Comments on: The world sees red over Hey Hey‘s blackface

By: Glenn

Glenn — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 04:47:15 +0000

Love thy neighbour, ahhh what a hoot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_gN7zlpnz8

By: Heathdon McGregor

Heathdon McGregor — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:51:36 +0000

Channel nines new Friday night line up

7.30 Mind your language
8.30 Love your neighbour
9.30 Til death us do part
10.30 It aint half hot mum

Race based comedy-its not racist its comedy.

Comedy that excentuates racial stereotypes is race based.

All in all if you dont like it you can turn the channel, like I did.

By: stephen

stephen — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:22:52 +0000

It’s got everything to do with Hey, Hey. The “othering” process permits abuse,and so pervasive we don’t recognise it when it’s staring us in the face, black or white or in between.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:54:44 +0000

EUAN J THOMAS: All the same I would rather Australians got upset at our own unique racism than groveling, yet again-to the sensitivities of the English and the Americans of all people.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:51:26 +0000

What the hell has this got to do with Hey Hey ???????????????
Let’s leave it there……………

By: Glenn

Glenn — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:50:15 +0000

I dont know that there was abuse and neither do you.

They have to be contained and returned home ASAP they shouldnt be treated any worse than prisoners and no better, they did come here illegally after all.

The main problem is the time it takes to process them, this should be done within a few weeks not months on end, thats where the problem lies.

Any genuine refugees should be settled here but where do you draw the line ?

By: stephen

stephen — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:44:40 +0000

Glenn, I think we can agree to disagree about Howard, and I’m glad to hear you find ill treatment as distatseful as I do. What are your ideas about how we can prevent the systemic abuse of refugees in the future, and what are thoughts about what caused it in the past?
Because mate,”there but for the grace of God go I”.

By: Me

Me — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:06:01 +0000

At the risk of continuing this derailment …

Stephen, I’m with you totally on the points about Howard/refugees/children … but still not with you on the ‘Jacksons’ skit. I still fail to see how a skit (in an effort to be fun & frivolous), by a multicultural group of guys, parodying a group they all claim to have loved, can have caused so many people to cry ‘racism!’!?

As LUVYUHSALL said :-

(HOW) “Is colour related to being a “bafoon”

……When will we stop judgeing a man by the colour of his skin…………

This whole skit is only about colour to those who are inherently racist. I didn’t hear anything that indicated the black was inferior or superior. Where is the racism (judgement) based on colour?”

Blame them for being useless at singing, dancing and comedy but please leave the cries of ‘Racism!’ to the true perpetrators of this evil.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:09:35 +0000

Well Stephen, Howard was a terrific bloke and a great PM, he didn’t lie, What evidence ?
If you want an example of a liar and manipulator for his own purposes check out Rudd.

Most were found to be genuine refugees ? another fact from your personal hoard of imagined realisms ?

They were illegal immigrants and I applaud the Govt for controlling the situation otherwise the boats would never stop.

I don’t agree with ill treatment of anybody and if that happened it’s a separate issue and should be dealt with.

By: stephen

stephen — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:09:04 +0000

Well Glenn Howard did lie about lots of things and the eveidence is there to prove it. You are either lying or ignorant of the fact that most of those people where not illegal entrants , most where found to be genuine refugees. I understand that fact might be awkward or embarrassing to you. I’m not a dill and you are abusive, which all fits really.
As for the Albert Park thing, sounds like another little hobby horse of hatred you riding, but I don’t even know about it sorry.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:51:33 +0000

Howard didnt lie about anything, dills like you will go on forever about children overboard and other such nonsense.

Are you associated with the Save Albert Park Group ? Another collection of national oddities.

If people come to this country illegally theycant just be set free, or perhaps only in the street where you live, is that ok ?

By: stephen

stephen — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:30:18 +0000

Jacks I can understand now why you are having trouble, you haven’t followed those issues closely enough.
1. Howard was the subject of the article not Keating or Hawke or Rudd, if they are ever nominated for something then feel free to cite any short comings they have, I don’t mind.
2.Howard deliberately lied about refugees in order to collect far right votes, it’s strange that you don’t understand that dynamic, it’s pretty conventional knowledge albeit a shameful act.
3.Children were genuinely abused under that policy whilst Howard was PM. MAny served years without their parents, or watched their parents go insane, suffer depression, self harm treated like scum as you have called me. What’s your definition of abuse mate? Would you like to be treated taht way???
Talk about convenient logic, you clearly have cherry picked informatioon, you probably voted for the policy, did you?

By: Foster

Foster — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:04:29 +0000

Well if anyone defending the blackface skit wants some tips… there’s some good arguing tactics here:

http://www.derailingfordummies.com/

(no offense intended… it’s just a bit of fun and takin the piss!)

By: Liz45

Liz45 — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:47:56 +0000

I didn’t know anything about this until I heard it spoken about on ABC this afternoon. The usual comments were there; the ‘this is political correctness gone mad’ to ‘we don’t know how to laugh at ourselves, rah rah’?
This is my idea of political correctness, which in no way resembles racism. To refer to the woman chairing a meeting as ‘Chairperson’ is being politically correct, and not calling her ‘Chairman’ should be obvious. However, sending up black people’s blackness and in a frivolous or demeaning manner, encouraging others to laugh at their blackness and snide beliefs of being less or lower than the rest of us, is racist! That’s it! It’s not rocket science, it’s not too hard for anyone with just the average IQ to understand - it’s racist! It called on the judges via the audience to laugh!

As a woman who grew up as a blonde, I took exception to all the ‘blonde jokes’? They inferred that I had no intelligence; that worse than that I was stupid and a bimbo, thus entitled to be raped, villified, laughed at and treated as less than human, and certainly not entitled to equal pay for equal work. I found and still find those attempts at sexist humour offensive. Now all the idiots out there, the fellow travellers of racist attitudes and behaviour, if you can’t identify with black peoples’ reality, you probably won’t identify with mine. Perhaps the fact that I’m white just might be the difference! God knows how I’d survive as a black woman!

By: Euan J Thomas

Euan J Thomas — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:46:10 +0000

Gees the only thing these guys were missing from their white suits were the white caps and a good ole cross burning in the background, just to put a bit more light on the stage now! Thems good ole boys sure like have a good ole time.

By: jacks

jacks — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:02:49 +0000

“I suspect you just what to silence dissent” really? am i silencing you by saying comparing howard to a child abuser demeans people who really had that happen to them. Please, feel free to remove your imaginary gag. Keating and Rudd both locked up immigrants so first of all you can call them all child abusers too in the interests of being even about it. If I was a small child I would rather have been with my parents even if it was in detention than be all alone in a foreign country.

By: stephen

stephen — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:35:15 +0000

Jacks are you saying Howard didn’t lock kids in detention and campaign in a federal election by repeatedly vilifying terrified refugees, and deviously misrepresenting them in the children overboard scandal? We were talking about Howard, if some one else has done the same thing it doesn’t lessen his guilt.
And how is speaking about injustice demean those who have been harmed?????????I don’t get your “logic” at all. I suspect you just what to silence dissent.

By: jacks

jacks — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:24:30 +0000

Basically you were using such a biased interpretation of child abuse any of our prime ministers could have been called such a thing. The point Pedro was making is that you demean the people who have had those horrible things happen to them by using it to try and score cheap political points.

By: stephen

stephen — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:15:52 +0000

Jacks what are you talking about wounded party?, and stop calling me scum pal! The scum are the people who did it and condoned it andignored it, are you one of those?
If when debating Howards suitability for a job one refers to his inhumane deeds from the recent past, that’s not hijacking. I think Howard might be one of your sacred cows, I knew you’d have loads of them.. typical.

By: SuprF1y

SuprF1y — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:46:55 +0000

Yes , we are really quite a racist society in Australia. Thank god somebody has called us on it. And a yank to boot. Hoo bloody ray.

By: jacks

jacks — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:12:08 +0000

Oh, and Stephen stop acting like the wounded party.You hijacked a debate about the NRL and just spewed your biased hatred towards howard. Pedro made a good point - anyone who hijacks child abuse and uses it to try and win a political argument is scum.

By: stephen

stephen — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:00:51 +0000

KSP Maybe it was a breach of some sort of protocol to recognise Pedro. I was personally abused in several posts by him yesterday on a related matter, it’s still a bit raw.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 07:25:07 +0000

STEPHEN: Yep, that’s the Pedro of the political pages!
The thing that amazes me is the lack of taste (it’s such a long-gone and I had hoped long forgotten means of entertainment Look at the YouTube ‘history of blackface’ in these pages, the inherent servility, etc, etc.) and putting on a show like that AND inviting an American judge, KNOWING that they have a black president, and KNOWING something of the racial problems they’ve had. Just to really put themselves in the s/hit, the judge sounded to me as if he came from the deep south I mean WTF passed the segment in the first place?

I’ve always known how bloody inferior commercial television is, but I dare say when pitching their programs at an audience of ten year olds reveals the station’s programmers as having ten year old brain-spans as well.

As for the quality of the act! Well, happily they all have excellent jobs in medicine.
Stay there boys. One bonus. By wearing blackface they have disguised themselves pretty well.

By: CaffeineAddict

CaffeineAddict — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 07:24:55 +0000

“The intention of the act was not to be racist, but humorous. To those not in the know, it unfortunately came across racist and that was the problem.

Harry Connick may have had a point to make on this but made it poorly. Those who found it funny enjoyed the impersonation of the Jackson 5. Those who found it offensive thought it was parodying black people for being black. I don’t believe that was the intention.”

Well they certainly failed at being humorous in that case.

I don’t see how it can be defended as a parody of the Jackson 5. It is perfectly possible to parody the Jackson 5 without the use of blackface. It’s not as if dancing style, clothing and choice of music would be insufficient to identify their intended target.

Of course with this group it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the blackface was the point of their act. Certainly there was nothing else on offer.

By: jacks

jacks — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 07:15:47 +0000

Maybe people should understand what racism means before they go branding people as racists.
Racism: 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. Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Does anyone honestly believe that this skit showed intolerance or hatred towards black people? The Indian man who dressed up as a white person is exactly the same thing, but yet again apparently it is only white people who can be racist.