Hey Hey it's .... Returning?

[Prospector]

Agent,

To be fair, there still hasn't, to my mind, been demosntrated how the skit was *racist* as defined by either the dictionary, or the wiki link you posted. It's too easy to scream racism over any perceived sleight involving a minority. .

Hi Wayne, I posted similar before but I will try explain why painted BLACK faces is racist. It also explains why those seemingly harmless Balck and White Minstrel shows perpetuated the racist theme and using the beloved wiki again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface

Blackface, in the narrow sense, is a style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States, used to take on the appearance of certain archetypes of American racism, especially those of the "happy-go-lucky darky on the plantation" or the "dandified coon ". (my bold for you Mr Burns)
Blackface was an important performance tradition in the American theater for roughly 100 years beginning around 1830. It quickly became popular overseas, particularly so in Britain, where the tradition lasted even longer than in the US, occurring on primetime TV as late as 1978[2] and 1981.[3] In both the United States and Britain, blackface was most commonly used in the minstrel performance tradition, but it predates that tradition, and it survived long past the heyday of the minstrel show. White blackface performers in the past used burnt cork and later greasepaint or shoe polish to blacken their skin and exaggerate their lips, often wearing woolly wigs, gloves, tailcoats, or ragged clothes to complete the transformation. Later, black artists also performed in blackface.

Stereotypes embodied in the stock characters of blackface minstrelsy played a significant role in cementing and proliferating racist images, attitudes and perceptions worldwide. In some quarters, the caricatures that were the legacy of blackface persist to the present day and are a cause of ongoing controversy.

It is an interesting read.

I understand where Kamahl is coming from.If you are not on the receiving end it is hard for many to understand.
I typed this as slowly and clearly as I was capable of,so I hope that you understand my point of view(humour)

Yup. And to be honest, I dont think of us WASP's have the right to say that as they weren't offended, therefore it is OK!

 

[moXJO]

I only saw a short excerpt over here in the UK... yep made the news here too.

1/ Who gives a crap about the pompous Yank? We nee do be concerned about how it interplays with Aussie culture, not the stinking cesspit of hypocrisy that is dichotomic America, where racism is far more open and overt in most places. The thin veil of equality is totally laughable there. (though impressive in making the political mistake of voting in Obama). Once again Australia displays it's inherent cultural cringe that is still hiding behind the (American style) jingoism.

2/ Genuine question - Why was it degrading?

1/ The look on his face was the funniest part

2/

Because it’s an era gone by when we use to send up blacks and make them look stupid for entertainment purposes. Then everyone in every day life thinks its ok as it's only a joke and takes the piss as well.
Being the only dark skinned kid in primary school I took a lot of ****. I remember when abo jokes were all the rage and I copped that as well (not aboriginal decent either). It was pretty bad during the early 80's imo with some real rednecks around. When it gets to the point where a kid wishes he looks like the white kids, something has gone too far.

I remember two cops were fired because they dressed up exactly the same but had a noose around their necks at a party. So at least at some point a line is drawn. When you’re the majority you just view it as funny, and might take the piss out of a dark skinned mate. When you are targeted your whole life, piss taking or not you begin to roll your eyes. Televised events like this always end up with “Hey I saw you and your mates on TV". No problem there. But it can generally degenerate into something nastier when these views are left unchecked. Making it all right to do it on TV, leads to wider community acceptance. And there are enough redneck views in this country already.


The original video was worse than this one. Did people find it funny because they looked so stupid dressed as jigaboo blacks and making comical movements?
Or was it their highly polished wit?

On a side note I don't have a problem with it over all and think it's blown out of proportion. I know taking the piss is the Aussie way and have no problem with it. But I can see if you have been fighting a stereotypical view of your race for years on end how this might piss you off. It was a backwards thing to put on TV. But the bigger the spectacle the media makes out of it, the bigger the divide it will create.

Just to add; I don't think they intended it to go down that way at all (obviously). But surely someone must have seen this blowing up? Or are the producers that far behind they times?

 

[wayneL]

Well FWIW, I still don't see it, in itself, as degrading or racist, not in the slightest. *Everybody* in public life is subject to parody, from that Fabian Socialist tosspot KRudd down. (or should that be up?)

But I accept that others may use it in a racist manner, as moXJO highlights.

It would have been better had it not been done, but the race card should never have been pulled by the American hypocrite. How many negative racial stereotypes do we see on American TV every single day?

Double standards there.

 

[moXJO]

It would have been better had it not been done, but the race card should never have been pulled by the American hypocrite. How many negative racial stereotypes do we see on American TV every single day?

Double standards there.

I'd say he was just protecting his entertainment career. Otherwise the US media would have eaten him up alive, along with a lot of his fans

 

[MrBurns]

Oh well on another note I believe they're giving Love thy Neighbour another run in the US

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_gN7zlpnz8

 

[Prospector]

Well FWIW, I still don't see it, in itself, as degrading or racist, not in the slightest. *Everybody* in public life is subject to parody, from that Fabian Socialist tosspot KRudd down. (or should that be up?).

Yes we see stereotypes, yes we see Rudd sent up, yes everyone is subject to parody, that is not the point. Blackface negatively parodies an entire racial group, not simply a person who wears funny glasses or who says funny things. If you cant see that, well?

 

[waza1960]

Kamal has talked to Steve Price shown on SMH website saying that he has also being uncomfortable with Hey Heys' material

 

[cuttlefish]

I guess, as MoXJO has already pointed out pretty well in his posts, the question is why was it funny - what were people laughing at.

What was the humour value that let it get past the red faces audition.

Well to me it seemed pretty much because of the whole black and white minstrel effect and their whole attire with the 'gollywog' wigs and blackened faces looked very similar to the black and white minstrel sendups of old, and very little like the Jackson 5. Its not as though the parody was particularly clever in any other respect, and the Kamahl cartoon stuck up in the middle of it just cements the viewpoint that it was the racial stereotype that was providing the humour value.

The main thing that annoyed me about it though is that its such flat, uninspired, lame television and in such poor taste. The segment belongs back where the whole Hey Hey show belonged in the first place, which was in a video vault somewhere in the bowels of the Channel 9 store rooms to stay for eternity - preferably a damp one with an infestation of tape eating beatles.

Thanks channel 9 for presenting Australia to the rest of the world as an uneducated backwater of redneck racists devoid of culture, talent and humour.

 

[Prospector]

Thanks channel 9 for presenting Australia to the rest of the world as an uneducated backwater of redneck racists devoid of culture, talent and humour.

Oh, cuttlefish I could hug you! :

 

[cuttlefish]

Oh, cuttlefish I could hug you! :

:

 

[moXJO]

Kamal has talked to Steve Price shown on SMH website saying that he has also being uncomfortable with Hey Heys' material

Once the media grabs a hold of something, they milk it for days. Next my fellow kiwis will be crying foul over years of sheep jokes

Australians just like poking fun at anyone and anything. PC is just confusing our simple way of life:

But maybe from now on, only take the shoe polish out for private functions

Also no jokes about cyclists, sick kids, concentration camps or fatty bombars.

 

[Happy]

....

Also no jokes about cyclists, sick kids, concentration camps or fatty bombars.

Not sure about cartoons on some subjects?

Suppose list will grow proportionately to reduction in skin thickness.


Wander if Blonde jokes are still a go?

 

[greggy]

I guess, as MoXJO has already pointed out pretty well in his posts, the question is why was it funny - what were people laughing at.

What was the humour value that let it get past the red faces audition.

Well to me it seemed pretty much because of the whole black and white minstrel effect and their whole attire with the 'gollywog' wigs and blackened faces looked very similar to the black and white minstrel sendups of old, and very little like the Jackson 5. Its not as though the parody was particularly clever in any other respect, and the Kamahl cartoon stuck up in the middle of it just cements the viewpoint that it was the racial stereotype that was providing the humour value.

The main thing that annoyed me about it though is that its such flat, uninspired, lame television and in such poor taste. The segment belongs back where the whole Hey Hey show belonged in the first place, which was in a video vault somewhere in the bowels of the Channel 9 store rooms to stay for eternity - preferably a damp one with an infestation of tape eating beatles.

Thanks channel 9 for presenting Australia to the rest of the world as an uneducated backwater of redneck racists devoid of culture, talent and humour.

Talk about the media beating the whole story up.
"Thanks channel 9 for presenting Australia to the rest of the world as an uneducated backwater of redneck racists devoid of culture, talent and humour" Cuttlefish says.
IMO a complete over-reaction. Yes, the sketch was considered by many to be in poor taste, but do 6 well educated characters "..present to the rest of the world as an uneducated backwater of redneck racists devoid of culture, talent and humour"? Not at all. Was there any racism during the rest of the show? No.

Other countries have much greater problems with racism than we do, racism involving mass casualties.
There are still far many more rednecks and racists in the Southern states of the US than over here.
I take it Cuttlefish that you're not a fan of the show. Overall, I enjoyed both episodes very much and hope that its back on air next year. If you don't like it, don't watch it.

 

[scanspeak]

Apparently Americans and some Aussies are offended because the act revived images of the insulting black-face depiction of black people (am I allowed to say black people?) half a century or more ago.

But what if you're not aware of "black-face" history?
What if you've never seen or heard of the black and white minstrels? (I'd say that would apply to 90% of the Aussie population). Then it becomes about as insulting as a black person wearing white face paint. I certainly would not find that offensive.
What counts is the INTENTION behind the act. The group members are all Michael Jackson FANS and were making a satirical tribute to him. If you want to satire someone with dark skin, isn't it completely logical to wear black makeup?

Once they realised it may have caused offence to the sensitive/PC/guilt-ridden Mr Connick, they made an appology. What more do people want?

Now if someone like, oh I dont know, TED DANSON, was to wear black-face, that certainlly could be construed as racist since he's an American and hence presumably aware of American blackface history and sentimentality.

 

[Duckman#72]

I guess, as MoXJO has already pointed out pretty well in his posts, the question is why was it funny - what were people laughing at.

What was the humour value that let it get past the red faces audition.

What about the boy who smothered himself in Vegemite last week? Maybe that was somewhat racist? Luckily he used Vegemite which is only dark brown - had he used the very black looking Promite, it may well have led to another international incident!! People were definately laughing at the kid....maybe they were thinking he was a black American slave making a buffoon of himself....come to think of it , the blacker he got, the more people laughed. Maybe the boy was just doing a silly skit......hang on ....I just called him..."the boy", now I'm being racist. If there are any Amercians reading this, I know that your countrymen take offense at that that term and so I apologise.

Thanks channel 9 for presenting Australia to the rest of the world as an uneducated backwater of redneck racists devoid of culture, talent and humour.

Speak for yourself Cuttlefish, Australia has been presented in no such light.

Another example of the exaggerated self-serving pontification being thrown up by the politically correct regulators, who time and time again feel the need to broadcast their superiority by demonstrating how difficult it is for them living with all the heathens here in Oz.

A touch of the Germaine Greers about it...."Oh woe is me...I can't live in Australia for more than 6 months at a time for fear that I might fall to their culturally cringeworthy levels."

There might be a touch of the redneck about me...but "We will decide what is racist in this country, just as we will decide what is offensive behaviour, what defines our sense of humour, and what we think is politically correct madness."

Duckman

 

[Prospector]

Apparently Americans and some Aussies are offended because the act revived images of the insulting black-face depiction of black people (am I allowed to say black people?) half a century or more ago.

But what if you're not aware of "black-face" history? .

I agree, that is part of the problem, but the producers would have known. Although apparently the group themselves was feeling uncomfortable prior to the act and kept asking 'Is this really ok to do this' Dont you think that is telling you something?

Then it becomes about as insulting as a black person wearing white face paint. I certainly would not find that offensive. .

Then you still do not understand what blackface is all about. The history to painting white peoples' faces black comes from the United States as a consequence of the periods of black slavery and was explicitly used as a means of 'promoting' American racism, especially those of the "happy-go-lucky darky on the plantation" or the "dandified coon ".

There is nothing like this explicit use of 'white paint' if you like, in European History (although there have obviously been white slaves throughout the centuries) as an expression of racism.

Once they realised it may have caused offence to the sensitive/PC/guilt-ridden Mr Connick, they made an appology. What more do people want?.

Except that next day Darryl was dismissing it as a cultural difference. His apology was a farce.

 

[Prospector]

What about the boy who smothered himself in Vegemite last week? Maybe that was somewhat racist? Luckily he used Vegemite which is only dark brown - had he used the very black looking Promite, it may well have led to another international incident!!

Was he trying to imitate someone or just make a mess?

I guess we are going to have to disagree on this one Mr D. Perhaps my thoughts come from the fact that a close family member is considered black (not African American though). And so just maybe I have some extra thoughts about what all this means.

 

[Smurf1976]

Apparently Americans and some Aussies are offended because the act revived images of the insulting black-face depiction of black people (am I allowed to say black people?) half a century or more ago.

But what if you're not aware of "black-face" history?
What if you've never seen or heard of the black and white minstrels? (I'd say that would apply to 90% of the Aussie population). Then it becomes about as insulting as a black person wearing white face paint. I certainly would not find that offensive.
What counts is the INTENTION behind the act. The group members are all Michael Jackson FANS and were making a satirical tribute to him. If you want to satire someone with dark skin, isn't it completely logical to wear black makeup?

I wouldn't regard myself as generally uneducated or dumb, but I've never known anything about the term "blackface" until now.

"Black and white minstrels" I've heard mentioned plenty of times, but I always assumed the "black and white" bit was a reference to black and white (as opposed to colour) film and TV and that it was some program produced during that era. I had absolutely no idea it was even a reference to race.

I'd say that the majority of Australians would be in a similar situation. They had no idea as to the real significance of it all (though it would be a fair point that the producers ought to have been aware of it).

It's similar to how during the midst of the global financial crisis, more than one person took considerable offence at my use of the words "Fannie Mae", most taking it as some sort of offensive sexual reference. I actually had to sit them in front of a computer and do a Google search to prove that the term was relevant to finance. And yet it's a well known organisation in the USA where nobody would likely take offence at the word.

Australia is NOT the US. Many Americans have no real idea about Australia and likewise Australians about the US. And nowehere is that more obvious than in comedy - just look at all those "comedy" programs from the US and realise that Americals do, presumably, find them funny whereas they are dull and boring by Australian or British standards.

 

[cuttlefish]

There might be a touch of the redneck about me...but "We will decide what is racist in this country, just as we will decide what is offensive behaviour, what defines our sense of humour, and what we think is politically correct madness."

Duckman

Who's pontificating now!?! "We" includes me "Mate" and yes we will decide what is racist in this country etc. blah blah and I'm contributing my bit so stick that in your pontificating high horse peace pipe and smoke it.. (If I seem a bit abrubpt, we aussies are known for our larrikin style so I'm sure you'll take it in your stride).

And what the heck a nutter like Germaine Greer has to do with any of this debate is entirely beyond me.

 

[sam76]

Is this 'Australianist'?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26186795-401,00.html

nah, just ignorance...lol