hmmmmmmI gotta agree that they did not come off as “serious” performers…and also – IF they truly wanted to resemble the jackson 5 – they woulda used the proper pigments/make up artist & wigs…and learned the dance moves better. …so I gotta agree with harry.  Isn’t it the Aussies who had problems with the Aberiginis? (excuse spelling)  

Right on, HarryI’m SO glad he said what he did. I mean…what a disgusting display. I have never been to Australia but, damn…how on Earth does anyone NOT see that there’s something horribly offensive and racist about that??
Thanks for speaking up, Harry! Time to make an HCJr playlist in iTunes

I lived in New Zealand…for several years.
They aren’t going to see this as racist. They didn’t have American style slavery or American style segregation or the KK and don’t have American sensitivities to racial symbols. You are dealing with another culture that didn’t have America’s past and isn’t saddled with the same racial legacy that we have.
In fact, New Zealand’s state-run television network TVNZ used to air a comedy called “Seven Periods With Mr. Gormsby” ( http://tvnz.co.nz/content/745640 ) where they throw around the “n” word and use “coons”, “darkies” and other terms frequently. In one episode they perform a altered version of Stephen Foster’s song “Uncle Ned” in blackface. You can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Here, this would be unacceptable. There, is is satire about political correctness. In the series the hero makes racist, sexist and homophobic comments and makes fun of intellectually disabled people yet treats the people he stereotypes better than the teachers who find his comments shocking.
Looking at it from their perspecitive, they are trying to imitate the Jackson Five and I would assume that their reaction to Connick’s comments is that Americans are (once again) projecting their racial hangups on people that didn’t do to Africans what Americans did to them. For us, it’s racism, for them our response to what they did is cultural imperialism (which they are VERY sensitive to).
Living in both countries I would look beyond the symbol at the intent. In the U.S. wearing blackface is intentionally racist. In New Zealand and Australia it isn’t necessarily. In this case, I think people on both sides of the Pacific need to step out of their cultural sensitivities for a moment and try to understand where the other is coming from.

Thank you!I was about to say the same thing, just not as well. I also have lived in Australia, was there for 2.5 years. Australians don’t really have the racial problems that we have here and the sensitivities are completely different. Yes, there is a problem with Aboriginals. The same as we have here with Native Americans. Aboriginals are the indigenous people of Australia. However, I am 100% certain that no native Australian who was to see this would consider it racist. Poorly done? Probably. Funny? Absolutely. Then again, that’s what “Hey, Hey, It’s Saturday!” is all about. Think “Laugh-In” as a variety show.  

RightFor them wearing blackface would be no more offensive than putting on a wig or imitating an accent.
It was a simple culture clash. Hopefully both sides can learn something about it.  

GeezI’m glad Harry Connick did what he did.  And I have a hard time buying the idea that somehow it isn’t racist just because Australia doesn’t have the same history we do.  Just because they may not see it as racist doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t, or that it isn’t offensive.
Australia is not the U.S., but it’s an immigration-based nation like ours is.  They have a lot of diversity and their own history of racial problems, too. Australia continued to have a policy of whites-only immigration into the 1970s.  If people think this kind of performance is harmless, they are in some kind of denial.

Geez is rightSo everyone should see the world through an American lens and be offended by things Americans find offensive? Are Americans willing to do the same for other cultures, or is this a one way street?
No doubt there has been, and is still, racism in Australia. The point is that blackface isn’t associated with racism in their culture, just like wearing a blond wig isn’t associated with making fun of, or putting down, blond people in our culture. They were trying to look the part of the Jackson 5 as they performed the song. That is all.
In an Australian context performance was harmless. The participants didn’t mean to send a racist message and the audience, apart from Connick, didn’t perceive the performance as racist.
It’s just another case of Americans forcing our values and baggage on others. The U.S. isn’t the centre of the world.

Harry Connick Jr. knows black face is also used at Mardi Gras in the Krewe of Zulu  http://pumabydesign001.files.w…
This was an all African American krewe, but there are now some white members. It began as a counter to the all white krewes, then it became popular, and now just another part of Mardi Gras.

My takeI can see where toujoursdan is coming from, and I highly doubt these guys were intentionally being racist, but the differences in culture don’t make it okay any more than it would be acceptable for people here to make fun of Indigenous Australians or Maoris just because we don’t have the same “baggage” that people in Australia and New Zealand do.
I would be willing to forgive those guys, but Connick was right to tell them that blackface isn’t okay.
It’s sort of like Darkie Toothpaste, which was common in Asia back in the 80s and 90s. The box showed a rather grotesque, minstrel-y picture of a black person with a big smile, the idea being that black people always have good teeth. I guess the makers thought it was some kind of compliment, but there was enough of an outcry that they changed the name to “Darlie” and the picture to a more racially neutral one, though the Chinese name still reads “Black Person Toothpaste.”
My point is that if you truly don’t know any better, it’s forgivable, but that doesn’t make it okay.

Hey Hey…Heya,
That was a “reunion” special for a show that a lot of us Victorian Generation Xers grew up with and is no longer on the air. (Started off as a kid’s show, and grew up with us, so to speak.)
Previous commenters are right that black face does not have quite the same connotations here as it does in the US… But still, my heart sank when I saw that clip… It is still pretty racist if you ask me.
I think the only reason the Jackson Jive made it on, was because it was an act that had been on the show back when it was still on the air. If it had been a completely new act, I doubt it would have got on the show.
Australia is not an especially racist nation, but there are some days I feel ashamed of us. Today is one of them. I think I’m glad now that I didn’t manage to catch the reunion special.

WellAborigines are Australian . . . and no, the aborigines are the ones who have had problems with immigrant Australians.
As far as being “serious” performers, it really doesn’t matter if they were or not.

Christ on a crutch.Where’s Battybattybats when you really need him?  I’m sure he could school the folks in this thread who seem to not understand the history of genocide in Australia against various Aboriginal peoples, and the oppression which extends to the present.
Yes, of course this skit is racist.  Yes, of course they should know it. Yes, of course Australia has its very own racist past. This is inexcusable.
Good for Harry. He grew up in New Orleans and is tight with many black musicians, particularly, I think, the Marsalis family.

Please…Please… I have heard more than enough Kiwis rant about the “damn coconuts,” and I’ve heard more than enough Aussies rant about the “Abos” to know that these people have serious problems of their own.
Most especially the Aussies, whose stereotyping of the Native Australians was historically, if anything, even more demeaning than the white Americans’ stereotyping of Africans, if such a thing is imaginable.
The only reason a white Australian doesn’t find this pathetic excuse for a musical act offensive is because he has never been required to think about his own racism. That is probably because so few Aborigines managed to survive the white Australians’ settling of the continent, they are nearly invisible to an urban Australian and remain close to powerless.
May I remind people here that it wasn’t so many years ago that it could be a struggle for a black American to even get a tourist visa to visit Australia. And a work visa? Just forget about it.

It wasn’t called the White Australia Policy for nothing.

May I remind people here that it wasn’t so many years ago that it could be a struggle for a black American to even get a tourist visa to visit Australia. And a work visa? Just forget about it.

Not just blacks, but Asians – heck, until 1975, racial discrimination was legal in many aspects of everyday life, and especially in immigration. I can remember when they advertised for (white) people to come settle in Australia; they’d help pay your way and get you settled in. Again, whites only, of course.

This…And the Obama Chia-Pet.  Where’s the progress?

Good for HarryWhat is disturbing to me is that these guys are Educated Doctors and such.. It’s not like they don’t understand other countries cultures. An ignorance claim is just a cop out to being called out on their actions..
I just don’t buy into we didn’t know excuse they offer up, in today’s media environment. It’s no different than putting up with Gay jokes at the office or schools.. We see Australia taking steps toward protection and equality for GLBT people. Yet they are so ignorant of Race ?? Give me a break…    

It should be pointed out that some in the Jackson Jive groupare NOT white. Note, I’m not defending the skit.
http://www.news.com.au/enterta…

Dr Deva, whose face was painted white in the skit to portray Jackson, said he and his friends came from ethnic backgrounds and were all too aware of racism.
“Two of us come from India and one of us comes from Lebanon so we can’t afford to be racist to be honest,” he said. “If we did offend him (Connick Jr) we truly didn’t mean to.”  

http://www.news.com.au/story/0…

Following international outcry, Dr Anand Deva, a prominent Sydney-based plastic surgeon, went public and said the Jackson Jive act on the show’s popular Red Faces segment last night was not meant to cause offence, but he admitted he would not have performed it in the US.
“Clearly, all of us want to apologise. I mean we have offended some people no doubt, particularly Harry Connick Jr,” he said.
“So I want to say on behalf of all of us that this was really not intended … (to be) anything to do with racism at all.”

doctors were from multicultural backgrounds and were huge Michael Jackson fans.
“I am an Indian, and five of the six of us are from multicultural backgrounds and to be called a racist,” he told Fairfax radio network.
“I don’t think I have ever been called that ever in my life before.
“Anyone who knows us as a group, we are intelligent people, we are all from different racial backgrounds so I am really truly surprised.”

This isn’t a simple case of white racism, White Australia.

Sorry, It Was Racist.I’m Australian and we do have serious race problems- in a country as rich as ours it is just plain unacceptable that the third world levels of poverty exist in Aboriginal communities, for example. As for the ‘comedy’ skit I think Harry Connick was completely right to object, it was pretty offensive to many Australians as well, what ever their race. Unfortunately,the broadcaster Channel 9, is not exactly known high levels of sensitivity in such areas,but it still amazes me that the producers gave the OK for these dickwits to perform….

I was also going to say the same thing.It’s only comparatively recently (i.e. within the last few years) that I came to realise how racist blackface is viewed as being in the US – and even then, only because I follow many US blogs. Few (if any) Britons even know about blackface – and even then only through old Hollywood movies, where it’s rarely (if ever) presented in the negative light it has today.
There are many things which are major taboos in the US but are generally accepted elsewhere. GazProm, the Russian fossil-fuel giant, considered it entirely acceptable to call its new Nigerian venture “NiGaz” because that taboo doesn’t exist in Russia. It’s true that in some cases American taboos, such as the one around the word “oriental”, have been exported to other countries where previously there was no taboo, but even where that has happened the taboo is rarely as extreme.
However since blackface was largely eliminated by the Civil Rights movement, and was a cultural phenomenon only found within the US, neither blackface nor the taboo associated with it have ever crossed outside America – it’s a taboo that only has relevance to North Americans, because it relates to a cultural feature not found anywhere else. To most non-Americans it’s seen as a cultural quirk akin to cross-dressing: not necessarily in the best taste, but not particularly objectionable either. The cultural and historical reasons for the taboo have no relevance to non-Americans, in the same way that the Arabian aversion to pigs and dogs has no relevance to Western culture.
That doesn’t mean that blackface is acceptable – I know enough of the history of it to understand why it’s unacceptable; however it does mean that it’s unfair to judge other cultures based on a moral issue that only has any real relevance within the USA.

O.O“Even more demeaning”? I’m going to keep my mouth closed on the first thing that sprang to mind on reading that, as I don’t really want to provoke a flame war.
Australia and America both have blood on their hands with regards to their treatment of the native peoples of their respective lands. Our shared shame has never disappeared, since both nations still treat our respective native peoples with condescension, disrespect, and hatred.
It is a struggle we share. One day in the future, maybe we’ll all have got past it. But petty finger pointing and recrimination, and accusing one another of being worse, is not going to solve anything, nor make things better.
While I, personally, see the sketch as racist, black face simply does not have the same context here. Still, I am glad that Harry spoke up – it was an important lesson, and given that Hey Hey won the ratings for it’s timeslot that night, an awful lot of Australians heard him. Maybe they learned something about themselves in the process.

This is not wrong because it is blackface.It is wrong because it is portrays people by negative stereotype. Yes, we have had greater discussion of blackface in America because of our circumstances and, because of that, this would not happen here. But to reduce it to the shorthand of blackface=wrong misses the point of why it is wrong. And anyone, even those unfamiliar with the history of blackface, should be able to figure this out. How can anyone consider the reduction of prodigiously talented persons to demeaning stereotypes paying them homage? You do not need to be American to understand this and you do not need to be white to understand this.

except thatAdopting a specific symbol or style of costume or “entertainment” from another culture doesn’t absolve anyone from the context and history of that iconography.  In fact, it is incumbent on people choosing these modes of expression to educate themselves about context.  Confederate flag anyone?  Prince Harry a few years ago in Nazi costume?
Anyone who cared to give it a moment’s thought would realize that blackface is inherently racist and mocking and meant to riducule.  These guys didn’t apply realistic makeup to resemble someone who actually had darker skin.  Their wigs were unkempt and raggedy, not a hair style the J5 ever sported.  Instead, these buffoons chose grotesque, offensive caricature.
Did these guys intentionally mean anything by it?  No.  Are they deliberately ignorant and insensitive and vulgar, and irresponsibly, obliviously riding on their privilege?  Yep.

That doesn’t make it any more acceptable, as far as I’m concernedShould we give a pass to Saudi Arabia’s extreme misogyny, just because they’ve never had a women’s rights movement?  

Not even necessaryThey could perform a tribute to MJ without the black face.  
Why on earth do they even think it was necessary??? geez.

Some standards of simple decency(and I would argue this this performance IS indecent) must transcend national boundaries.  To take an obvious example, homophobia in Muslim countries is no more acceptable than homophobia in the West, even though Muslim countries have different histories and cultural traditions.  Likewise sexism.  Is gay-bashing okay because Muslim countries revere the Koran (even though  we’re not willing to tolerate it when it’s rooted in the Bible)?  Are female circumcision and stoning “adulteresses” okay if they happen in a culture other than ours?  Is antisemitism all right in a culture with a long tradition of it?  
The fact that these performers may not see what they’re doing as racist hardly excuses it.  NO bigots, not even the casual, unintentional ones, ever see what they do as bigotry.  

The participants didn’t mean to send a racist message and the audience, apart from Connick, didn’t perceive the performance as racist.

But I didn’t see any black faces in that audience (or even aboriginal faces).  Do you really think blacks or aborigines in Australia would perceive this performance the same way as all the blue-eyed blondes in the audience?
The core principle of treating people decently and with a modicum of respect is not specific to any one culture.  If you want to try and label that “cultural insensitivity,” go right ahead.  

WRONG…I’ve lived in the UK and they are have LONG been fully aware of the context of black face. They used to actually air minstrel shows on the BBC. The black population there was outraged, but the white population did not care.
Ask a black Briton what THEY think of this.
People put this off to cultural imperialism, but its not. Its just as insulting as people pulling back their eyes are to Asians beyond US shores.
Anyone that even suggests that Australia has not had the legacy of race problems that the US has is sadly or intentionally delusional. If anything, the Aboriginals were treated even worse, and the Australian state was even more apathetic than the US simply because they had fewer numbers. Australia has had an appaling history of race issues that persists to this day.

you said:“non-Americans it’s seen as a cultural quirk akin to cross-dressing: not necessarily in the best taste, but not particularly objectionable either”
There are members of the LGBT community who crossdress.  I hope that those were just ill chosen words and not a little grenade throwing towards members of the PHB community.

you’re absolutely rightin a similar vein, drag is not wrong because it’s a group of historical oppressors (men) dressing up as the oppressed (women).
drag becomes offensive if it was used to portray women in a stereotypical way.  this doesn’t happen much, but it still happens.
whether these “performers” were aware of it or not, their portrayal was inappropriate because (as Mr. Connick said) we’ve spent far too much time trying to eliminate offensive stereotyping and discrimination from our society to celebrate the stereotypes that this group portrayed.
i have a hard time finding any context where “blackface” would be kosher, but this certainly would not have been an example of a harmless makeup job.  not twenty years ago and certainly not today.  especially not with Australia’s own past discrimination against “colored” people (i.e. their Aborigines).

They’re a product of “white Australia”just because a person isn’t a member of an oppressive majority mean they can’t adopt the prejudices of that majority.
i’d offer myself as an example.  i’m gay, but grew up evangelical conservative, too.  it wasn’t a fun struggle to come to accept myself, but what’s worse was realizing how many social prejudices i had to shed.
one day not so long after i came out, while shopping with my boyfriend and his best friend for ingredients for our holiday dinner, i spotted something i found objectionable.  instead of saying, “that’s so lame,” or even more accurately, “that’s stupid,” i opted for an altogether too common insult.  within full earshot of both my boyfriend and his best friend, i uttered the words, “that’s so gay,” in a tone that suggested quite clearly that “gay” and “stupid” were completely interchangeable.
so simply because a person is a member of an oppressed class doesn’t automatically insulate them from adopting the racism, or in my case the homophobia, of the social oppressors.
this actually is a simple case of “white racism, White Australia.”  even if the performers didn’t fully realize it at the time.

It was ok when Harry did it???Harry Connick did blackface on an episode of Mad TV. Why did he think his rendition was ok?

uh … that’s not blackfaceAre you referring to the preacher sketch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vtOt5mNEZE
Maybe you are just baiting?  Well, apparently I’m going to bite and state some of the obvious.
The video lighting and resolution are really poor; it’s not clear at all that his makeup is darker than his natural skin tone.  If the makeup is darker, then it was applied not just to his face, but to his hands, too (both backs and palms), as all three match.  (2:00-2:20 ish)  A “blackface” job would have left the palms untouched, or even lightened them, to play up the contrast.  And most obviously, rather than his skin having a slightly darker tone, it would have appeared as if shoe polish had been applied.
It is inconceivable that HCJr, citizen of New Orleans, friend and colleague of many non-white musicians and others since childhood, the man who spoke out unequivocally but with grace against blackface on this talent show, would wear blackface.  It is also not possible to look at the ridiculous video that Pam posted above, and then at the Mad TV sketch, and say that Connick looks like the talent show fools.
The only problem with the Mad TV skit was that it was excruciatingly unfunny.  

Multi-ethnic mix.

But I didn’t see any black faces in that audience (or even aboriginal faces).

Given that there are about as many African and American blacks in Australia per head of population as there are Mongols in the US, not exactly surprising.
And while Aboriginals make up 1% of the Australian population,  many are pretty difficult to distinguish from dark-skinned caucasians.
Have a look and see how many in the audience were Asian. They’re both more common, and more easy to pick.
When was the last time you had a look in a US Audience for the requisite number of Native Americans and Aleut Eskimos?
The US has what, 13% African-Americans? I doubt that 1 person in 10,000 in Australia would be of African heritage. South American, yes, lots of people from Chile. Almost no Mexicans. The ethnic mix is different from the US, so please don’t expect all other countries to be like the USA.

Some statistics60% of the Australian population is of mixed ethnic background.
Only 30% of children identifying as Aboriginal have both parents identifying as Aboriginal.
Yes, 70% are in mixed marriages. What would be the proportion of African Americans in those?
See
http://elecpress.monash.edu.au…
A lot of the “White Australians” you see in the Audience would be partly Indian, partly Peruvian, partly Vietnamese, and yes, partly Anglo-celtic. People vary. But unless they have really dark skin, you’d see them as “white” because in the USA, chinese-indian-irish-german mixes are not the norm, but the exception. Heck, we even have Greeks marrying Turks, and Russians marrying Poles here!
I know we’re sometimes insensitive to the issues – but that’s often because we can’t see how anyone can take “race” seriously any more. We tried that, saw how utterly brain-dead it was, and gave up about the time you mob dropped the idea of “colored” drinking-fountains.
To us, this is about as racist as a St Patrick’s day parade, with people dressed up as exaggerated Irish stereotypes.
One question – if one was to have a group imitating the Jackson 5, what colour skin and hair should they have? Would it be racist to have a spoof of ABBA by using blonde wigs and skin-lightening makeup? Maybe even Viking Horned helmets  to parody the Nordic theme?

your questions

To us, this is about as racist as a St Patrick’s day parade, with people dressed up as exaggerated Irish stereotypes.

Mocking ethnic/cultural dress styles is generally just sophomoric, less so racist.  But ridiculing people who are oppressed and discriminated against, who are from disenfranchised groups, by employing stereotypes, or by exaggerating their physical features, or by mocking their sufferings, is racist.  For example, depicting the Irish in your parade as falling-down-drunk or brawling, or having rail-thin Irish paraders stumbling after a wagon of potatoes would be a big fail.

One question – if one was to have a group imitating the Jackson 5, what colour skin and hair should they have?

Easy.  Skin:  a natural skin tone like the actual J5, not shoe-polish black.  Hair:  an authentic hair style like the actual J5 wore, not a raggedy, unkempt wig.  It’s the difference between respect and tribute, and derision.

Would it be racist to have a spoof of ABBA by using blonde wigs and skin-lightening makeup? Maybe even Viking Horned helmets to parody the Nordic theme?

Nope.  1) Power and privilege dynamic is the exact opposite and 2) the wigs and makeup would have to be clownishly offensive- absolutely white skin and hair.  But 1) would still trump this.  As for a Viking helmet, that has been used so much as a reference (mocking and otherwise) to Wagner’s Valkyrie Brünnhilde, his Ring Cycle, and opera generally, that I think it would just confuse people.
Is all this complicated?  It can be much simpler.  Just remember the ways you are privileged, and default to compassion.  There’s always that Golden Rule thing too.

It was neither a grenade…nor ill-chosen words. I know exactly what I meant, even if you’re too blinded by presumption to understand it. Sometimes it’s important to remember than not everyone has the same perspective as Americans. If you don’t believe me, take a good long look at Afghanistan and Iraq.