corrorborated it.
As to your second paragraph, no, I haven’t steadily refused to engage with any point. You say “can you not see, even now, the harm in any public statement or broadcast …” etc where I don’t think ‘any’ is a useful way to lump everything together, to respond to everything the same way. As I’ve said – I think every situation/incident is different, and varied in its degree of harm.
“There is a connection between these things”
But it’s not so easy to know how strong that connection is. I just don’t see that giving a baby a golliwog is likely to have much of an effect on the child growing up racist. You may choose the minstrels and golliwogs issues to stand and fight on, I’d rather we went for the instances where the connections are very obvious (lack of medical/housing/education etc resources) because it’s easier to get public support for change on those issues, the remedies are obvious and the need is urgent.
Ah yes, the old you shouldn’t be wasting your time with this unimportant thing.
Tell me, Russell, is it more of a waste of time to spend so long on an unimportant comments thread telling the participants repeatedly that what they’re talking about is unimportant?
I don’t know about you, but I’m capable of holding multiple ideas in my head at once.
and how do you prioritise them, you know, for action
They wouldn’t need action if the conditions that produced them in the first place were to change.
But how will things change if the way you go about trying, alienates so many people? Don’t you think a lot of those people, alienated by a left-cultural agenda they didn’t understand, and put off by the holier-than-thou judgmentalism were made just ready for John Howard to pick up?
That wasn’t a THING lying around that Howard picked up; that was how he framed certain things. Like the “Left-Cultural agenda” being wrong and bad, also being monolithic.
One of the reasons as to why all this matters, is the issue of skin colour in broader social and cultural associations and what arises from that. Cultural background should take precedence above the genetic influence of heritage on the content of melatonin in one’s epidermis, but that’s currently not the case. (Nor am I saying that cultural differences are a excuse for discrimination, but they are differences and need to be understood) Filipino upper classes stay out of the sun to stay as pale as possible to cement their social position, and Australians lie on the beach to tan or spray it on. Go figure.
To be a person of colour, you only need to be an Indian, Asian, African, Eurasian, half-breed, quadroon, quintroon, octroon, sequintennialodroon – you get the picture. To be white, you just have to be white, white, white all the way back to Adam, or if there are any niggers in the closet, hope they are so far removed that amnesia and the bleaching effect of subsequent generations reigns (and from whom did we evolve furchrissakes?).
As long as disadvantage attaches itself to these labels, there will be an issue with racism and with the baggage of its history. Blackface is part of that baggage.
And too, there are degrees of racism. Racism through ignorance and through intent are two. In the case of HHIS, through the players it was one of ignorance. I won’t include the Channel Nine producers because they should have known better. That was excused (by HCJr) and apologies were given. It was still a racist act, borne of ignorance, but I would think that the perpetrators, being more aware, have learnt their lesson. And others too, I hope.
But it’s disingenuous to argue that racism borne of ignorance is harmless. Many examples have been given on this thread. But racist acts borne of ignorance do not necessarily make one a bad person, which seems to be the concern of some comments (e.g., Russell). Ignorance is a lesser charge than intent, but in the global village, hardly constitutes the perfect excuse. If an act borne of ignorance occurs, the offence is explained, the apology is accepted, and a lesson is learned, then we’re sweet – in the particular instance of the MJ sketch.
However, silent acceptance of institutionalised racism can have impacts that we cannot predict. Everyone has a choice. They can choose to sleepwalk, thinking that “It’s not my responsibility” and “They/I am a good person”, or they can choose to walk with their eyes open. The latter path is the more difficult, but ultimately the more rewarding.
Russell, all sides in politics have their loud, obnoxious, off-putting people. Who’s worse all depends on where you’re seeing it from.
Helen, I thinked his framing was aimed at people already angry at being told they were ‘wrong’ and ‘ignorant’
And the addition of Aboriginal to the list of colour, I left out, though had in my mind – and in a Freudian slip – was thinking of how it’s now trendy to have a bit of native American (if you’re from north America) or Aboriginal (if you’re Australian) heritage, but not so much as anyone would discriminate. But Aboriginal people are dying through institutionalised racism, so I’ll point out the Freudian slip, and just say it was in my thoughts, but didn’t make it into the post …
And don’t I feel culpable for that.
Roger – I worked for many years in the State Library here helping (white) people trace their family history and I never found any trendy joy at people discovering an Aboriginal ancestor. I don’t think it was racism – it was just that the link was likely to have been exploitative, possibly rape, and the whole thing too sad to think of.
Russell,
I guess I’ve seen a little too much of the new age movement that grasps at any tenuous link to “wisdom”. The only point in saying this is that it is a little too easy to turn an unbalanced negative into an unbalanced positive without ever achieving balance.
And I worked in the Museum of Victoria for some years exploring the early European history of Australia, so we’ve probably seen some of the same sources.
what roger says
Roger Jones
and
Russell
How many discovered an Aboriginal ancestor they didn’t know they had before?
Usually violent miscegenation was committed by white men on Aboriginal women. I doubt there were many cases of issue of violent miscegenation of Aboriginal men on white women. And if so, I further doubt that birth records would have reflected the origins of any issue.
Again, in Victoria, most long-term relationships were between white men and Aboriginal women. I suppose that in those cases the race of the mother may have been concealed in the marriage records. Only the birth records of the mother may reveal her race.
This is a very different situation to the US, where marriages between races was for a long time prohibited and where the institution of slavery enabled violent miscegenation with impunity to the white, free man.
In the case of the US racism was thoroughly institutionalised even in aspects of sexual relations between formally free (i.e., non-slave) individuals of different races, whereas in Victoria and probably in other colonies as well the law did not prohibit sexual relations between individuals of different races.
Katz – yes, ancestor was the wrong word. It was usually finding that great-great grandfather had these children, and oh!, was also registered as the father of a child in some other place, and the mother’s family was Aboriginal. Then we see that GG Grandfather owned several pubs in country towns, including that one … Then the absence of many further records probably means poverty and things not going well for that other family, so that in the end people don’t really want to know if they have a fourth cousin somewhere or not. Maybe guilt at all the privilege coming down their side of the family, or maybe just not seeing anyway of dealing with such re-discovered connections.
I’m just looking at the latest Medical Journal of Australia, and at an article “Are we really committed to making a difference?” The author’s refer to The Gardener’s Tale which turns out to not be one of the Canterbury Tales but a story in an article you can find on the web called “Levels of racism: a theoretic framework and a Gardener’s Tale” in which the author concludes that “the fact that institutionalized racism is the most fundamental of the 3 levels and must be addressed for important change to occur. Finally, it provides the insight that once institutionalized racism is addressed, the other levels of racism may cure themselves over time”. We might hope so.
Katz, would you say that one of the differences on this thread is that difference between people who wouldn’t compromise their principles for the sake of power (which I think you said), and people who think that it’s OK to compromise a bit because at least being in power enables you make some difference (I’m assuming that’s Gillard’s position)?
institutionalized racism: golliwogs, blackface, statues of black men on one leg
as we address these…hand in hand with the lack of medical/housing/education etc resources so russell we address racism
and i have in my hand a piece of paper which says hitler will never invade poland…i have sensibly compromised, remaining in power so that i can make a real difference over the long term.
Eric – the Gardener’s Tale was meaning more that we should first fix the basic things that government’s control ….
I take it your sarcasm puts you in the purists camp – no compromising.
I’m not saying one or the other is right – not being an academic I can give myself permission to move around as it suits me – but if Gillard’s reasoning is “this is not worth being wedged into another 12 years in opposition, because I can do a lot more good with my hands on the levers of power” then I think she’s probably right. On the other hand I’m a Greens voter, which means I can be a purist when I want to.
The reasons for the controversy around the events which sparked this conversation are so obvious to me I’m disinclined to comment further on them.
I was quite interested in Mark’s contribution about ‘offence’ some time back in the conversation. It made me think a bit more about harm in humour.
I’m left wondering when humour doesn’t potentially cause harm, and whether that’s enough of a reason for some humour to be avoided. Is it possible that pointed satirical work directed at views with which I, for one, disagree could cause harm simply by contributing to a further entrenchment of those views and all the consequences that flow from that? Is it possible that even self-deprecating humour causes harm by virtue of potentially destructive self-criticism being perceived as a socially rewarded? What on Earth do we do about slapstick?
In a world in which, for example, an ill-advised attempt at jocularity on facebook can lead to the breakdown of ‘friend’ships, perhaps our perception of the harm in humour needs to be more refined than before. And maybe, knowing the risks of the harm that may be caused, we would be prepared to still make the joke and face the consequences. Maybe that’s exactly the choice that the peole involved with Hey, Hey, It’s Saturday made.
“The idea that black men are inferior is not in itself wrong. To mislead someone into believing it is true would be wrong (and using such a belief to oppress black people would be wrong), but the idea itself is not wrong.”
100 fucking comments and no one has called this for the offensive garbage that it is….
“In the Australian vernacular, calling another man a “boy” is entirely innocent. In fact, it is meant to be affectionate.”
Unless you have dark skin, then it is offensive and patronising.
Too true Jules.
Token was right.
jules #331,
I hadn’t seen that one – my brain melted at “we must judge actions, not ideas”, said “move on, no life here”, but you’re right, the statement you quote is indefensible.
Of course Jules has some persuasive examples or at least one persuasive example of where the word “boy” used in the Australian vernacular of 1979 or before was used in an offensive way.
Otherwise he demonstrates himself to be as ignorant as he is unimaginative in his choice of gerunds.
I have seen indigenous people belt non indigenous people for calling them boy.
One case in particular was a man who never got violent, was a Christian by deed not word, and one of the most decent people I’ve ever met.
I’m not ignorant of my own feelings Katz.
I reserve the right to belt anyone who calls me boy or nigger or coon or chief or any of that shit and if you don’t like it you can cram it.
Better yet go bush somewhere, go into a pub, maybe try Tennent Creek, pick a blackfella at random, walk up to him and call him boy. Then smile and tell him you are being affectionate.
Wow, violent threats from an internet tough guy. This thread really has jumped the shark.
well said jules.
Did I threaten you? No. I reserved the right to defend my own dignity.
I don’t think you people understand what racism does to individuals.
“This thread really has jumped the shark.”
From the individual who wrote:
“The idea that black men are inferior is not in itself wrong.”
Care to justify that statement Madison?
You alleged I offended you, then claimed you would belt anyone who offended you… ergo…
Who exactly, is “you people”?
And I stand by my contention that it is not ideas that are wrong or right, but what we do with those ideas that determines that they are wrong or right.
desipis: straw clutching.
katz: crickets chirping, wind lightly bowing thru the trees the suburbs….
That’s a ridiculous contention, desipis. It is the ideas that precipitate the action, and to the extent that they are linked then an idea can of course be wrong.
For example, imagine I had the idea that you were actually an leader of an alien species who was pretending to be human as part of a plan to take over the world. Following on from this idea, I am convinced that the only way in which I can stop your species evil plan for world domination is to take you hostage and prevent you communicating with your compatriates.
My wrong action (kidnapping) stems directly from the presumably wrong idea that you are an alien.
Get it?
You alleged I offended you, then claimed you would belt anyone who offended you… ergo…
Did I?
Perhps you have comprehension problems. Go reread what I actually said.
You can stand by your contention all you like.
I’ll stand by the fact that you are a racist dickhead who spouts the worst sort of eugenicist tripe and thinks it is somehow justified. I’ll also stand by the fact that unless an idea has some basis in actual reality then it is wrong.
If you want you can try and explain how the idea that black men are inferior could ever be considered right.
“Who exactly, is “you people”?”
Exactly. there may be hope for you yet.
Ok. This ends now. I’d remind everyone of the requirement in the comments policy to debate issues civilly. Any future infractions will result in restricted ability to participate in discourse on this blog. Please take note.
adrian,
Your comment contains the idea that I am an alien pretending to be a human; does that make your comment ethically wrong? It would be belief in that idea that would lead to the harm and I see as the root of the problem, not the idea itself.
I’ve just asked people to cut out the personalisation. Next comment to infringe my request sees the commenter straight into moderation, and I’m not going to be around this afternoon to do any moderation. So please cut it out.
desipis,
My comment is not ethically wrong because it is obviously a hypothetical used to illustrate a point. I specifically used an example so ridiculous that even you would not take it seriously in itself, but maybe engage with it as illustrative of the point that I was trying to make.
Obviously I was wrong.
I hope that this isn’t too personal, Mark.
That’s fine, adrian.
I’d just ask everyone to remember to be civil!
idea: opening tin can with ripe banana
Mark,
My apologies for making things too personal.
adrian,
I understood the point you were making in that comment; I understand that belief in ideas can have real consequences. My point is that your use of that idea in your comment should not be judged based on the actions of a person who believes the idea and causes harm as a result of those beliefs. I didn’t mean to imply your post would be unethical.
No probs, desipis.
Sorry mark, I have an extrememly low tolerence for racism. I’m probably hypersensitive to it as well. And i find it very difficult to discuss racism “objectively” like something that doesn’t have immediate subjective effects on me.
(And I actually don’t find the Hey hey skit racist or offensive in any way. Not compared to some specific comments on this thread, or to the Obama poster after some wit added the word “Socialism” to it.)
Desipis – you might have already said this, but the thread is too long to read, you do think that ideas can be wrong, don’t you. Wouldn’t you agree that the idea that black people are inferior is wrong? Does truth have a positive value, in itself, and error a negative value?
Jules – why didn’t you find the skit offensive? Did you feel that the stereotype didn’t apply to you, or had lost its power?
Russell,
I’ve been talking about right and wrong in terms of ethics or morals. I’m certainly not claiming there’s any truth to the idea. I may not have made that clear.
The value of truth would depend on the context. If I’m telling a bedtime story truth matters little; if I’m proposing political action truth matters a lot.
@353, jules, I fully understand why people can get emotional about these matters. And it’s more than appropriate to have no tolerance for racism. But maintaining a measured and civil tone is still possible, I’d suggest. That’s not incompatible with judgement.
In what context would the idea that black people are inferior matter a little?
I’m not sure that value of truth always depends on context – true is true in any context?
Some uses of blackface I do find offensive.
Perhaps part of the reason that one wasn’t is that its the jacksons….
Perhaps it was so lame the first time round.
Perhaps its worth making the distinction between the skit itself and the motivations of the people who aired it as well. I dunno if I am as accepting of their decision as I am of the skit itself.
I honestly thought the skit was using blackface to make a comment on MJ himself not his race, and specifically on his behaviour since his face caught fire. (You know all the characters in the skit are of the same genetic line – its obvious the Jackson Five are brothers) In the context of people celebrating the joy his music brought them. Thats my impression, the feeling I got from it. Now maybe its true that MJ was suffering from a skin disease, but even so not many people believe that.
And to me in judging any sort of bigotry, thats what I go on. Body language and tone of voice … other forms of non verbal communication. They all determine the meaning of a comment.
Whatever else you can say about that skit the enthusiasm of the dancers makes it clear they actually have a genuine love for that music. I have to take that into account.
Really I think this is a case of an overreaction to a specific event. Paradoxically its also a completely reasonable reaction given the context of Australian culture.
If we weren’t as racist a culture as we are it would never have become an issue.
Thanks Jules – your last comment is undoubtedly ‘true’.
Desipis – ignore my last question to you. My usual stream-of-consciousness commenting while working on something else (my actual job) won’t stretch to figuring out the subtleties of truth/honesty/ethics in any idea.
“The value of truth would depend on the context. If I’m telling a bedtime story truth matters little; if I’m proposing political action truth matters a lot.”
I’m still struggling to find any context (cept the obvious one) where “black people are inferior” could be considered not wrong.
Its wrong as in its inaccurate. And its wrong in the sense that .. its just wrong – it doesn’t belong in the world.
I’d also suggest that bedtime stories have to contain truth of some kind.
“I’ve been talking about right and wrong in terms of ethics or morals. I’m certainly not claiming there’s any truth to the idea. I may not have made that clear.”
“The idea that black men are inferior is not in itself wrong.”
Can you see why i’m struggling with it?
maybe I’m misunderstanding you.
“Last night’s Red Faces skit? Racist. There is just far too much cultural baggage, and are not “post-racial” enough to ignore it.”
I disagree. The skit was clearly meant to be an amusing tribute to the Jackson Five, and Micheal Jackson in particular (Whether folk actually found it funny or not relevant). The skit was exactly the same as countless Abba tribute bands, being part tribute and part send up. Should we now believe all Abba tribute bands are promoting racism against Swedes? Surely not even the most sensitive person could believe such a thing.
I note many commenters have assumed “blackface” is always racist because of its history. I suggest such folks have at best a limited undertstanding of that history because, as with most things in life, the reality is much more complicated. Take Al Jolson, probably the best known “blackface” performer. Jolson was a tireless campaigner for African-American civil liberties. He was well respected in the black community, his funeral being attended by dozens of African-Americans including representatives from African-American actor guilds.
While the skit itself was not racist, the Kamahl cartoon image flashed up during the performance was. It crossed the line as it made an innocent skit seem like an attempt to ridicule all black folk. Kamahl was right to be pissed off and deserves an apology.
some black people liked al jolson.
quite logically then professional TV producers letting amateur performers black up in australia in 2009 on front of millions of viewers and their children on an iconic australian light entertainment show is ok?
phew, that’s all right then.