• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

A proud day for Australia... (another race thread)

Marlat

Marlat

Sep 17, 2002
13,780
51
London UK
Visit site
#1
One of my collegues forwarded this story to me (obviously to make fun of the fact that I am Australian):

Daily Mail said:
Qantas forced to issue apology after 'blackface' stunt on Twitter is branded 'appalling' racism

Australian airline Qantas has been forced to issue a grovelling apology after one of its attempts at social media advertising was branded racist.

The airline had offered two tickets to the deciding game of the Bledisloe Cup between Australia and New Zealand national rugby teams in Brisbane on Saturday night.

Set up earlier in the month, the Qantas Twitter giveaway promised two exclusive tickets to the game, at Suncorp Stadium, to the two fans who could best show their support for the Australian team.

The tickets were awarded to two Wallabies fans who dressed up in 'afro' wigs, daubed black paint on their faces and wore the Australian rugby green-and-gold uniform.
The pair said they were copying their 'favourite player', Fijian-born flanker Wallabies flanker Radike Samo, by blacking up their faces, arms and legs.

Qantas awarded the tickets to the pair, but only if they promised to wear their costume to the game. The airline posted pictures of the two fans on Twitter after the game, saying they had ‘lived up to their promise! Good work’.

In one picture the pair were seen smiling either side of Samo himself.

However, after Twitter uses slammed the 'blacked up' pictures as 'appalling', the posting it was hastily withdrawn.
Qantas originally tweeted: 'We understand it caused offense to some people, which is why it was removed. We are really sorry if it has upset anyone.'

article-0-0D9DDA5100000578-99_468x468.jpg
article-0-0D9325F600000578-420_233x414.jpg

....

It's not the first time Australia's dubious sense of humour regarding racism has caused controversy.

In 2009, U.S. singer Harry Connick Jnr was outraged after an Australian TV show he was a guest on featured a comedy skit of singers with 'blacked up' faces and wigs mimicking the Jackson Five.

Connick Jnr was acting as a judge on a viewer talent segment of Channel 9 show Hey Hey It's Saturday when the skit was performed.

Giving the performers - who had done a similar act on the show 20 years earlier - a mark of zero, a visibly shaken Connick Jnr said: 'If I knew that was going to be part of the show I definitely wouldn't have done it.' He later received an on-air apology from the show's host, Daryl Somers.

article-0-06BE5D29000005DC-448_468x308.jpg
Click to expand...


Source: Qantas forced to issue apology after 'blackface' stunt on Twitter is branded 'appalling' racism | Mail Online

I can understand a couple of young Australian kids not "getting" that this could be considered rascist. But a large international company / a television station is harder to believe.

Interestingly I was at the ballet (ugh!) the other night and during the performance there was a scene where a bunch of young white dancers were in black makeup to make them appear black for the scene. Both my wife and I thought it was appalling, but the people we were with said its not that uncommon in ballet and no one else in the crowd seemed obviously offended by it. Hmmm..
 
#2
***???? I don't see how anyone can think this was going to be cool, at all. Maybe in Australia they think it is? I don't know....don't make no sense to me.

I mean, I can see where the two guys were coming from. Maybe it would have been funny in their private circles...heck, if it were two friends of mine who knew how offensive it could be, but knew that no one would see it but me and other close friends who would understand where they were coming from...I'd be a little more understanding, and may have to laugh at the absurdity. But I'd still be a little upset.

The Jackson 5 thing, though, I can't see at all
 
#3
Painting up your face to make fun of black people. Not cool. I agree.

Acting in a play or ballet which the scene calls for a darker skin tone isn't offensive. It's art.

Like saying you can't ever show a black man in a cotton field again or it's offensive. You have to look at context.

I think too many people get their panties in a wad over these things and jump to conclusions. You HAVE to look at intention.
 
#6
Horny Toad said:
Neither do I. How is this considered "appalling"?
Click to expand...

Blackface - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was used to satire the black community.

From the article:

Blackface is a form of theatrical makeup used in minstrel shows, and later vaudeville, in which performers create a stereotyped caricature of a black person. The practice gained popularity during the 19th century and propagated American racist stereotypes such as the "happy-go-lucky darky on the plantation" or the "dandified coon "
Click to expand...

Not cool at all, but again you HAVE to look at context instead of just tossing the blanket of blame.
 
#8
fenderhutz said:
Blackface - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was used to satire the black community.

From the article:



Not cool at all, but again you HAVE to look at context instead of just tossing the blanket of blame.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of the history of blackface. I don't think this is the same at all. They weren't perpetuating a stereotype. They were dressing up to look like their favorite rugby player.
 
#10
fenderhutz said:
Painting up your face to make fun of black people. Not cool. I agree.

Acting in a play or ballet which the scene calls for a darker skin tone isn't offensive. It's art.
Click to expand...

I agree in some cases. In this instance, I'm just not sure. So I have to ask Mark, did the actors wear slightly dark makeup, or was it pretty much jet-black? Also, why not just hire black actors for the play?

There are two problems with the blackface phenomena: 1) that, as you mentioned before, it was used to caricature black people, and 2) that black people were not allowed to perform at all. Instead, they gave the part of a black person in a play (or film) to a white person, and painted them black. On top of that, when black people finally were allowed to work, they were (at first) forced to paint their own faces black. IOW you can't just be yourself, you gotta make fun of your people. Cuz lets face it, y'all are funny.
 
#14
Horny Toad said:
I'm well aware of the history of blackface. I don't think this is the same at all. They weren't perpetuating a stereotype. They were dressing up to look like their favorite rugby player.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not "the same." Of course they were dressing up as their favorite player. Of course they thought it would be a good idea, and apparently it was; they won. But for a company to choose this picture




article-0-0D9DDA5100000578-99_468x468.jpg





as the winner, and to put it on the world wide web, on their own social networking page is just beyond me. White guys, painted jet black, and smiling goofily. Is an ugly reminder for just about any black person that you will come into contact with. Until it isn't anymore, it just is.
 
#16
macaroni tony said:
Of course it's not "the same." Of course they were dressing up as their favorite player. Of course they thought it would be a good idea, and apparently it was; they won. But for a company to choose this picture




article-0-0D9DDA5100000578-99_468x468.jpg





as the winner, and to put it on the world wide web, on their own social networking page is just beyond me. White guys, painted jet black, and smiling goofily. Is an ugly reminder for just about any black person that you will come into contact with. Until it isn't anymore, it just is.
Click to expand...


It isn't not "the same". It is not the same. You're digging for malicious intent where there isn't any. There are countless instances of racism to be found worldwide. This isn't one of them. Could it perhaps cause one to raise an eyebrow? Sure. But that's it.
 
#17
Horny Toad said:
It isn't not "the same". It is not the same. You're digging for malicious intent where there isn't any. There are countless instances of racism to be found worldwide. This isn't one of them. Could it perhaps cause one to raise an eyebrow? Sure. But that's it.
Click to expand...

I'm not digging for malicious intent. And as I said in post #2, I can kind of see where these two guys are coming from, and how it would be funny. I also said that, although I just can't imagine it, maybe this is OK in Australia. My point is this:

To choose and plaster that photo on the world wide web is not cool.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back