This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Hey Hey it's .... Returning?

Should Hey Hey return?

  • Why Yes!

    Votes: 71 62.3%

  • Hell No!

    Votes: 43 37.7%
  • Total voters
    114
Jump to new
MrBurns said:
Try asking for a short black in the Congo where the Pygmies reside.
You certainly get some dark looks, errrr concerned looks.
Click to expand...

How true.

Going along the vine, will probably get concerned look asking morbidly obese waiter/waitress what is fat content of served dish, and definitely will have to run after asking:

What is your diet, as I would like to avoid your problems?

Going back to HeyH it’s S, this little episode is effectively talk of the whole globe now.

What a joke that is.
 

Totally ridiculous, the Jackson 5 are colored aren't they ? so what are people saying, that black people shouldn't be black ? If you parodied Pavarotti you'd put a fat man outfit on, is that fattist ?
 
Maybe, but I'd guess that 99% of people in the Western world thought that MJ changed colour deliberately via cosmetic surgery of some type. That thinking is, or at least was, so common that anything suggesting any other reason is very much in the conspiracy theory category in my opinion, and I think most would agree there.

I've never heard it even hinted at that it was a natural condition, but I've heard more public people than I can remember make comments about what they and most people assumed to be intentional. Your suggestion that it was natural is the first time I've ever heard the idea.

I saw the show and it didn't even occur to me that it had anything to do with black people or race. It was obviously just another in the line of thousands who have mocked Michael Jackson and in particular his physical appearance over the years. His dancing, hair, face, skin, sexuality and just about every other aspect of his life was on the receiving end of countless jokes over more than two decades.

Acceptable? Maybe not. But the issue is about people mocking a celebrity's appearance, not race, as I see it. If it wasn't for the safety aspect, they'd probably have set their hair on fire too, another thing MJ was widely mocked for years after it happened.

I note that the same act has been on the show before and, to my understanding, attracted no negative attention the first time around. But then just about everyone was mocking MJ's appearance back then so perhaps it was more obvious to all concerned what it was about.
 
mr burns

your backing the act then?

seeing nothing wrong there i guess?
 
So, a cultural history lesson.

The issue with the skit is that they had put on blackface - not brown as in the MJ band, but black. Google 'Blackface' and you will see what the fuss is all about. One source from Virginia US:

In the minstrel show white entertainers put on blackface and "imitated" or "caricatured" slaves in the South and ex-slaves in the North.

Probably they did not know what it meant when they put on 'blackface' but Harry Connick did and he was offended.
 
well done prospector..


someone with some understanding of racism i see..

yes it was offensive, yes it was wrong and totally insensitive

blackface was last seen in places like australia and the uk in the late 70's..

seems a few here dont understand what it is still,, pretty sad really.

bringing back a 70's show should not entail turning back the clock to racism..
 

Political correctness gone absolutely mad.

The negative reaction to this skit indicates that we are still decades away from racism being eliminated from society. AND we will never eliminate it from society while we have overly sensitive white people telling black society what they should be offended by.

Get to the point people - what was offensive about the skit?

Was it the fact that some black and white guys painted themselves black? Or was it that the skit made black guys look buffoonish? Or is it just because the English stopped broadcasting the Black and White Minstrel Show back in 1967 and therefore the skit must be offensive?

Pure and simply - it was an impersonation.

If I was to impersonate a successful LA rapper from today .......I would wear an oversized tracksuit, put some large sunnies on, grab a heap of gold jewelery, cover my face with black shoe polish and say...."Yo #@$% my momma". Is that racist or simply a reasonable impersonation of a current day artist?

Prospector, are you really trying to tell us that there would not have been the uproar if they had of chosen Dark Brown Nugget instead of Black Nugget shoe polish?
Duckman
 
Agentm said:
mr burns

your backing the act then?

seeing nothing wrong there i guess?
Click to expand...

Yep nothing wrong with it, why do you assume that black face is making fun of black people, it's just impersonation.

The comedy is in the impersonation, same as a fat guy impersonating Pavarotti.

It's the complainers that are racist because it is THEY who see being black as bad.

I dont think being black is something to be ashamed of but the people who see something wrong with this obviously do - shame on YOU.
 
Duckman#72 said:
Prospector, are you really trying to tell us that there would not have been the uproar if they had of chosen Dark Brown Nugget instead of Black Nugget shoe polish? Duckman
Click to expand...

Yes. I think it would have been far less symbolic of deep-seated racism. Because then they would have been doing a true parody of the Jackson Five. By putting on black polish, they were doing (as I said, most likely very innocently) blackface, which is the 'hallmark' of comedy which is based on slavery and associated buffoon like behaviours and mannerisms.

I still dont like white people imitating black people, but to be consistent I also dont like the odd comedy where black people have donned white makeup to imitate white people. I dont like it, but it doesnt carry the same racial undertones as this skit does.

Mr Burns, the issue is not about being black as such, the issue is that blackface (painting your face black) is how comedy shows parodied Afro-American slavery. It has nothing to do with being ashamed about being black! And as none of us know the cultural and racial origins of the people in this forum you cant really say 'shame on you'.
 
Hypocrisy!

Go watch the movie white chicks where the Wayans brothers (african american) played white girls throughout the movie! PLenty of stereo typical role play of both white culture and gender. Oh buts that different.

 
Like I said in the post above yours Overit, I dont like black people imitating white people either.

The specific issue is that blackface has its origins in the history of black slavery and the parody of slavery, and that is why blackening faces (as opposed to applying brown makeup) is offensive. If they had worn makeup that exactly matched the faces of the Jackson 5 then none of this controversy would have occurred. But they didn't; they did the full on 'Black and White Minstrel' stuff.
 
I think it was cringe worthy and pretty backward, but the guys didn't intend for any malice. Enslaving blacks and treating them as second class citizens in the past (not that distant either), then taking the piss out of them in this day and age might touch a few nerves. Last time I checked whites were the ones oppressing and still have better opportunities. So there’s a little bit of difference when it’s vice versa.

We do kick up a stink if someone takes the piss out of us especially if they are Muslim

I didn't think it was to big a deal but like I said I cringed when I saw it as you could see the fallout a mile away. I'm surprised they put it on.
 
Apparently it's a big deal in the US, we just don't have the same attitude toward it.
 
Come on guys, Harry has a point. This would outrage the Americans. They are way more civilized than us...





 
Dave Chapelle springs to mind. I remember watching him on his show being a white supremacist. I also remember in the same TV show that he had a white slave and his black "bruddas" beat the white guy to a pulp.

The video below is about Dave Chapelle commentating about Michael Jackson. Not a word said in the media. If you are offended easily then do not click on the link. Also disregard if black and white offends you as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEHVR9Hj_b0&feature=related
 
Prospector said:
Yes. I think it would have been far less symbolic of deep-seated racism. Because then they would have been doing a true parody of the Jackson Five.
Click to expand...

Hi Prospector,

This indicates that you did not have a problem with the content of the skit, only the faces being jet black? If that is the case, aren't we all being overly sensitive? Don't people need to do/say/act in an offensive manner to be considered racist?

If they do the same dance moves, and sing the same song, and wear the same clothes but wear dark brown boot polish instead - you then consider the skit a parody! It is a bloody fine line.

I accept and acknowledge the history of the blackface performers, however I'll be damned if I'll be told I'm a racist by someone from the US (from New Orleans of all places). From my experience being in the US, Australia doesn't even get close on the level of racial tension and degrading behaviour.

Duckman
 
I didnt watch the show and its not my style of show but each to their own.
From what I saw on the news and online the Michael Jackson skit was alot funnier then the Abu Ghraib jail show that the US troops did.
At least Harry can be glad that he is not from a racist backward place like Australia and can be back home in the good old USA.
 

Yes Duckman, the issue is really with the blackface - the dance movements and jiggles were part of the Jackson 5 routine and if they had been properly made up (brown face not black) then while it still would have been a crap performance, it certainly would not have raised the ire it has. The blackface on its own constitutes racial slur because of its historical origins. I guess most Australians dont know this

But Duckman, you are calling everyone from the US racists then? Remember, the Civil War (North versus South) was fought over Slavery and the death toll from that event was huge. Of course there are racists in the US, but dont really think it is fair to put Harry in this bag. And a lot of US performers were wrapt when Obama was elected.
 
Lot of people tut tutting...social bloggers can be a modern day lynch mob.

I would hasten to add that despite the insensitivity of the act, we shouldn't let our social mores homogenise and cleanse our differences.
If the intent is to subjugate and ridicule, then rascism is inherent. If we are simply imitating for the sake of being funny, we may be guilty of a cheap and offensive laugh, but its no "white Australia" policy..

America has an unusual moral compass - not a wrong one...it just seems to swing violently on some issues, and remain confoundingly without outrage on racial indignations performed in the name of god or their new fear thee "Old Testament God" - National Security.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Are you Face blind or can you remember absolutely everyone?
Replies
8
Views
724
finicky
The dynamics of money and TIME: crimping cashflow for a period
Replies
3
Views
860
TiminOz
Thoughts on Trading and Investing : Garpal Gumnut :
Replies
15
Views
3K
Garpal Gumnut
November 2024 DDD
2 3
Replies
53
Views
6K
ducati916
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...