Apparently earlier this month, Harry Connick Jr. appeared on as a guest judge on an Australian live sketch show called “Hey, Hey, It’s Saturday” involving a segment where celebrity judges rate amateur live acts. A group came on to perform a “tribute” to the Jackson Five and Michael Jackson — with the “Jacksons” in black-face and “MJ” in whiteface.
Here’s a YouTube of the entire segment, as well as the apology the show made to Connick later in the hour:
First of all, I don’t care what country you’re in, that shit is racist! Sure, America has a national history of racial insensitivity and outright oppression, but just because Australia didn’t fight a Civil War about oppression doesn’t mean that it is exempt from being racist and offensive. A man in blackface standing alone at the North Pole is still in blackface.
After the show aired, the frontman for the “Jackson Jive” commented:
I want to say on behalf of all of us that this was really not intended to have anything to do with racism at all.
But how could you argue that the skit didn’t have anything to do with racism? Racialized make-up such as the kind donned by the self-described “Jackson Jive” is intended to caricature and mock racial physical features in an attempt to emulate a race of people, often paired with demeaning buffonery, and has been historically used around the world to diminish people of colour. What the “Jackson Jive” did is no different than Al Jolson donning blackface in The Jazz Singer or Mickey Rooney donning yellowface in Breakfast at Tiffany’s — each and every one of these people wore colour-face to play a racial stereotype for largely White audiences, and each and every one of them should have known better.
And if there was any doubt that the entire fiasco was not borne out of ignorance, consider that the “Jackson Jive” know enough about race relations to use the word “jive” in their group’s name — a clear reference to the “shucking and jiving” that Blackface minstrels performed at the turn of the last century.
What’s truly shocking about the segment is the lack of commentary any of the two other judges made about it. Connick was clearly offended, but neither of the other judges even questioned the offensive use of blackface; indeed, the show’s host, Daryl Somers commented that the “Jackson Jive” won the variety show’s contest when they performed the same schtick back in 1998. Clearly, even only ten years ago, the producers of “Hey, Hey, It’s Saturday” saw nothing wrong with demeaning Black people around the world (and in Australia!) by praising this kind of racism.
Later, on CNN, Somers defended the “Jackson Jive” by calling them a tribute to Michael Jackson and essentially calling Americans (like Connick) humorless for not “seeing the lightness of it”. Which sort of makes the whole on-air apology to Connick ring a little false, no? Again, that skit was funny — if you think racism is hilarious.
Sadly, while I applaud Connick for actually speaking out against the sketch and getting an on-air apology from the show, Connick hasn’t gone so far as to boycott future appearances on “Hey, Hey, It’s Saturday”. What the producers really need to do is apologize to the world’s Black community; blackface really has no place in today’s world — whether in Australia or America.
Get off your high horse. Humiliation and ill treatment of African Americans has nothing to do with the past of Australia. That is reserved specifically for the good old USA. If America has a past history of degredation towards a particular race, then they should live with the shame themselves. How dare they expect Australia to live it for them. The HEY HEY skit was a revamp of exactly the same act, performed by the same people, that was originally done more than 20 years ago. It was not racist then, or designed to be racist now. It was simply the show re living its past over several shows, using the same presenters, judges and performers etc now as in the past. A pity the so called journalists who reported this story world wide didn’t take the time to report on this aspect. Perhaps a little insite into Harry Connick Jr. past with blackface performance would put the story into perspective. Talk about a performer covering his arse – good on ya’ Harry.
Lovely to see such a wonderful site. Thank you
Artie Morty@ Thanks for your reactionary response. It’s like shit is actually leaking out the orifice you call a mouth right onto my monitor. In case you didn’t know Australia has a long history of racism;
http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1421&Itemid=106
And where does that racism come from you might ask? Well… it came over with early settlers under the umbrella of colonialism. The same way it was brought over with the founders of the U.S., Canada so on and so forth. And the same way it is being used to label the President as a socialist fascist, czar, Muslim.
Hey Keith,
Harry’s reaction to the skit was about Blackface, and nothing more. His offence was due to the past teatment of the African American race by America. I suggest you actually watch the skit, and listen to Connick’s reaction before you mouth off in future. This has nothing to do with the Australian Aboriginal, as I assume you are indicating by your referenced link. What are you trying to do – get on the band wagon?
Artie, the problem is that you assume that blackface is ONLY offensive because of America’s history of slavery. It’s not. Blackface is offensive because it is, at its root, a caricaturization of Black/African physical features. The “Jackson Jive” used black shoe polish to darken their skin and wore unkempt afro-puff wigs, taking Black physical features to the “comedic” extreme.
The only difference is that America has already had a national debate over Blackface, and we can put the offensiveness of Blackface into a national historical context. But just because there’s a history of slavery in this country doesn’t mean that when Australians don Blackface, it’s not racist.
The act of colourface is racist. Bottom line. Just like if an Australian were to pull their eyes back, colour their skin yellow, and “spreak rike this”, it would be offensive regardless of Australia’s history with its Asian population.
Also, and just because no one called the skit on its racism in 1998 doesn’t mean it wasn’t racist then. It just means that at the time, there wasn’t someone there on the show to be call it racist.
Finally, what is Harry Connick Jr’s history with blackface? I’m not aware that he ever wore shoe polish and an afro wig before.
Artie, I also do think that Australia’s history of oppression against its Aboriginal population is relevant to this discussion. Do you not think that the Blackface depicted in the clip would not be applicable to how an Australian aborigine would feel about Australia’s attitude towards the colour of his or her skin?
Hi Jenn, It was not about an Aboriginal – it depicted the Jackson 5. What right to you have to assume any feeling towards the Austrlian Aboriginal is due to the colour of their skin. That my dear, is being racist.
Artie, honey: I was referring to the link Keith included about Australia’s history of racial injustice. And I fail to see how saying that a bunch of White Australians getting around to make fun of dark skin and kinky hair might have ramifications to Australian Aboriginal people — who also have dark skin and black hair, and who are part of the African diaspora — is difficult for you to understand.
You can mock Malaysians by pulling your eyes back and wearing yellow makeup — I’ll still be offended.
Also, the link was included based on your earlier comment that suggested that only the U.S. is guilty of racial injustice against Black people. That is clearly not the case.
Hi Jenn, You seem to assume racism exists due to skin colour. I thought it was due to one race thinking they were superior to another in all aspects – the colour of ones skin is simply a by product of race. By the way – the Jackson Jive were not all white skinned – they came from various racial backgrounds. And the Jackson Jive didn’t pull their eyes back and wear yellow makeup – they wore costumes that were, however inappropriate, once a legitimate part of comedy. Their act may have been in poor taste, but it was not meant to be racist.
[...] Original post: Hey, Hey – That’s Racist! [...]
Jenn, I agree that this act was racist (oh very yes), but I’m not sure you can take the name (the Jackson Jive) as being evidence of knowing the background – even as an Australian who is quite engaged with issues surrounding race politics, I didn’t know the thing about “shucking and jiving” because blackface literally doesn’t get discussed here, like literally at all. I assumed it was picked as a name because it was a word that is used to mean ‘dance’ and it rhymes with five and allows for alliteration.
Nobody threw their arms in the air and cried “racist” when the ludicrous, but funny, “White Chicks” hit the cinemas. Seems two black men wearing “white face” and sending up a couple of ditzy blondes is okay, but a group of racially diverse guys performing an attempted humorous tribute to the Jacksons – that’s a no go. I agree that the “black face” was in poor taste, but if six men of diverse ethnicity chose to portray a group of six black American men of African descent wearing no make-up, no wigs and no outfit, then who would know what they were even attempting to do?
If an American of African descent wished to portray Steve Irwin, you would not find a single Aussie who would take offence to that person “whitening” his face, donning a blonde wig and a khaki outfit and shouting “CRIKEY”. Jeez, we Aussies are so thick that we wouldn’t get the joke if they didn’t at least try to look a bit like Steve.
I’ve read lot’s of blogs about Americans perception of racism in Australia. Here’s some education for all those pulpit thumpers on their soap boxes. Yes Australia’s history of the treatment, both past and present, of our Aboriginal people leaves a lot to be desired, but it can be compared directly to the treatment by the Americans, both past and present, of their own aboriginal people, the American Indians. Neither nation can hold it’s collective head high with respect to the ongoing issues suffered by our native land owners, but both nations continue to work toward a solution.
Australia also suffers, as all societies do, from the ignorance of small, but prominent, groups of people whose overt and agressive racism brings shame to the majority of us who are not simply tolerent, but welcoming of the rich and diverse nature of our multi-cultural society.
What Australia does not have and what causes modern day Americans to react so venomously to perceived racist overtones, is a history of violent, slaughterous, slavery.
America has one of the most shameful and horrific pasts of all modern society with regard to the treatment of it’s people. People stolen from their homeland, shipped across the ocean without care for their health. People stripped of their humanity.
There are still, to this day, people living in America who, in their youth, had no rights, who had no peace, who suffered unthinkable degradation and abuse at the hands of their white “superiors”. The wound of America’s racism is still raw.
Even now, Americans struggle with their racism. They purport to take the moral high ground, but how many black men are the first accused of crimes? What is the ratio of black to white in American jails? How often do we see images of white children stolen or murdered, where the numbers of black children far exceeds the whites? How often are Mexican and South American people accused of taking jobs from “real” Americans?
I returned from a trip to the US only 4 days ago and I was absolutely disgusted by much of the content of American TV, but I made a choice and turned it off. I won’t be going back either. The most wonderful thing about my trip was confirming that, without a doubt, Australia is a far more beautiful, friendly, tolerant and safe country to live in.
For the record, as I am certain that there will be those who take offense at my words, I am an Australian. My ethnic background comprises Irish Catholic (another ethnic group that the USA had serious racial issues with) and Australian Aboriginal. I am white, my most recent relationship was with an Indian muslim. Of a couple of dozen close and dear friends, 1 is Lebanese, 3 are Sri Lankan, 2 are Indian, 2 are Chinese, 1 is Thai, 2 are Aboriginal, 5 are Italian, 3 are Greek, 1 is Turkish, 1 is Nigerian, 1 is an American of African descent, 2 are English, 3 are Kiwis. Get the picture? Time for us all to move on.
Seems a bit ironic, doesn’t it, that the nation with perhaps the worst history within living memory of both implicit and institutionalised racial discrimination and race violence, should be up in arms over a comedy sketch performed for a local audience by brown-skinned migrants in a country half a world away, with no such history. So, Americans don’t like comedy sketches depicting African Americans as buffoons, says Harry Conick Jr? Pardon me for thinking so Harry, but that sounds very much like an implication that you think they are.
Stephanie,
“I assumed it was picked as a name because it was a word that is used to mean ‘dance’ and it rhymes with five and allows for alliteration.”
It might have been alliterative, but it also has a darker implication given some of the stereotypes of Blacks in historical and modern media. The question comes down to this: does the intention (or lack thereof) excuse the offensiveness of the skit?
Trish,
Pardon the Australian reference, but crikey! That’s an extremely long post.
“Nobody threw their arms in the air and cried “racist” when the ludicrous, but funny, “White Chicks” hit the cinemas. Seems two black men wearing “white face” and sending up a couple of ditzy blondes is okay, but a group of racially diverse guys performing an attempted humorous tribute to the Jacksons – that’s a no go. I agree that the “black face” was in poor taste, but if six men of diverse ethnicity chose to portray a group of six black American men of African descent wearing no make-up, no wigs and no outfit, then who would know what they were even attempting to do?”
If my archives had not been deleted, I would link you to my scathing comments regarding the racism of “White Chicks”. Do not assume that because you didn’t hear about it on CNN, that race activists weren’t critical of the White-face perpetrated in that film.
In addition, colourface makeup doesn’t make someone resemble the people they were trying to pretend to be, it makes you resemble a racialized CARICATURE of that person. None of the Jackson Five are shoe polish black, and none have the kind of hair that the performers used as wigs. In addition — the actor playing Michael Jackson wore Whiteface, though he was white. Clearly, the pasty whiteness was not necessary to make the colour of the man’s skin appear similar to that of Jackson’s — rather it was a racialized statement that Jackson, with his skin conditions/vitelligo/plastic surgery/whatever was no longer Black.
Which makes the blackface a racial comment… which makes it more than an “innocent” attempt to emulate the Jackson Five using makeup to make it clear who they were trying to be.
Also, following MJ’s death, there were countless tributes to Michael Jackson and the Jackson Five. None of them used Blackface, and we still knew who the singers and dancers were trying to be: the Jackson Five and MJ are so much a part of pop culture that even wearing a single white glove would have been sufficient to pay tribute to these incredible performers. So I don’t buy the “but the audience wouldn’t've known!” argument.
[more in the next comment]
“If an American of African descent wished to portray Steve Irwin, you would not find a single Aussie who would take offence to that person “whitening” his face, donning a blonde wig and a khaki outfit and shouting “CRIKEY”. Jeez, we Aussies are so thick that we wouldn’t get the joke if they didn’t at least try to look a bit like Steve.”
Maybe you wouldn’t, but I would. Not the least of which because it would be tacky. Regardless, you will note that Steve Irwin HAS been portrayed in America by many performers, and none wear Whiteface and a blonde wig; most emulate his individual mannerisms and American audiences get it.
Frankly, I find it a little amusing that you would patronize Australian audiences so much that they apparently “need” racist physical caricatures to understand impression humour.
“Yes Australia’s history of the treatment, both past and present, of our Aboriginal people leaves a lot to be desired, but it can be compared directly to the treatment by the Americans, both past and present, of their own aboriginal people, the American Indians. Neither nation can hold it’s collective head high with respect to the ongoing issues suffered by our native land owners, but both nations continue to work toward a solution.”
No one here is TRYING to say they are “less racist” than another nation. I think the general reaction that Australians on the blogosphere have been having regarding this whole brouhaha is rather close-minded and myopic: we’re saying that the Jackson Jive sketch was racist and would should not be tolerated ANYWHERE. Not that America is less racist than Australia.
Because frankly, that kind of Oppression Olympics couldn’t be won by America, Australia, or any other nation. Racism and oppression has occurred throughout human history.
Which leaves me to this comment:
“America has one of the most shameful and horrific pasts of all modern society with regard to the treatment of it’s people. People stolen from their homeland, shipped across the ocean without care for their health. People stripped of their humanity.
There are still, to this day, people living in America who, in their youth, had no rights, who had no peace, who suffered unthinkable degradation and abuse at the hands of their white “superiors”. The wound of America’s racism is still raw.”
No one is denying that racism occurs in America. Shit, it’s hilarious that indignant Australians are going to blogs like this one, DEDICATED to exposing and discussing racism in America and around the world, in an effort to tell us that America is racist. We have been writing about this for awhile (in the case of this blog, for six years).
But acknowledging the racism in America DOESN’T GIVE AMERICA A MONOPOLY ON RACISM. And not having the Trans-Atlantic slave trade in Australia does not excuse racist behaviour in Australia. Guess what, my Australian friends, you too can be racist. Racism doesn’t begin and end with the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade: there’s plenty of examples of historical racism that occurred and continues to occur throughout the world that have nothing to do with American slavery, or even American Blacks.
Basically, Trish, your argument boils down to this:
“Thank God my ancestors never ran a plantation, because now I can make fun of Black people as much as I want, and I can’t possibly be considered racist.”
Yeah, that should sound pretty inane to you, too.
This was my favourite part of your comment:
“For the record, as I am certain that there will be those who take offense at my words, I am an Australian. My ethnic background comprises Irish Catholic (another ethnic group that the USA had serious racial issues with) and Australian Aboriginal. I am white, my most recent relationship was with an Indian muslim. Of a couple of dozen close and dear friends, 1 is Lebanese, 3 are Sri Lankan, 2 are Indian, 2 are Chinese, 1 is Thai, 2 are Aboriginal, 5 are Italian, 3 are Greek, 1 is Turkish, 1 is Nigerian, 1 is an American of African descent, 2 are English, 3 are Kiwis. Get the picture? Time for us all to move on.”
Gosh, how many times have I heard this one?
Let me summarize:
“I have friends of colour. I’ll list them for you. See how many I have? I’m so totally open-minded and colour-blind that I just categorized my friends based on their race for you, therefore I absolutely don’t see race as an issue and can’t possibly be racist!”
Yeah. I’m totally convinced, now.
Basically, Trish, I don’t disagree with you. America has a race problem. But guess what? So does Australia. And it’s neither anti-Australian, nor pro-American, to point it out.
“So, Americans don’t like comedy sketches depicting African Americans as buffoons, says Harry Conick Jr? Pardon me for thinking so Harry, but that sounds very much like an implication that you think they are.”
This post is textbook for classic “I’m not Racist” excuses. This one is a reiteration of the following:
“I don’t think that’s racist. You think it’s racist, therefore you think race exists. Therefore you are racist!”
Wow. It sounds even stupider written out than it did in my head.
The sketch made the Jackson Five look like buffoons using race-based humour — Harry Connick, Jr. pointed it out.
And for both commentors, I don’t think I really even need to comment on the legacy of anti-Asian racism that has existed in Australia for decades. It’s more relevant to this blog, but I think you might even deny that. Instead, I suggest you read this commentary:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/09/jackson.australia/index.html
It says everything I said. But it’s got a CNN logo on it, so maybe you’ll believe that.
Sorry Jenn, I didn’t mean to suggest at all that the skit isn’t racist (because it IS), I was just saying that the use of the word ‘jive’ might not indicate prior knowledge of minstrelsy, because of differences in history and so on. And I’m sorry for implying that it might excuse the skit.
the aussies should not make nasty mock ups