If anyone here is interested, they may access the following link, and, perhaps, gain some understanding into the reasons for Harry Connick Jnr's protest.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/foster/sfeature/sf_minstrelsy.html

Harry could not be seen to do anything else. As for comments claiming he was self-seeking, gaining publicity:

1. His successful career means he does not need additional publicity - it isn't alway 'good'.
2. To have remained silent would've meant he was assumed as giving approval to a tasteless act.

As Australians, many of us chafe under the image that 'Crocodile Dundee' and 'Bazza MacKenzie' bestowed upon us. Clearly Australians are just as ignorant about American culture in some areas. Also, I know from having lived in the USA, it is (and remains) very ignorant of the rest of the world (former President Bush Jnr did not even have a passport until becoming president), however that does not excuse the 'rest of the world' remaining ignorant of the USA.

Had H.C. Jnr not been present on Hey Hey, little would be said about the humourless skit.

But that is not what happened.

Was the blackface skit on the execrable 'Hey Hey' racist? Absolutely.

Is it a big deal? No.

Everybody knows that the unsophisticated Australian demographic that constitutes the program's audience is intrinsically racist - indeed, they're the same mob who voted for Pauline Hanson.

Situation normal - this is Australia.

That same 'racist' Australia continues to accept record numbers of migrants.

Isn't it time to accept the obvious, which is that there will always be jokes about differences and those jokes are not always about hatred and probably often about acceptance. What political correctness does is make an offence where none was intended, making chasms appear where a bit of light-heated ribbing might have easily dispenses with the obvious noting and sometimes celebration of difference.

This is Australia, we have our own history and culture which are thankfully very much different to the US. It is wrong to 'bad-mouth' everyone as 'Hansons', that is the sort of superior and malicious labelling that stereotypes and leads to hatred and divisions.

The censorship and tyranny of political correctness makes it far more dangerous to our liberty and way of life than any undergraduate humour about the late Whacko Jacko and his celebrity family.

Darryl Summers was really ill-advised reacting to the political correctness he was confronted with - it is the reaction that is taken to legitimise the (usually false) complaint. It is the sort of media beat-up to be expected of crummy current affairs shows and tabloid newspapers. Hey, Hey aims at the same audience, it is all the same old, same old dumbed down pap and none of it is newsworthy.

There you go, what an opportunity, how about some 'sensitive' whinger stooping to take PC offence at my use of 'dumbed' as in 'dumbed down'?

This sort of political correctness is so yesterday.

Dear Fractelle,

Thanks for the "Blackface," link. I read it with interest.
However, the skit on Hey Hey was not a "Blackface" skit.
It was simply a re-enactment of the skit they did 20
years ago. It was a tribute to the Jackson Five. Nothing
more, nothing less. It was not meant to demean in any way.
Harry Connick Jr over-reacted. He assumed it was a "Blackface,"
skit. It wasn't. Even Whoopie Goldberg on "The View," had more
nouse, and recognised the skit as a tribute to the Jackson Five.
"No Big Deal!" was her comment.

And, as for Americans being upset by "Blackface," routines.
Robert Downey's recent "Blackface" got an Academy Award nomination.

CJ writes

'Everybody knows that the unsophisticated Australian demographic that constitutes the program's audience is intrinsically racist - indeed, they're the same mob who voted for Pauline Hanson.'

You would think with the Greens track record of dishonesty they would keep their mouth shut. Nothing like the self righteous ones who truly believe their own press.

Foxy

Robert Downey's role in a recent film, was not a "blackface" performance, this is why I posted the link so that people would understand the difference between acting and the 'entertainment' that had its origins in the slave owning south of the USA, during the 1800's.

The skit on Hey Hey had no resemblance to the Jackson Five but did look exactly like a B&W minstrel act.

Harry Connick Jnr had every right to protest, given his background of a Southern Lawyer father and childhood in New Orleans. Therefore, to expect Harry Connick Jnr to understand Aussie sensibilities is ignorant.

I fully understand that the Hey Hey act was a reprise of an act I found in bad taste when it was first presented. I also know that Australia does not have a history of slave ownership and the parodying of blacks through 'blackface' entertainment. However, I can discern the difference between the 'blackface entertainment' of the deep South and Robert Downey Jnr's role and, in fact, the 'whiteface' of the actors, Shawn and Marlon Wayans in the 2004 movie "White Chicks".

This is why I presented a link to the history of 'Black & White Minstrel entertainment, so that others would understand where Connick Jnr was coming from.

The only good to come from the mockery of blacks was the introduction of glorious 'black' music to the greater white population. As a result we have Jazz, Blues and Rock 'n Roll today.

Also at the very end of my last post I noted that if Connick Jnr had not been present, no one would even be discussing this now.