Those who are offended would have to be equally offended by the Three Little Maids scene in Gilbert & Sullivan’s The Mikado in which we see a number of people put on costumes and make-up to make themselves look Japanese. People who think they are offended on behalf of others really need to get a grip on reality. It’s all showbiz.

Also, the young doctors won their Red Faces segment 20 years ago, last night they came last behind a belching giant. That also says it all doesn’t it?

[Reply]

Great article Sam. I for one am pretty appalled by the different blog responses on the major newspaper sites spouting the ‘PC gone mad’ mantra. Does anyone in this country actually realise the significance of ‘blackface’ minstrel makeup and how offensive this is?

This isn’t 20 years behind, it’s a century behind.

[Reply]

I also agree with Andrew G. Blackface is racist, offensive and not okay. I find it incomprehensible that Darryl and the producers of Hey Hey did not foresee the potential ramifications of airing this skit. Racism is racism, regardless of whether it is thinly veiled as ‘humour’. And to everyone using the term ‘PC madness’, stop using your hatred for political correctness as an excuse for your racism.I am embarassed that Harry Connick Jr was put in a position where he had to explain the offensiveness of this skit, but I commend him for doing so.

[Reply]

Lisa? Do you find Con The Fruiterer offensive as well? I think not. I think that you well and truly need to put your sense of humour back in. Il Dago toured Australia for 12 months, finishing up last Christmas (2008). Two of the Il Dago guys are from Wogs Out of Work, one was an Indian and the other from the Middle East somewhere.

They had the whole of the auditorium of the Revesby Workers Club rolling in the aisles with laughter, with jokes about most of the main cultural backgrounds and races to be found in Australia these days.

At half time, our table of 10 strangers, of 10 different races, were in consensus, that the great thing about living in Australia these days, is that we all come from so many backgrounds and that we can bounce off, and poke fun at each other in good spirit, and appreciate just how different we all are. It’s like calling redheads “bluey”. That’s how we are in Australia. And as they say; “If you don’t like the place; leave it”.

[Reply]

David (1st Comment) – It’s not so much about being offended on behalf of anyone. I am not offended on behalf of African Americans. It’s not simply ‘dressing up to look black’, the tradition has much more weight to it, and whether last night they were enacting racial stereotypes or not, the skit itself aligns itself with those routines. I am not offended on behalf of black people, I am offended that our country can celebrate the recurrence of a known racist tradition. Whether you agree or not, you are not part of that minority culture and you cannot decide what is racially offensive or not. This one has been decided upon by the black population (and reached the same concensus these days amongst other races) to be racist and offensive. If Daryl had let out a list of expletives, we may not have a problem with hearing them, but would we defend their use as being ‘in good humour’ on a family show?

They came last because Harry Connick gave zero and Red always gives a low score. The final score usually depends on the two guests. It doesn’t necessarily say much about progression, the audience laughed through it all.

Evan – Thanks. There seems to be a denial of the impact of blackface as if we don’t have African migrants here, not to mention the general cultural insensitivity to all people of differing colour.

Lisa – There is a school of thought that the producers knew it would spark controversy but I think that’s going a bit far. It is after all a family friendly show, and Daryl et al have very firm reputations to uphold. It could possibly mean that Hey Hey wouldn’t return again, but Channel Nine is running out of options. A sinking ship for many years now.

David (2nd Comment) – Con the Fruiterer was not of a race which is constantly trying to outgrow the implications of slavery. Also, his racial stereotypes were not anywhere near as offensive as the implications of white slave owners humiliating their servants for the sake of entertainment, comparing them to animals. I have no idea about their show, but I would guess that their Revesby Workers Club gig pandered to a very specific demographic and was equally racist to all nations, and did not touch black face or slavery. Stereotypes are one thing, minstrels are another. There’s a fine line between ‘we’re Australian, so we jest’ and ‘look at the black man dance.’
Golliwog biscuits and toys have not been off the market long, we are still developing. Many areas of Australia are still deeply racist, and are much more violent about their feelings. I’m a redhead, you’re welcome to call me bluey. It’s ironic, not racist. There is no connotation of racism in that title. Calling racism (and things which directly hark back to events which under general concensus have been labelled as extremely offensive) an acceptable joke is a stretch of Australian Larrikinism.

If Australia had the black population the US has, regardless of history, the skit wouldn’t have aired. Fact.

It has nothing to do with humour. It has to do with an isolated racism and an ignorant scope of how such racism may affect the greater world. If you need proof, take a look at how the American Media is portraying Australia, as a backwards racist nation. Joke or not, how far does it have to go before we find regret for our lack of foresight.

And now, i’ve basically rewritten my entire article again in terms of words, so I will leave it open to public debate again.

[Reply]

Samuel Webster; You are missing one major point. They Jackson 5 are black and it’s only fair that if one is to parody or imitate them then one uses make-up to do it, just as they do in The Three Little Maid’s scene in Gilbert & Sullivan’s The Mikado. The sketch had nothing to do with putting down Black American’s, it was all about a parody of the Jackson 5.

Golliwogs are in fact back, or never went away. I refer to the Upsy Daisy character in the BBC’s “In The Night Garden” children’s series. Because my 2yo grandson is nuts about this program then so am I Should we be now be offended and switch the program off?

Btw, the Il Dago boys were really really insulting to Lebanese males, more than any other race. The whole auditorium found it funny, as would any Lebanese would would have been there.

I disagree that last night had anything to do with racism; it was all to do with humour and accurate parody. My point still stands. 20 years ago they won, last night they finished last. That’s a fact.

[Reply]

Dear David,

I would think you are ‘missing the point’. Even if last night’s appearance had not been intended as form of racial humour, but instead aimed at the Jackson 5 as you suggest, it does not remove the racial tones of the appearance. In 1967 a petition against the “Black and White Minstrel Show’ in UK brought to the surface the abysmal nature of this kind of humour and here we are 42 years later doing it down under.

Are you Black? Do you know what it is like to have a history of black parody? Do you understand the social and philosophical matrix that entangles the western world’s view and treatment of non white people?

I don’t care what it was intended as, it is a disgusting indictment on Australian broadcasting that we would allow such a profoundly tragic representation to re-emerge.

Maybe next week Livinia can do a playful little spoof on the women’s sex trade; hysterical!

[Reply]

Yes, it is offensive to parody African Americans by painting our faces black. The reason is that it has been said, by both whites and blacks, that the minstrel routine of blackface is offensive because of its connotations of racial vilification, pertaining to slavery and the ideas of their race as being inferior.

Golliwogs were offensive because the title is a derogatory name for Aboriginal people. Upsy Daisy, as far as I know, is a character belonging to that race. If she were white, with paint on her face, she would also be racist.

Though I left this out as possibly insignificant, Jackson Jive refers to Shuckin’ and Jivin’, which Wikipedia claims “refers to the speech and behavioral mechanisms adopted in the presence of an authoritative figure. Shuckin’ and jivin’ usually involves clever lies and impromptu storytelling, used to one-up an opponent or avoid punishment…used in the Southern United States to mean any type of deceit or mischief involving lies.” Surely learned men such as these performers would have knowledge of the implications of black face, and of shuckin’ and jivin’ and if they didn’t, someone in the production should have. The reasons I left it out in the original article is I didn’t want it to appear like I was on a tirade, interpreting anything I see as racist. It is not their title that makes black face racist, but it does also carry a connotation which is interesting to consider.

Do you think the Il Dago boys lebanese routine could be performed on Hey Hey too? Would that be decent? Possibly not. Context does play into this too.

Whether the intention was to be racist or not, the connotations are racist and thus the action conveys that element.

[Reply]

When I said ‘that race’ in regards to Upsy Daisy, I wasn’t implying that she was aboriginal, but I meant that the race she represents is what she is, in ethnicity.

[Reply]

Golliwogs are far as I am aware, and concerned represent black people. Golliwogs and Upsy Daisy are black dolls.

You Samuel, and JaniceR, who is afraid to be known by name, are still focusing on black racism. It was theatre last night. I say again, the Jackson 5 are/were black, it’s only fair to use make-up to look like them. This is not racism. It’s theatre. I refer again to the sending up of the Japanese in Gilbert & Sullivan’s The Mikado. It seems to be all very convenient just to want to focus on “black” for justification to remain “offended”.

There is huge difference between whites playing no black person in particular in the Black & White Minstrels to parodying the Jackson 5.

Seeing that there is no offence taken with the costumes and make-up in The Mikado it seems that the racism call by you guys is very very selective [to blacks only].

[Reply]

David it is not about the blackness of Jackson five but about the history of faces painted black. This has been a tool of racial vilification and remains a vivid memory of such oppression for many black people. Laughing at such images mirror this history, regardless of why we are laughing and what we are laughing at. Such is the power of oppression and visual representation. It’s like engraving a swastika on a person for reasons that have nothing to do with Nazi Germany. The visual image is still a memory of oppression when presented in the public domain.

This is why the skit is entirely unacceptable and inherently racist. It trades of a method of racial oppression and subjugation. The laughter of viewers last night cannot be neatly separated from the laughter of racist generations who laughed at the minstrels. Speak to some African Americans who have responded in the media; they profoundly understand this enmeshment.

[Reply]

JaniceR; A couple of Black Americans called talkback radio today and claimed that they weren’t at all offended. If I heard your sentiment from say, Marcia Hines, I would accept it. In the meantime I just see it as “theatre”, and in the same vane as The Mikado as this is how it was meant.

Police will tell you that some actions can either be “criminal” when they will press charges or “not criminal” when they won’t press charges. The key is “intent”. It wasn’t the intent of the Jackson Jive last night to be racist, therefore they aren’t guilty of “racism”.

[Reply]

Wow David, that’s some sound reasoning. I don’t know what police you’ve been talking to, but I sure hope they’re not in charge of anything important.

Maybe you should take your legal advice from a lawyer instead of these “police”. Because a lawyer will tell you that what you’re talking about are strict liability criminal offences such as murder – if you didn’t intend on killing someone but did, then the charge is downgraded to manslaughter.

This is an ENTIRELY different matter. Actions for racial vilification, discrimination, sexual assault and other such crimes are not based on the perceptions (or intent) of the perpetrator, but on the perceptions of the victim. So just because you don’t think slapping a woman on the arse is sexual assault, doesn’t make it so – it is about whether the woman felt reasonably threatened. And just because you thought your racist jokes were funny and in good taste, doesn’t mean you haven’t been racially vilifying or spouting hate-speech. Because otherwise anyone could say “I didn’t intend to be racist, I just thought I was being funny”, and get away with whatever they wanted.

Good article Sam. I agree that the skit was in bad taste – not a good idea to go the whole blackface route. But I think if there were 4 black guys and a white guy doing the same skit, it wouldn’t have been such an issue. So I think the real problem was the make-up and the connotations of it specifically, not of the sentiment. And David, that’s what makes it different from Mikado: Japanese people weren’t kept as slaves and white people didn’t dress up as Japanese people in order to mock them. So it’s not people being overly-sensitive to the black issue. I can guarantee that if Mikado made jest of Hiroshima or Pearl Harbour people wouldn’t be laughing.

[Reply]

It is late and I am far too tired to write a lengthy response, so I am thoroughly relieved that all that I have been thinking has been explained so eloquently. David: you are missing the point.

Everyone else: well said.

[Reply]

Bert McGuyver; Laywers don’t arrest you and lay charges, the police do, therefore I will take their interpretation of the word “intent” thank you very very much. The fact remain that it wasn’t the intent of the Jackson Jive to be racist. And to follow your logic of manslaughter to murder the only thing the Jackson Jive are guilty of is “bad theatre”.

The only “victims” here are people like yourself who prefer to be professional or amateur offendees.

Again, following your logic Bert; was Mickey Rooney in Breakfast At Tiffanys, racist? It’s all theatre. The Jackson Jive weren’t mocking anybody other than the Jackson 5 act.

[Reply]

is it political correctness hmmm its a little odd though how it only ever seems to work one way ! It is surely NEVER ok to be insensitive to a persons race creed colour etc..but hardly Harry Connick jnrs responsibility to get narky and speak for America….or was he merely nervous about the backlash on his career if he didn’t speak up and distance himself from it??
The Jasckson Jive are all well eduacted blokes ..the backbone of Aussie society and would -likely- be more aware than any of us that, sensitivity and awareness of each others respective cultural concerns is or should be a given…but they were funny…well as funny as any of the Saturday night dribble was and is.
Aussies still think its ok to refer to the English as poms and freely use the term wogs and dagos…all rascist names and highly offensive (unless you happen to be an Aussie..then its all in fair play) try being a young kid at school and be continually harassed as the “Pommy Bastard” kid ..it certainly is no joke then..
Call an Aussie a “Skippy” and see how quick to fire up most are!!
The truth is Australia just doesn’t get the idea of political correctness or rascism..

[Reply]

jay; You hit the nail on the head with Harry Connick Jnr making a fuss because he was concerned about the backlash on his career.

You say, “The truth is Australia just doesn’t get the idea of political correctness or rascism”. To a degree you are correct. Most Aussies I know, and hear on radio are anti-PC, as am I. I was called names at school in the 60′s and it hurt, but I didn’t need counselling and I didn’t end up suing anybody.

But the Wogs Out of Work guys and Il Dago refer to Australians as “skips” and “skippy” and most Aussies think it’s funny, and wear it as a badge of honour. Like Hey Hey, it all depends in what context a descriptor is used. Aussies like to have a joke, and bounce off each other.

It is interesting to see that in most polls held by various media organisations around Australia, 85% on average didn’t see the Jackson Jive as being “racist”. It’s good being in the majority this time.

[Reply]

Sarah Jenkins; Don’t worry too much about a “lengthy response”. You hold a minority view and I am happy for you to hold it.

[Reply]

This might seem meaningless after the 18 controversial comments above.

But i just have one thing to say to one person.
David Ready, you’re the lucky one.
You know some people stick to an argument which might be bang opposite to what the majority is saying.. and it’s merely done because they are adamant. And those people sometimes get dangerously entangled in what they are arguing about, that their point goes absolutely insignificant and all one can see, is their Big-fat-ego!

Watch that obstinacy, David. It might come and sting you one day. *PEACE OUT*

[Reply]

In a small update, it seems John Safran has impersonated a black person for his new show.

Without seeing the episode, it sounds like it’s more John Howard Griffin than Blackface Minstrel.

-Nick E.

[Reply]

To jump in quickly.

The majority doesn’t think it’s offensive. Keep in mind that the racism which hurts usually occurs in one direction – towards minority cultures. As the majority, white anglo saxons have the power to make our racism, and opinions, stick. We also have a very clever way of disguising and dismissing our racism as part of the Australian Humour. I’m also not surprised that a country which is, in the majority, white, is not offended. I’m also not surprised since we have a very small number of african immigrants.

Have you considered that the ‘australian sense of humour’ which people keep referring to was formed at a time where Australia had a policy to keep non-whites out? The australian sense of humour is not, by design, racist. It is self-deprecating. It is a symptom of tall poppy syndrome. It isn’t racist, and if it is in any way, it’s because it harks back to a time when that was accepted. Surely we shouldn’t condemn ourselves to an ignorant past for the sake of national identity?

Racism is not about Intent. It is about Reception.
You and I could argue until the cows go home, but the fact remains we are not alone in this world, and there are huge pockets of culture (specifically in America) which find the theatrical tradition of blackface extremely offensive and carrying racist connotations.
As long as that is the case, there is no argument here.

[Reply]

I don’t want to comment so much on skit but rather this article itself.

Firstly, there were six performers, not five. You’re not the first to make that mistake – if you watch the clip you’ll see that Harry was.

Secondly, the Chaser HAVE done a sketch involving them dressed up as the Jackson 5 (complete with make up) less than two years ago. Since it was a one off “election special” with no plans to do any more Chaser episodes in the following year, there was little threat to the show. I don’t think it even blipped in the media.

Their appearance was a lot more faithful to the original Jackson 5 – if you had really poor eyesight you might be forgiven for thinking it was actually them (albeit with lyrics strangely relevant to the 2007 election). Perhaps it was this attention to looking accurate that help them avoid scorn (and that people wouldn’t be watching the Chaser if they were least bit offended by the polictically incorrect). Begs the question; how inaccurate does make-up to convey a person or character have to be before it is considered mocking and racist?

What about Chris Lilley pretended to be Chinaman pretending to be Aborigine? Cathy Freeman didn’t seem to offended given that she played along side the character. It was very successful shock comedy, which has scored Lilley a 3rd TV series funded by the ABC and an USA pay-TV channel.

And lets not start about the pasty kid who won Red Faces the week before. He covered his whole body in black – and that was his act!

[Reply]

Shitika: You wrote, “Watch that obstinacy, David. It might come and sting you one day.” Likewise those holding the opposite view and not budging even when presented with the facts, with commonsense commentary.

Samuel Webster: That parody on Hey Hey had nothing to do with racism. It was simply a parody of a few guys dressing up to look like the Jackson Five to play the Jackson Five in the same way actors dress and make-up to make themselves look like Japanese Geisha in Gilbert & Sullivan’s The Mikado.

The Japanese have a horrid history of selling their tiny little girl children into slavery into the various hanamachis in Kyoto. Before the Japanese government banned Geisha from being involved in prostitution, the young girls would have their virginity auctioned off to the highest bidder.

100% of all the black people I’ve heard commenting on the Hey Hey parody, about 15, have not been offended, including the Jackson Five themselves. That says it all. As does the Japanese not protesting about being sent up in The Mikado. We all need to get a grip!

[Reply]

David, your perspective is well understood by all – the skit itself was not aimed at demeaning black people.

Like many who have commented before me, you fail to acknowledge the historical context of blackface.

I haven’t seen “The Mikado”, but the comparison on the basis of “dressing as a different race” is moot. The act of “dressing up” is not the determinant factor. Race relations is based on justice as it relates to history, and is also the basis of affirmative action.

It’s acknowledging and attempting to correct the differences certain groups suffer as a result of WHAT HAS HAPPENED.

Indigenous Australians are less well off than White people on many factors simply because they are born into the consequences of the wrongs committed against their forefathers. Assisting them to eliminate some of the disadvantages they face now is what our society deems as just, righting those wrongs.

Its on this principle that offence is taken to blackface. The method was used to demean them during times of slavery. It symbolizes their oppression.

Just as the term “Indian Giver” is offensive to Native Americans or “Slope” to Asians. The words or actions themselves are meaningless, its the inferences that are attached to them that are unjust.

Do the people in the skit hate Black people? I doubt it. But its ignorant and shows a lack of understanding and empathy, and thats what racism is.

BTW, what was the point of your explanation of Japan’s “horrid history of selling their tiny little girl children”? How is it relevant to your argument? And why are they “tiny”?

[Reply]

Crikey: Political Correctness, has it gone mad?

[Reply]