Posted by Amelia Nosehart, Tuesday, 13 October 2009 2:26:13 PM

I agree with what you wrote.

Now let me see if someone imitates Elvis are they prejudice?

If some imitates the Bee Gees are they prejudice?

If someone takes the micky out of the queen are they prejudice?

Sure some of the above may be humourous, or humourless, in good taste and bad taste.

Maybe we should just ban humour and re-educate those who make attempts at humour, so that they can become humourless sour people.

So this is the sort of justification we get for labelling the skit as racist:

"the props and costume caused it to be in the context of one of the panel judges

So the end result is..... racist."

From Rex Mundi.

So, in other words:

Harry Connick Junior thought it was racist, therefore it was racist.

I'm sorry Rex, but you're going to have to do better than that, logic wise, before you convince anyone. There was nothing inherently racist about the skit itself. Racism is not determined by the thoughts of one individual.

Seriously people, don't get confused about the two issues at hand here:

1. Was the skit actually inherently racist? In other words, was there anything about it which demeaned another race, with intent, or made them out to be inferior to any other race?

2. Should we pander to the needs of Americans when making Australian television for an Australian audience?

In my view, number 2 is debateable, although I have already outlined my views above, persuasively I believe.

However, number 1 is a different question altogether. And I'm yet to see any response to it which answers in the affirmative and actually sounds reasonable or makes any kind of sense. Rex's attempt is just another example

Trav>I'm sorry Rex

Why are you sorry? This is a forum for debate, I can cop decent criticism on the chin.

Trav>There was nothing inherently racist about the skit itself.
'Inherently', it's a weasel word. Ignorance is not an excuse; it just makes you look foolish.

Trav>don't get confused about the two issues….

I won't re-quote the whole lot and use my 350 words.
Your two points are intertwined by these three concepts
-Context: how will it play to another group with a different world-view
-Perception: How is it be evaluated in that context
-Consequence: What will be the actions set in play by that perception

A quick google search of foreign coverage produced:
>The international response to the skit has been scathing, with Australia portrayed as a racist backwater.
>WOW…racism is still prevalent!
> Out of Australia comes a public relations snafu that has the Americans wincing and writhing in pain while at the same time leaving most Australians stoked in ‘good old laugher.’ Let the racist overtones go on…

To be fair it was not all one sided, but these comments give you an idea.

So whilst a good majority of Australians see nothing racist in the skit, in the American context it was perceived as racist and had the consequence of making many US people and plenty of US media commentators think that Australians are buffoons that time left behind. Do you think that this was a particularly positive outcome for Australia? You can bang on all day about the skit not being ‘inherently’ racist, but that is how it was perceived by many people in a major allied western society.

Australian humour has depth, sarcasm and self-deprecation being two well refined comedic devices that can be fairly safely mined for a long time to come. We do not need to become humourless PC drones, but for the sake of raising our international profile above ‘buffoon’, is it not worth being a little more culturally aware and cutting loose a _tiny_ area of humour that probably belongs in the distant past?

Rex

REXMUNDI <for the sake of raising our international profile above buffoon, is it not worth being a little more culturally aware and cutting loose a tiny area of humour that probably belongs in the distant past>

The humour was an impersonation of the Jackson Five, more accurately Micheal Jackson,who was alive just recently not in the distant past. So how could this humour belong in the distant past.

<for the sake of raising our international profile above buffoon>

If the bloke down the road thinks you or I are a buffoon that is only his opinion. The only opinion that counts is your opinion of yourself.
Australian comedy has always taken the mickey out of public white celebraties and politicians why should Michael Jackson be given special treatment just because of his skin colour. Even the British Queen is regularly the butt of humour by Australian and British comedians, even when she is present in the audience.

I think Australia is way ahead of the people who think this should be banned because we have got over it and moved on. I think it is the people who reacted so stupidly to a mere send up of Michael Jacksons humorous traits who are still back in the past. Isn’t it time to move on.

This is a prime example of reverse racism trying to villianise the whites over slights that were never intended so that the other races can feel superior. It backfired because a few of the people involved in the impersonation weren’t white at all but from differing non-white racial backgrounds.

*but that is how it was perceived by many people in a major allied western society.*

Rexy, you just don't get it.

It does not matter how it was perceived by many people overseas,
for Hey Hey is an Australian show, targeted at an Australian
audience, never designed to be sent around the world for
comment.

Our humour in our country is on our terms, if others don't
understand it, so be it.

As Sharkfin points out, be make jokes about the Queen, we
make jokes about all kinds of celebrities, so do the Americans.

FWIW, some years ago I spent time in the American deep South
and I was totally shocked at the open and real hatred and
racism expressed by everyday people, constantly.

If any American wanted to raise this as an issue with me,
I'd soon send them packing back into their own little
corner, for I've never experienced racism in Australia
as exists daily in the US.

I remind you that this "civilised" nation is full of fruitloops
buying guns, threatening to shoot their black president.

A friendly, joking sketch about the Jacksons, simply pales
into insignificance

"never designed to be sent around the world for comment."

You've obviously never heard of youtube, CNN, blogger or twitter, then?

You rubes just don't get it, do you? It has nothing to do with any supposed sacrosanctity of Michael Jackson (frankly, he was a loon) or his family. It has everything to do with the inappropriateness, in 2009, of appearing on a popular national television program in Blackface - a device which was only ever about the most hateful caricaturisation and ridicule of people of African descent.

"Blackface, in the narrow sense, is a style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States, used to take on the appearance of certain archetypes of American racism, especially those of the 'happy-go-lucky darky on the plantation' or the 'dandified coon' ... Stereotypes embodied in the stock characters of blackface minstrelsy played a significant role in cementing and proliferating racist images, attitudes and perceptions worldwide." - wikipedia

Taking the mickey out of the high and mighty is one thing - and a very admirable Australian trait, if you ask me - but when the only joke you can make about someone is the colour of their skin (a point underlined by "Hey Hey's" jibe at Kamahl), then it's not satire, it's racism.