Full Marks To Harry...

Saw this yesterday and gotta say full marks to Harry Connick Jnr for his remarks whilst appearing on this TV show...

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4LjFS4k0jek&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e 9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4LjFS4k0jek&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e 9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

Its 9 minutes of video so for a flavour of what caused the issue scroll to about 1 minute in and then 2mins 10 for an indication of Harry's first impressions and then 5 mins 25 for where Harry speaks up and covers himself in some glory.

He thought he chose his words really well and made a great point.

I actually think it was much worse because of reactions like his.

If some people weren't so offended by things that *could* be seen as racist, things like this wouldn't be funny and people wouldn't do it. It's like comedians who choose to make jokes about a certain race like Russell Peters for example. He makes jokes about Chinese/Indian/African people and their accents. What is the difference? I bet most people who found this act offensive would laugh at his jokes. What makes them any better?

I think by creating such a big deal about it, it will make more people do stupid things like this for a laugh.

The guys were obviously doing an act and it was very exaggerated like most acts that are supposed to be funny are. It was called "tribute to michael jackson" and they did it on the same show 20 years ago. The only difference was that back 20 years ago when they did it, the guy who played Michael also "blacked up" as they are calling it. This time he "whited up". Noone made a fuss then so why now?

Australia is the most multi-cultural country in the world and have people from all over who come to our country to live because we are so diverse. It would be easy to forget that what does not offend us may offend someone from another country, especially because I'm sure the producers didn't think of the international audience when airing an Australian show that was around for 20 years.

To look at that skit and try to claim anything other than a bunch of guys trying to make people laugh is absurd! They weren't doing it to be racist. They were trying to make people laugh. Obviously they did not succeed, and HC was offended, Daryl apologised. Why can't we just get on with it now?

What if someone went to a dress up party as Janet Jackson and did the same thing? Would it be as bad then?

I'm not saying that people can't be offended at stuff like this, but I think considering the fact that Daryl apologised because he didn't realise it would be offensive should be cause to move on. Nothing offends me except for when people are being truly racist and this isn't something that offended me simply because that wasn't their intention. If they did it with the intention of being racist, I think that would be another story all together.

JMO.

Well it was actually the casual nature of the whole thing that disturbed me most; the fact the Daryl and the producers didn't even realise it would be offensive to some people.

People didn't complain about it 20 years ago - but that was 20 years ago. Personally, I don't think an act like that has any place in the 21st Century.

What's more, it wasn't even particularly funny - it's one joke stretched for 5 minutes. Lazy and thoughtless

Yeah fair enough...

I'm not surprised that people were offended and I can understand why they were. And it was a stupid joke, I'm definitely not debating that Voltair. I just think if you're offended by something, you need to also accept that some people are just not offended by it... and vice versa.

I mean, how many people would be offended by the word that you and I throw around to each other sometimes? I have been told so many times that I should be embarrassed that I'm not offended by the word, but why? Of course I make sure I don't use it around people I know are offended by it, but I shouldn't be embarrassed because I'm not offended by it.. it's just a word. Like table. I'm sure there is someone out there who finds the word "table" offensive.

I'll tell you a gross word... Moist.

If that's not the most disgusting word I've ever heard, then I'm Chuck Norris.

Notice how I stuck the Voltair in there, huh? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renee

then I'm Chuck Norris.

---

Sorry Renee, but I thought Keith was Chuck Norris?

People will always find reasons to get mad thats just human nature.

Hi all,

I think Harry handled matter very respectively to all parties involved.

He didn't bring up the matter, it was brought up to him and he was just frankly honest about his thoughts and feelings towards the situation.

Further is how I loved how he did not take offense on behalf of black people (as there are those who with the best of intentions but lacking severely in thinking it out) woud have; but rather as a citizen where such scenarios are no longer considered acceptable in the land from which he resides.

That's not because of the act itself but rather because it is remindful of a time which we would choose to put behind us because (for the most part) those who were offended, and those who committed those offenses, are now gone, and well as the way of thinking that caused the situation in the first place.

We do not wish to relive it, not even in jest. Thus the reason Harry couldn't find anything funny about it.

And Yet Harry did this here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooKaCbMvaZ0

Cannot embed as its disallowed from youtube

basically Harry do a sketch as a black man, for jokes naturally

I suppose its ok for him to do it though...

People are such hypocrites.

I read it much differently, I didn't see that as Harry playing a black man and he hasn't 'blacked-up' either.

To me he was doing a Southern Evangelical Baptist type preacher.

I'm now curious, is the show in Australia on Rupert Murdoch's network? Mad TV is (though i don't see anything offensive about that video)

The use of blackface in the US wasn't done to let white actors look black. If was down to create a buffoon or clown. that's the point of white makeup around the mouth...think about a typical clown's white face, with exaggerated paint around the mouth. I'm pretty confident that you couldn't find a comic situation where a character in black face had any positive traits.

Fred Armison from saturday night live, wears makeup to play barak obama and new york gov david patterson. The makeup is used to darken his face, not to make his face look "funny"
http://www.accesshollywood.com/conte...night-live.jpg
http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/therem...0Patterson.jpg

I agree with BB1 - harry did a good job of explaining why it's offensive, without assuming the guys who did the skit had any bad intentions. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0215545/

Spike Lee, who deals with race in most of his films, did a movie "Bamboozled" where blackface was center to the plot. It's the only time i've seen it used for anything but farce.

This most recent show was on Aussie TV - they brought it back, for one night only, one of the most popular Saturday Night shows that had previously run for decades (I think) but finished it's run around the end of the '90's

The clip of Harry doing his Southern Preacher routine was from a US show. I first saw the video from that one day after the Aussie video hit the headlines as some people were suggesting that harry had been just as guilty himself but I don't buy it.

The History of black people on stage and screen has been littered with cliché's and stereotypes for over a century. When it comes to people blacking up I'm not offended 'on behalf of' black people I know - I find it offensive myself; a reminder when terrible cruelty was just a part of how one group of people viewed another group of people.

Now context is always different and can't be underestimated. Australia is very diverse place but has it's own issues with racism. Britain is the same; we had an Empire built on it but great steps have been taken since then.

I'm not surprised that many Aussies didn't understand why an American should be so offended. Many British people are they same when they are told that Golliwogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwog) are no longer tolerated. But the importance and relevance of the history of the slave trade to an American citizen is very different.

In some ways, it might be said that the issue of race and slavery was the defining characteristic of the birth of the USA as a modern nation (ignoring the others who already lived there before the settlers arrived) For some, golliwogs and black face are the last vestiges of a system that may be long gone but yet somehow refuses to totally die.

The US has just voted a black man into the White House (whatever you think of him) It's not all that long ago that the only way that would have happened would have been if the black man was carrying a tray of drinks or maybe even building the damn White House!


We're almost a whole decade into the 21st Century and I think it's high time we left black-face and Golliwogs where they belong; in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HodgeyBoy

This most recent show was on Aussie TV - they brought it back, for one night only, one of the most popular Saturday Night shows that had previously run for decades (I think) but finished it's run around the end of the '90's

The clip of Harry doing his Southern Preacher routine was from a US show. I first saw the video from that one day after the Aussie video hit the headlines as some people were suggesting that harry had been just as guilty himself but I don't buy it.

The History of black people on stage and screen has been littered with cliché's and stereotypes for over a century. When it comes to people blacking up I'm not offended 'on behalf of' black people I know - I find it offensive myself; a reminder when terrible cruelty was just a part of how one group of people viewed another group of people.

Now context is always different and can't be underestimated. Australia is very diverse place but has it's own issues with racism. Britain is the same; we had an Empire built on it but great steps have been taken since then.

I'm not surprised that many Aussies didn't understand why an American should be so offended. Many British people are they same when they are told that Golliwogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwog) are no longer tolerated. But the importance and relevance of the history of the slave trade to an American citizen is very different.

In some ways, it might be said that the issue of race and slavery was the defining characteristic of the birth of the USA as a modern nation (ignoring the others who already lived there before the settlers arrived) For some, golliwogs and black face are the last vestiges of a system that may be long gone but yet somehow refuses to totally die.

The US has just voted a black man into the White House (whatever you think of him) It's not all that long ago that the only way that would have happened would have been if the black man was carrying a tray of drinks or maybe even building the damn White House!


We're almost a whole decade into the 21st Century and I think it's high time we left black-face and Golliwogs where they belong; in the past.

---

I can totally understand why people would be offended at it, but I also think that you need to understand why Australians mostly do NOT get offended by this and I think the reason is because we have not been through something like what you described, not even with the native Australians.

Just because someone finds something offensive, doesn't mean everyone should and vice versa. I'm not saying you shouldn't be offended, but I am saying that if I'm not offended I shouldn't be made to feel bad about that.

I don't find any difference in this or in the way comedians (as I mentioned earlier) imitate certain nationalities accents like Russel Peters does for example.

You know what offended me? That stupid chk chk boom girl who told a fake story to the cops about "two wogs fighting".. why do I find that offensive? Because she used a derogatory term that relates to my life. My grandparents and my father came here from the war in Europe, they fled, and they were called all sorts of things here, including wog, because they couldn't speak English very well. This girl said that wog is not an offensive word anymore. Maybe not to her, or to people who have not gone through something like that, and I doubt she even knows what a wog is judging by where she lives, but it is still an offensive word to people who it relates to personally.

So I can totally understand why people would be offended at the skit on Hey Hey, especially if it relates to them like the story above relates to me.
What I am saying is that as in the example above, I can't prosecute her for not believing the word "wog" is offensive to her, but that it is still offensive to some people in our country and neither should be made to feel guilty for feeling one way or the other.

The other comment I would like to make is that in most American movies, the terrorist is 99% of the time someone with a middle eastern background. If that's not racist I don't know what is. What's the difference? I don't see anyone getting upset about that and that is a pretty obvious one don't you think?

Sorry lads but i just think trying to justify what Harry did as a different type of sketch, or he was a southern preacher or it was in the 90s is missing the point entirely.

he did black up no matter how it is defined and so he is in no position to have a dig at anyone.

Hes an hypocrite and while he may have had a good point to make or not whatever your stance on the matter is he carries very little credibility as he is not whiter than white himeself in this.

Exactly. This is kind of the point I was trying to make.

His comment was that they (quote) have been trying not to make the black man look like a baffoon...

But then in his skit he does exactly that. Are most "southern preachers" not african americans? Another stereotype we see in American movies btw.

Just because he doesn't black up it doesn't mean he isn't still doing it, which is my point about the comedians doing accents.

I wonder if anyone finds it offensive that the English came here killing aboriginals, taking them from their families, raping them, and taking their land?

Well, assuming that 'most Southern Baptist Preachers are black probably is a stereotype.

Harry didn't black up for that show, if you check out the link that Betpartners originally posted and click the 'more info' link to the right of the video you'll fine this link: http://www.connick.com/forum/uploads...1255063291.jpg showing Harry during the skit and then later on in the show. His skin colour is the same.

There were many shameful acts done by the Brits in the name of Empire, I didn't mean to suggest that Aussies are the only racist people left or that they're any more or less bigoted than any other nation.

Comedy always needs a target, even the guy who slips on a banana skin - it's all about targets. But aside from differing tastes in comedy, I don't think making jokes about racial stereotypes is funny.

The crucial difference with Harry's sketch was that both guys were playing Southern Preacher types and Souther Preacher types come in lots of different sizes and colours but many will share a set of similarities in the way they talk and preach - it's like a whole genre. I agree that comedy has to focus on some recognisable sterotypes

It's nice that they guys on Hey Hey... didn't think they were being deliberately racist. But if it was an impersonation, which one was supposed to be Marlon? Which was Jermaine? It was impossible to say. They all looked exactly the same.

Yes Betpartners, i appreciate you trying to find an example that you think shows hypocrisy, but that ain't it.

He's not "blacked up", he's not playing a black preacher. The point of the skit was that "charismatic" preachers (often from the south, but not exclusive) are basically the same, whether black or white, they're all about the money! Certainly some religious folks might argue it's unfair or offensive, but there isn't much going on racially except showing the similarities between the 2 preachers.

Yes, in the US folks from muslim areas of the world, the middle east, pakistan, etc. tend to be the made bad guys in Entertainment. This has been an issue that the Arab community in the US has protested for years. they were making headway in the 1990's, but since 9-11, their agenda has been ignored by the mainstream.

I do find it amazing that so many people here are trying to attack harry connick for explaining why he was shocked when the act first came on and why. He didn't attack the show, the actors, the network, the people...etc. He just explained why as an American he finds that sort of thing offensive.

What is the other side of the argument? He should have sat there and said nothing? If his comment does nothing else but save one Australian family, in the US, from showing up to a "fancy dress" party in blackface without a clue why they shouldn't, it was a worthwhile moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmCan

Yes Betpartners, i appreciate you trying to find an example that you think shows hypocrisy, but that ain't it.

He's not "blacked up", he's not playing a black preacher. The point of the skit was that "charismatic" preachers (often from the south, but not exclusive) are basically the same, whether black or white, they're all about the money! Certainly some religious folks might argue it's unfair or offensive, but there isn't much going on racially except showing the similarities between the 2 preachers.

Yes, in the US folks from muslim areas of the world, the middle east, pakistan, etc. tend to be the made bad guys in Entertainment. This has been an issue that the Arab community in the US has protested for years. they were making headway in the 1990's, but since 9-11, their agenda has been ignored by the mainstream.

I do find it amazing that so many people here are trying to attack harry connick for explaining why he was shocked when the act first came on and why. He didn't attack the show, the actors, the network, the people...etc. He just explained why as an American he finds that sort of thing offensive.

What is the other side of the argument? He should have sat there and said nothing? If his comment does nothing else but save one Australian family, in the US, from showing up to a "fancy dress" party in blackface without a clue why they shouldn't, it was a worthwhile moment.

---

Well Amcam i do disagree with you on this, i also disagree with some other comments made in this thread by others but the truth is i do not feel strongly enough about it to get in to a full on debate about it.

I respect your view and am happy to agree to disagree :)