Are Aussies Racist?

[john turner]

Hmm. I'm not convinced by that article. He mentions traditional blackface performers mocking stereotypical characteristics, etc.

The guys on the show weren't mocking any of the stereotypical characteristics of black people. They were mocking the Jackson 5 and Michael Jackson, who happen to be black - they weren't mocking them for being black. OK, so their paint was much darker than the skin tones of any of the Jackson 5 (as pointed out in the article), but if they had been accurate in their choice of paint, would this make the act 'OK'?

Is the guy who was playing Michael Jackson also seen as being racist, because Michael is actually black but has a skin condition which causes pigment loss? Because surely that guy was pretending to be a black person who just happens to have very pale skin?

from what i could decipher of that skit, they were all supposed to be MJ, no? they all had the glove on. the face paint and the scraggly frizzle-fry wigs were the elements of "blackface" that were offensive - taking physical characteristics and exagerating them to the point of charicature. as for the main guy, with "whiteface" makeup on, i think they were trying to crack a joke there on mj's vitiligo.

the issue is that folks that think skin color alone is a valid characteristic to draw comedy from are racist. they are not treating anyone individually, they are characterising a whole spectrum of people in an unfavorable (i.e. "humorous" ) light based on an irrelevant characteristic (skin color).

i'm really curious at the huge level of defensiveness present by a lot of folks in this thread. were you guys involved in this skit? i have yet to see anyone accuse anybody in this thread of being racist.

 

[jdieh1]

I think that in answer to the OP, yes and no. Certain areas, in which white Australians are the minority I believe are the really racist parts. Places like Melbourne and Sydney, massive cities with many dimensions to them are far to culturally diverse and densly populated to not have elements of rascim to them, yet they seem to have less concentrated racism than say Springvale, near where I live, where there is a high concentration of Asians, to the extent where English is the second language there.

Another point I feel needs to be made is the fact that Australia's sense of humour is very different from America's. In Australia, your best mate falls down the stairs and gets seven stitches, you bring it up every time you are near a set of stairs, with comments such as "Look out mate, better take the elevator on this one, can't afford a hospital trip today". This is normal in Australian culture, very much rip on your mates, and take it when it comes back to you. I'm not saying this is the right way to go about things, simply that's how it is in Australia, and I think that it is all good when you know someone well, but on national television, it is very easy to misconstrue the intention, which I believe has happened.

And finally, Red Faces is something which is meant to be crass, stupid and ultimately, not taken seriously. Do you take what you see on "The Gong Show" to be serious and solemn?

A big +1 about Australian humour.

Our culture is very different from other countries and this case just proves it. We don't want people of other races to be dead or anything, we just make jokes on everyone.

Honestly, I expect people to do the same back, I find it funny.

At the end of the day we are all still mates and can sit down, have a beer and watch the footy/cricket together, it doesn't matter whether you're white, black, asian or whatever.

 

[Marlat]

i think they were trying to crack a joke there on mj's vitiligo.

I am not sure that when the skit was first run, (ie 1988 or 9) Michael Jackson's specific skin disorder, to the extent he had one, was commonly known. I recall at the time quite a lot of people commonly making jokes about his changing colour (for want of a better term) and plastic surgery (most assuming the two were related). GIven that most of the skit performers are now doctors, I assume they know about the disorder now, which is even more on the "bad judgement" list to rerun it 20 years later, but at the time I think it was far more innocent in intent.

the issue is that folks that think skin color alone is a valid characteristic to draw comedy from are racist.

I don't think this alone puts you within the definition of racism. Comedy can be drawn from all sorts of things, it is, primarily based on observation. Drawing a humerous observation from skin colour isn't inherently racist unless, IMO, the humerous observation is linked to a negative underlying belief. If its merely playing on a stereotype, it may very well be based on a prejudice or just an attempt at humour, but I am not sure its rascist. For example the Dave Chappelle sketch where he plays various types of music to different races to see how they'd react. I don't think thats racism, its just making fun of stereotypes / prejudices. An example, is the second special RIcahrd Pryor did (live in LA?) where he talks about his experience in Africa and how he saw a whole lot of black people, but didn't see any (slang for black people) around. I don't consider that to be racist, but that is drawing comedy from skin color alone.

That said, I think the defensiveness of Australians on the topic is explainable for the same reason you mentioned, ie that they are being judged by American standards of racial sensibility and called racist for doing something which doesn't have the same connotations in Australia. I think the show and the performers should be lauded for a massive error in judgement, but I don't believe they deserve to be labelled racist because of this incident. There has been a degree of fall out in Australia over this which has brough up the issue of racism and thats made it into international news. The result is that there have been accusations generally of racism in Australia which I suppose people are defensice about. Then again, I think any Australia who thinks that this was not a grave error of judgement seriously needs to take a look at themselves.

 

[Marlat]

Of course...maybe Australians arn't helping themselves:

Golliwogs banished after Hey Hey It's Saturday blackface row

Invalid Link Removed

THEY were popular toys for generations of children but now golliwogs have become casualties of the Hey Hey It's Saturday blackface controversy - banished to the back of some shops to keep them out of the public eye.

Melbourne toy store Dafel, which has sold dolls and bears for more than 70 years, relocated golliwogs from its window display to deeper inside the shop where the soft, cloth toys are less visible to passing shoppers.

Sources said the golliwogs were moved the morning after a singing troupe's controversial performance on the second Hey Hey reunion show, the Herald Sun reports.

The troupe's Red Faces send-up of Michael Jackson sparked international outrage when guest star Harry Connick Jr condemned their performance.
Some toy shop owners claimed that before the controversy golliwogs were enjoying a new popularity with children.

"In multi-cultural Melbourne, our little customers should be allowed to walk in and select a doll of any colour or any race of their choice," said Diarne Revelle of Golliwog's Toy Store in Brighton.

"Kids aren't racist and they don't relate to their dolls as being black or white, to them they are their little friends and that's it.

"We are imposing adult sensibilities on childish desire and fancy. Kids aren't racists - golliwogs to them are bright, friendly toys, dolls, scallywags."

Golliwogs have gone in and out of flavour over the decades but are increasingly being seen in both specialist doll and toy shops.

Various stories trace their origins, but the most widely accepted is that they were based on a hero in a book in the 1890s, featuring a little golliwog character who travelled far and wide with his friends, the Dutch Dolls.

"They are one of our top sellers when we stock them," said Alan Williams, owner of Boast Decor at Southgate.

He said denying kids golliwog dolls because of "political sensibilities" would be a step backwards for mutli-culturalism.

"Children should not be bothered by issues surrounding the colour of the toys they want to play with," Mr Williams said.

"Allowing children to play with dolls differently coloured to themselves carries an equally powerful argument that it helps promote racial harmony."

Staff at Dafel, a specialist doll store in Melbourne's The Block Arcade, declined to comment.

The Block Arcade's centre manager Don Parsons yesterday denied telling Dafel to change its front display.

Source: Invalid Link Removed

Facepalm, Australia, facepalm.

 

[john turner]

I would consider a person making racist comments to be a racist person, or at least acting racist.

I just think that all too often people get the two confused, words or actions that are simply offensive, such as name calling or stereotypes, and racist words or acts.

racist is a subset of offensive, where the offensive comments are based on race. "name calling or stereotypes" are racist if those names or stereotypes are based on race.

there's no magical threshhold between something being racist and it not being racist - if it's based on race and it's derrogatory, it's racist. period. that's the definition of the word.

 

[john turner]

I don't think this alone puts you within the definition of racism. Comedy can be drawn from all sorts of things, it is, primarily based on observation. Drawing a humerous observation from skin colour isn't inherently racist unless, IMO, the humerous observation is linked to a negative underlying belief. If its merely playing on a stereotype, it may very well be based on a prejudice or just an attempt at humour, but I am not sure its rascist. For example the Dave Chappelle sketch where he plays various types of music to different races to see how they'd react. I don't think thats racism, its just making fun of stereotypes / prejudices. An example, is the second special RIcahrd Pryor did (live in LA?) where he talks about his experience in Africa and how he saw a whole lot of black people, but didn't see any (slang for black people) around. I don't consider that to be racist, but that is drawing comedy from skin color alone.

i can agree with that. i guess i should have clarified my definition of "comedy" in the quote you quoted - i -meant- comedy that was negativity-focused or derrogatory, which of course puts the focus, not on the skin color of the target, but on the intention of the comedian. i do think, though, that it's a slipery slope, made all the more slick when the comedians are of a different race than the intended target - imagine that richard pryor skit coming from robin williams.

 

[Dr. Cheese]

Of course...maybe Australians arn't helping themselves:



Source: Invalid Link Removed

Facepalm, Australia, facepalm.

The Golliwog dolls look pretty terrible to me. Just because something has been done for a long time, does make it a good thing to do. The one little brown skinned plastic doll, looked pretty realistic, I hope they don't lump all dark skinned dolls as "golliwogs."

 

[Marlat]

The Golliwog dolls look pretty terrible to me. Just because something has been done for a long time, does make it a good thing to do. The one little brown skinned plastic doll, looked pretty realistic, I hope they don't lump all dark skinned dolls as "golliwogs."

No, its a reference to that specific kind of doll which I honestly thought would have been taken off the shelves for years. I remember them from when I was a child and there is a famous cartoon that has them in (Noddy), but they are basically the European equivalent of blackface and I was very surprised to see that they were still in shops in Australia.

 

[john turner]

Of course...maybe Australians arn't helping themselves:



Source: Invalid Link Removed

Facepalm, Australia, facepalm.

oh jeeze.

 

[john turner]

The Golliwog dolls look pretty terrible to me. Just because something has been done for a long time, does make it a good thing to do. The one little brown skinned plastic doll, looked pretty realistic, I hope they don't lump all dark skinned dolls as "golliwogs."

i would hope not too.

my daughter plays with dolls of all colors both at daycare and at home (she's 2). heh then again, she plays with kids of all colors too - it's like a little u.n over there at her preschool, minus all the posturing dipshittery, of course.

 

[Dr. Cheese]

No, its a reference to that specific kind of doll which I honestly thought would have been taken off the shelves for years. I remember them from when I was a child and there is a famous cartoon that has them in (Noddy), but they are basically the European equivalent of blackface and I was very surprised to see that they were still in shops in Australia.

I watch Noddy with my daughters in the States. The black doll in that program is very dark, but does not have exagerrated features or is ugly.

 

[john turner]

isn't there a comparable "beloved" charicature popular in central and south america that has recently come under fire?

 

[Dr. Cheese]

isn't there a comparable "beloved" charicature popular in central and south america that has recently come under fire?

Another example is "Darkie" (actual brand name) toothpaste that might still be sold in Japan. It featured a minstrelish figure on the tube.

Here's a link:Invalid Link Removed

 

[aborgman]

racist is a subset of offensive, where the offensive comments are based on race. "name calling or stereotypes" are racist if those names or stereotypes are based on race.

there's no magical threshhold between something being racist and it not being racist - if it's based on race and it's derrogatory, it's racist. period. that's the definition of the word.

No, it isn't.

It isn't even CLOSE to the definition of the word.

Racism (by definition, not popular usage) connotes a belief that people are superior/inferior based on race.

All racially based prejudice is wrong, but not all racially based prejudice is "racism" per the dictionary definition.

 

[john turner]

No, it isn't.

It isn't even CLOSE to the definition of the word.

Racism (by definition, not popular usage) connotes a belief that people are superior/inferior based on race.

All racially based prejudice is wrong, but not all racially based prejudice is "racism" per the dictionary definition.

"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"

(first 3 dictionary.com definitions)

and "if [a comment is] based on race and it's derrogatory it's racist" (my quote) are -more- than "close".

and -all- racially-based prejudice -is- racist, as per the "belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement" definition. believing that someone's achievement or potential (or ability, or predisposition, or any other source or target of "prejudice" inherent in their -character-) is somehow affected by their race, is, by this definition, racism.

like i said.

 

[thefruitfarmer]

Racism (by definition, not popular usage) connotes a belief that people are superior/inferior based on race.

All racially based prejudice is wrong, but not all racially based prejudice is "racism" per the dictionary definition.

It's a very "sticky" topic.

The best definition IMO is that something is racist if perceived as such by a member of the group on the receiving end.

What I have noticed is that, as a white, middle class ( to some extent ) and middle aged ( almost ) male that I am hardly ever on the receiving end of any racial prejudice, do not expect it and consequently do not always perceive it, unless I make an effort to do so.

 

[Happynoj]

the face paint and the scraggly frizzle-fry wigs were the elements of "blackface" that were offensive - taking physical characteristics and exagerating them to the point of charicature.

You see, this is the problem. You can't see past the costume. They were dressed up as caricatures, but the point of the skit wasn't that they were black. The point was that they were the Jackson 5 (as referenced by the title 'Jackson Jive'). The Jackson 5 were black, and they had big hair. Making the hair bigger isn't a racist joke - its a poke at the fashion and hair-styles from when the Jackson 5 were big. The black skin isn't racist - OK, it is darker than the actual skin tones of the Jackson 5, but as I asked earlier in the thread, if they had been colour-accurate in their choice of makeup, would you think that it was acceptable?

For reference, here is a photo of the Jackson 5:

Link Removed

as for the main guy, with "whiteface" makeup on, i think they were trying to crack a joke there on mj's vitiligo.

Yes, they probably were a little bit. When they originally appeared on the show their Michael had black skin. For their reappearance, they deliberately made it obvious that his skin was a different colour, to show the changes that had occurred since the first show - they weren't laughing at the fact that he had the disease.

the issue is that folks that think skin color alone is a valid characteristic to draw comedy from are racist. they are not treating anyone individually, they are characterising a whole spectrum of people in an unfavorable (i.e. "humorous" ) light based on an irrelevant characteristic (skin color).

The issue is that for some reason, America seems to think that the joke was that they were a bunch of white guys dressed up as black guys. That wasn't the joke. The joke was that they were a caricature of the Jackson 5, who HAPPEN to be black. They didn't pick the Jackson 5 because they were black. They picked the Jackson 5 because they were a famous group at the time They danced around in a silly way because the Jackson 5 had choreographed dance routines, not because they were black.

 

[Simo98]

"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"

(first 3 dictionary.com definitions)

and "if [a comment is] based on race and it's derrogatory it's racist" (my quote) are -more- than "close".

and -all- racially-based prejudice -is- racist, as per the "belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement" definition. believing that someone's achievement or potential (or ability, or predisposition, or any other source or target of "prejudice" inherent in their -character-) is somehow affected by their race, is, by this definition, racism.

like i said.

Read the three definitions seperate without highlighting little bits.

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

No where in there does it say 'calling someone a nasty name'

Just because i my younger brother 'Stimpy', its doesn't mean i hate him, it doesn't mean i am discriminating against him, or treating him unjustly. in that case its not even offensive.

Calling someone a name is not racist in my books. If the said person doesn't like it and wants you to stop, yet you keep doing it, it becomes harrasment, but its not racism, you can do exactly the same thing to a person of your own race and its not called racism? no why should it be different if the person is of a different race?

Saying i (im white caucasian, i burn really quick in th sun) can call white people names, but not call asians names IS racist because it is treating two people of different races with different rules.

This skit is simply (in my opinion) is a group of people dressed up in over the top characatures of a celebrity group. If they had come out scantily clad wearing stuffed pushup bras and miniskirts and done a Pussy Cat Dolls song would it be racist, even sexist?? no, everyone would have had a good laugh about it and it probably would not have even been shown overseas.

 

[john turner]

You see, this is the problem. You can't see past the costume. They were dressed up as caricatures, but the point of the skit wasn't that they were black. The point was that they were the Jackson 5 (as referenced by the title 'Jackson Jive'). The Jackson 5 were black, and they had big hair. Making the hair bigger isn't a racist joke - its a poke at the fashion and hair-styles from when the Jackson 5 were big. The black skin isn't racist - OK, it is darker than the actual skin tones of the Jackson 5, but as I asked earlier in the thread, if they had been colour-accurate in their choice of makeup, would you think that it was acceptable?

and yet, they all wore one glove, ala billy jean-era mj. the j5 never did that, to the best of my knowledge - mj did it, apparently to hide the early stages of his vitiligo.

as far as what "i" would find acceptable, it would probably have to start with something showing a little bit of effort and talent, neither of which i saw in that video, either in the performance or in the costuming. but ultimately this isn't about what i would find acceptable, but what is considered "socially acceptable".

For reference, here is a photo of the Jackson 5:

Link Removed

again, were they mocking the j5 or mj? hard to tell.

Yes, they probably were a little bit. When they originally appeared on the show their Michael had black skin. For their reappearance, they deliberately made it obvious that his skin was a different colour, to show the changes that had occurred since the first show - they weren't laughing at the fact that he had the disease.

no, they were mocking his "mysterious" skin color change. which was due to the disease.

The issue is that for some reason, America seems to think that the joke was that they were a bunch of white guys dressed up as black guys. That wasn't the joke. The joke was that they were a caricature of the Jackson 5, who HAPPEN to be black. They didn't pick the Jackson 5 because they were black. They picked the Jackson 5 because they were a famous group at the time They danced around in a silly way because the Jackson 5 had choreographed dance routines, not because they were black.

well, i don't know what "america" thinks but i know how i perceive it, as a white american. the main elements of the charicature _were_ race-based - there was nothing else recognizably "jackson 5/michael jackson" about the performance of the 5 main nobs except their wigs and facepaint, along with the whole joke about his color changing with the other guy in "whiteface" - these are all race-based distinctions. even the name -jackson jive- could be seen to imply a lie, meaning that michael jackson was somehow b.s.ing about his skin color.

this whole performance was focused on making a joke of someone whose skin color changed due to a disease, and skin color being the predominant and primary marker of different races, the "contrast" itself has racist overtones. in the process, they used historically racist imagery to hammer the point home.

again, as i've said elsewhere, i don't think it's appropriate to apply the social/ethnic mores of the u.s. to another country, so maybe that wasn't their intention (to be overtly, offensively racist), but it doesn't absolve them from the fact that they're using racist stereotypes to make their (lame) joke, and not much else. whether they meant them to be racist or not, that's what they were. we wouldn't even know about this if they had not specifically resurrected it for harry connick jr, from what i understand. i have no idea what made them think he'd want to see that.

as an aside, african american sufferers of vitiligo, i have read, have often, at least in the past, suffered social consequences among their peer groups because they aren't as "black" as they used to be. ironically enough, here's an article on the topic from an australian newspaper :

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2007/12/18/1197740229199.html

about an american newsman from detroit who has been very forthright about his disease. apparently australians -are- aware of this kind of thing - skin color and its impact on race identity in the united states - and so it stands to reason they should have been aware of how offensive their charcicaturing would have been to harry connick jr.

 

[john turner]

Read the three definitions seperate without highlighting little bits.

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

No where in there does it say 'calling someone a nasty name'

it doesn't have to. it clearly defines what is considered racist from an -intention- point of view. how that intention is expressed is irrelevant.

the term doesn't describe an end in and of itself, it describes a motivation. it is dependent on intent, and as such is independent of execution.

Just because i my younger brother 'Stimpy', its doesn't mean i hate him, it doesn't mean i am discriminating against him, or treating him unjustly. in that case its not even offensive.

what does this have to do with anything?

Calling someone a name is not racist in my books. If the said person doesn't like it and wants you to stop, yet you keep doing it, it becomes harrasment, but its not racism, you can do exactly the same thing to a person of your own race and its not called racism? no why should it be different if the person is of a different race?

again, if that "name" is race-related and derrogatory, indicating a racial distinction and a negative stereotype or insult related to and solely based on that disntinction, then i'm sorry but it is.

Saying i (im white caucasian, i burn really quick in th sun) can call white people names, but not call asians names IS racist because it is treating two people of different races with different rules.

cool story bro. what does this have to do with anything?

This skit is simply (in my opinion) is a group of people dressed up in over the top characatures of a celebrity group. If they had come out scantily clad wearing stuffed pushup bras and miniskirts and done a Pussy Cat Dolls song would it be racist, even sexist?? no, everyone would have had a good laugh about it and it probably would not have even been shown overseas.

actually, that's a good point. men performing in drag, with exagerated female "proportions" is generally just considered humor, and not found offensive, at least to the best of my knowledge.

i can, however, conceive of societies that would be offended by this kind of behavior, considering it degrading to women.

i have stated numerous times that i don't think that we can apply the ethics and social mores of the u.s. to someplace like australia that followed a different social development over the years.

that doesn't change the fact that such a performance as the "jackson jive" would not occur in the u.s., for very specific and obvious reasons.