Singer Harry Connick, Jr. recently appeared in Austraila as a judge on a televised talent show that featured a parody of the Jackson 5, in which the participants wore what's called "black face" makeup. Blackface harkens back to a time in 19th century America where white actors would dress like African-Americans and mimicked their speech and mannerisms in what would today be considered an insulting, if not humiliating manner. Connick sparked controversy when he walked off the TV show's set because, he said, he found the segment racially offensive. Here's a link to the segment on NBC's "Today Show." http://today.msnbc.msn.com/
In some ways, this exemplifies issues raised in your two readings for Tuesday, the first on naming sports teams after Native Americans, the second on the decision by editors of a San Francisco newspaper to publish a racially charged cartoon.
Think about connections between all three and ask yourself: Where do we draw the line?How do we decide when people are being too easily offended or when someone is being too offensive?
While I think the performance shown was racist, I don't think people would be making quite as big of a deal about it had Michael Jackson not died recently. Although it seems like he became a saint all of a sudden after his death, Michael was the subject of a lot of pretty cruel jokes and parodies for many years.
ReplyDeleteI understand that a lot of the concern with this type of performance stems from the fact that white actors used to portray black people with this type of make-up in a very offensive and insulting manner. However, if we look at the clip of Harry Connick Jr. himself on MAD TV, as well as movies like White Chicks, it is clear that using race in a humorous fashion is still pretty common in the entertainment industry.
I think the main problem with this issue as well as the issues about Native American names for sports teams and racially charged cartoons, is that is difficult to predict whether something will come across as offensive or not. Since different races and people have very different backgrounds, what one person finds offensive, another may find humorous. Since there is such a fine line between humor and offensiveness (and sometimes the two even go hand in hand),
I think it is important to ask someone of another race for their perspective. Furthermore, if you feel like there is even a slight chance that something may be offensive, it probably will be.
All these examples show how overly-sensitive we have become as a society. I guess it's easy for me (a white person)to say this. I don't have personal experience with these examples. But I think it is difficult to say what is too offensive, or who is being too sensitive. Everybody has their own experiences. Everybody has their own perspectives. And you can't please everybody. There is always going to be someone who disagrees with you. The Sacremento Bee was trying to make a point about Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's comment that "You can't be a racist by talking--only by acting." Their attempt to point out the hypocrisy of that statement got them in trouble for what many people considered a racist cartoon.
ReplyDeleteI just think that these situations continue to create fear and tension within groups of people. This doesn't mean that the Jackson 5 tribute band wasn't being offensive, or that the portrayal of Native Americans in sports teams is acceptable. But these days it seems everyone is so afraid of offending other people. Everybody feels they have to be politically correct. But does that really change what people are thinking? Probably not.
As for the issue of the group in blackface, I found it racially insensitive. The group said they were trying to pay tribute, but they clearly did not know the history behind it. Blackface is way before my time, and I only know about it from watching documentaries of black history.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show
But I do think we today do take things to personally know. Some people get all upset over little things, such as a black person eating fried chicken in a commercial. I think we as a society have deeper racial issues that needs to be handled.
As for Native Americans, I can see why they are upset. The US has screwed them over so many times in the past, I can understand if they just want to disassociate themselves from anything American.
But I do feel like native american teams are the coolest mascots because of the rich tradition behind a certain tribe. Natives have always been a sign of both fearless and compassion. Their battle history and precisions with weaponry, makes the ultimate team mascot. That's why I love FSU (i also like usf). But we need to be understanding of others feelings about these issues.
Almost every action is going to be offensive to someone. It is hard to draw a line as to what is understandably offensive and what is a stretch.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading these three situations, I had three different reactions. For the situation that involved Harry Connick, Jr., I think the most important point is that he said he would not have done the show if he knew that skit was going to take place. I think that the people in the skit took it too far, unnecessarily. They claim it was more of a tribute to Michael Jackson, but I find this hard to believe. I think a song from the Jackson 5, with some token dance moves of Michael Jackson would have encompassed a tribute that also seemed to show respect. I do not think Harry Connick, Jr. overreacted because the group presented themselves in a way that seemed to mock the Jackson Five. These are the actions that reinforce stereotypes and make them seem ok.
In the case of the team nicknames I think people are a little too offended. I disagree with the fact that these names create images of Native Americans being savages. I agree with the idea brought up in the reading that said the names were not meant to offend, but were to honor native people. I think the names bring about a great image because Native Americans were strong and independent of other societies. The history of certain tribes highlight strong, wise individuals. Names such as "Redskins," or "Braves," are ones that represent a strong, competitive team that will do what they have to do to "survive." The idea of spirit and tradition behind a team name, is also similar to the idea of spirit and tradition within some Native American Tribes. I think that this is a situation where the line needs to be drawn. It is a far-stretch that this would be understandably offensive. The reason I feel this way is because an athlete on one of these teams is a "brave," or a "redskin." They are not members of a group meant to mock Native Americans. They are taking on the role of that name in their competition. They strive to do the best they can and Native Americans did the same in establishing themselves.
I do think that the cartoon situation is understandably offensive. It is bound to strike a nerve in many people. I think that the same message could have been portrayed without using expletives. I think this cartoon addresses an underlying issue and puts it in a humorous way to promote change. The word choice in the cartoon, shows people how severe and powerful certain language could be; it also debates this idea that words do not need to be sensored because it does not cause someone pain.
In these three situations people were offended. Although I feel some were more justified than others, I also realize the fact that people react differently to the same situation on a regular basis. Our own personality and emotional responses are comprised through unique experiences and how we chose to react to each one. For this reason I do not think there could ever be a clear line of what is/isnt offensive. I also believe that if there was a line of what is or isn't offensive, there would still be people deliberately, and undeliberately commiting harmful actions.
Here is a site that worked for me, for some reason the one above didn't...sometimes my mac doesn't like links lol
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hulu.com/watch/100948/nbc-today-show-connick-disgusted-by-jackson-parody
Connick's point raises awareness of how something done in "fun" can be viewed as offensive to other cultures and races, (aside from the fact he must have forgotten that he impersonated an African American reverend on SNL in years past).
This awareness he has brought, such as this Race and Gender class is helping us mold in our own lives, supports the effort to stop racism, incognizant or not.
Where do we draw the line? When entertainment is mixed with racial parodies? Maybe. I'm not sure. I don't think there is an answer for this because what one might find offensive, another might not take a second glance at.
People can most certainly be expected to take offense when an entertainment pun ignores the history behind a particular social struggle and violates the "battleground on which crutial symbolic wars are fought on" when it comes to race and culture.
It's weird to apply American standards of offense to other cultures, even when they themselves enjoyed the minstrel touring acts of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Though America has mostly shed its obsession with minstrely (especially with white actors in black face), it is a grey area when you consider that other cultures don't find it that offensive.
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of the time where I was in the Amsterdam airport at Christmastime. They had actors strolling through the airport dressed as the Three Magi and one was in blackface. Only myself and an American serviceman (who was black) made a stinkface about it. It was invisible to the rest of the crowd.
It's not that the Aussies are devoid of racial hegemony. They have had a long history of subjugating and humiliating the Aboriginal culture. So when you apply a test based on those standards, offensiveness can be an issue say if a white actor portrayed Aboriginals in a primitive (backwards) way. But if that happened in this country? I doubt that Connick would be similarily offended.
I am absolutely sick of the racist sports names and I do not think they have a place in our culture anymore. Though ironically, they are museum pieces for a culture long dead or assimilated (I mean patriarchal white culture and American Indian culture too). Could you imagine other racially insensitive names for teams that would fly?
It's too bad that the Indians, who have struggled and found prosperity in a country that hunted them to near extinction, finally built up enough clout to protest the Skins, Braves, etc. in a time (early 90's) where it became a buzzword of evil "political correctness." They were laughed off the stage or bought out (in the case of the Seminoles, oh don't get me stared on that racist bullsh** too)
This is still a big big issue, as the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux are in court now over the usage of their mascot and name. Look it up, pretty compelling stuff!
Do I think the Jackson 5 parody was insensitive, Yes. But I do not think that the group performing understands the context behind black-face in America. This once prevalent and humiliating impersonation of black Americans could be found all across stages and screens in the U.S. from the 19th and early 20th century drawing cheap laughs and maintaining the hegemony of white America.
ReplyDeleteBut as Matt said, if we had a skit or act in the American media representing Australian aborigines many would not think much of it. But, that is because many Americans do not understand the wrongs suffered by the native aborigines at the hands of white Australians(look up the "Stolen Generation" where aboriginal children were taken from their families up until the 1970s by the state.)
Sports teams in the U.S. that use native American mascots is something that I still cannot believe takes place in America. Native Americans where successful in having the University of Illinois remove their mascot of Chief Illini in the early 90s, but that has been about it.
True Seminole tribe leaders have continually reaffirmed FSU and the use of their mascot Chief Osceola, but they also receive a nice check each year. The Seminole tribe, leaders in the tribe more specifically, are smart business people and have done a great job at making a brand out of themselves. But what does the tribe say as an entirety, I do not know. I can not imagine how hard it must be for an individual to stand up to this kind of branding of one's culture when you receive a check in the mail for it.
I become sick though each time I go to an FSU game and see a sign or shirt in the stands that says "scalp 'em Noles!"
I believe that in this case with the performers in black face and with sports mascots and names and other icons, it is the intent we must examine.
ReplyDeleteSo quickly everyone wants to throw someone under the bus for being "racist" when in reality the intent was never to mock or harm another group of people. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we must remember.
I think that because our culture has become so worried about being politically correct and not offending anyone or anything, we now look for racism everywhere. While this is a good practice in some aspects, it can also be harmful
In the case with Harry Connick Jr., my guess is that those people did not intend to offend anyone, I think they were imitating a legendary pop group and because the Jackson's were so talented, they wanted to try and measure up to them in every aspect.
For Connick to walk out only made it seem very racist and for all we know those poor people didn't mean anything by it. Would it have been better if they had worn masks? I just don't see how this is offensive if you are not mocking the Jacksons. In any other case if you were saying hateful things or acting stupid or committing crimes while in "blackface" I could see how this would be offensive, but it just doesn't seem like the intent of the performers was wrong
Here, I see Connick Jr. trying to be the most politically correct and take a stand against racism kind of guy he can be and here I think he went too far and in turn made the poor performers look like racists. How about Harry Connick Jr. getting on the case of the Local News Stations if he has that much passion.
In everyday life it's very hard to distinguish a line of where people are being too offensive or they're being too easily offended.
ReplyDeleteIn the cartoon from the Sacramento Bee, I do believe they took it a little too far. I understand the point they were trying to make but at the same time they could've had the same effect without using the caption, "That nigger makes a lot of sense." I'm pretty sure if people were keeping up to date with the paper and the news involving the situation with Louis Farrakhan the people would've understood the cartoon just fine.
As far as the Native American sports team nicknames go, I completely agree with Aaron. The names have so much history to them. I understand why the Native Americans get upset because we took something from them a long time ago and now we're using their tribal names as Sports team names. At the same time though, I don't think when the teams were named the specific intention was to offend the Native Americans.
In regards to the Harry Connick Jr. episode I have mixed feelings about this one. I commend him for getting upset about the "tribute" to the Jackson 5, but the skit was taken too far. Blackface makeup was used way before our time when white people were acting because African Americans were not allowed to at the time (correct me if I'm wrong here, this is what I remember from my Evolution of Jazz class). The only reason I have mixed feeling about this is because Connick impersonated an African American Southern pastor, which is hypocritical. Had he not done this I would support him fully on walking off the set during the commercial break. For him to say that America has worked so hard get past black people "making buffoons" of themselves and for him to comedic ally do it himself is definitely hypocritical.
Either way it's very hard to know WHERE and WHEN to draw the line in worrying about being offensive, or too sensitive about racial issues.
The problem remains that it is almost impossible to predict how people will react to any scenario (that may be digested as racist). What is considered offensive varies between individuals, so censorship becomes a tedious process.
ReplyDeleteThese scenarios really depict how sensitive society has become to racial innuendoes. Even bringing such matters to the table time and time again further exemplifies the ongoing complications of the racial struggle.
The Jackson 5 issue could be found offensive because the face painting seems to be unnecessary. The “tribute” really lacked any historical reference, so it is understandable that Connick found it disagreeable. The issue with the sports teams being renamed is not a matter of racism on the surface level, but political correctness. Native Americans may find the affairs distasteful, but the home teams are really just standing by their traditions. The Sacramento Bee pushed the envelope with their cartoon, but the issue probably would not have blown up if the N word had not been used. With smaller news publications matters seem to surface at an accelerated rate because of the intimacy of audience.
Although there appears to be new hints if sensitivity to these issues, the concern remains of where the line must be drawn on what is blatantly considered offensive.
I agree with many of the post above, we are becoming a very sensitive country! Halloween is right around the corner and I am sure many people will be walking around looking like Michael Jackson or other iconic figures, that may appear to be of different race. The question is, when it is appropriate in society to mock people without offending everyone? And 'my answer' is when it comes to the entertainment industry there is a fair game - as long as you do not play out of character, or otherwise 'insult your character.'
ReplyDeleteBut this Australian show is a TALENT SHOW!
Really - how many times have you seen people dressed up as Leprechauns for Halloween or St. Patrick's Day - which mocks the Irish. I am Irish and I do not get mad.... Either does my grandmother who is from Ireland...
My point is - When it comes to people (white) dressing like other people (black) it is a big deal. Why is this? Is it because we make it a big deal because we automatically think that is racist when it is not?
Well.... then there are a ton of hyper-sensitive people out there that shouldn't role play during Halloween either.
About the sport teams being names after Native American's.. well, I could definitely see how this is an issue. But..... I do not think it is inappropriate. However, isn't it too late to change all the names?
Personally, the men dancing around on the Australian television show in black face seemed to be a new-and-improved version of the minstrel shows of the 1830's and 40's. But, you have to take into consideration that these minstrel shows took place in America, and were at one time, a very popular form of American entertainment. Because the television show took place in Australia, they may not have the same "frame" that comes with black face make-up as we do here in the United States. I don't really feel that they were purposely trying to make some sort of racial stab by dancing around in black face in tacky costumes, and I feel like maybe this wouldn't have been an issue at all if there hadn't been an American sitting on that judging panel.
ReplyDeleteAs for the issue with American Indians and sports teams...turning someone's personal beliefs, culture, and livelihood into a half-time show could definitely be considered offensive. Again, this all depends on what lens you're seeing this issue through. I am not of Native American descent, but I can completely understand how this could really hurt people who are. Being a Native American is not a role someone can just play.
Here's a link to a great film called "In Whose Honor" that tackles some of these issues: www.jayrosenstein.com/pages/honor.html
All three of these issues are a power struggle between culture and free speech.
I'm a fan of Harry Connick, Jr. and I respect him for what he did in this circumstance. I think what was done on the talent show is different than what he did for MAD TV. In the same vein, I think he would take back that MAD TV skit in a heartbeat if he could, for an event like this.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think Connick's skit is more comparable to Dave Chapelle being a black KKK member on his old TV show. They were both done in deliberate forums for humor, both making jokes about racial issues. If anything, Chappelle's is more offensive to black people than Harry Connick's.
To call him a hypocrite is foolish.
Furthermore, when it comes to Native American monikers, I happen to be doing my Ethics project on the topic.
There are debates, but the Indians may be the most honorable of names. Search: Louis Sockalexis. Do you really feel like the Redskins is not offensive though?
Even with teams like the Seminoles or Chippewas, which are adamant that they are named in honor, who are these people who are determining that it is an honor? If you look, my guess is a lot of white men.
I grew up spending a lot of time with my Native American grandmother (Her name was Sarah Silver-Bells). She was proficient in the art of storytelling and even won awards for her dancing at pow wows. Her belief system was based on ancient legends about Native American origins and, since the beginning, she always hated Crayola Crayons.
ReplyDeleteCrayola used to have a color called "Indian Red" and it always infuriated my grandma because she would point to her skin and show me how she "wasn't red." Because of outcry from the Native American community, Crayola has since removed the crayon from their boxes, but they claimed that they never meant to refer to people's skin color with the name. Instead, they say it was derived from a pigment artists use for deep red colors called "India." Perhaps that might be true, but I still don't buy it.
When color television began rolling around, cowboy and "indian" movies were still pretty big hits. With this came "redface" acting. Much like blackface, redface was the application of red pigments to the skin of NON-native people so that they can look more like "indians." I think that because of these color depictions in movies (and in descriptions by those that "discovered" Native Americans), ideas like Native American skin color being "red" have become so ingrained in us that they are exhibited in everyday and incognicent racism. This, in turn, leads to my arguments against sports teams.
I think that sports teams named after Native Americans are incredibly offensive for a couple reasons. The Redskins are obviously catering to the aforementioned ingrained stereotypes about Native American skin tones, and while they say it is a compliment to their ferocity and warrior-like prowess, those too are racial stereotypes of Native Americans. Sure, Native Americans knew how to fight, but that's all they're really seen as. Forget the fact they had incredibly close-knit family structures, well-advanced democratic governments, lived within their means and used all the resources around them while respecting them at the same time, and were relatively peaceful people before being "discovered."
Secondly, I'd like to talk about teams specifically called "Indians." This should be a good one for those that just celebrated Columbus day. The term "Indian" was always incredibly offensive to my grandma because, well, she wasn't Indian. The term was an anglo invention by "discoverers" because they thought they'd landed in India and also because they thought the people looked like actual Indians (from India). My grandma always told me that I wasn't part "Indian." She made sure to stress that I was part Dineh. I understand how Native American communities can be angered over just the use of the word "indian" because it isn't their name. It's not what they are. It's a description given to them by people (like Columbus) who not only brought them disease, but sicked dogs on them, raped the women, and made the U.S. into a variable slaughterhouse for the years after "discovery." Just a point: Native people of Hawai'i also hate the word "Hawaiian" because it is, again, an anglo creation. They claim they are not "Hawaiian" but instead are kanaka maoli.
I think that the biggest issue here is that nobody is considering the bigger picture. We've named these Native American teams and some claim it was to honor their culture and yadda yadda yadda, but behind the name is a group of people that, in many cases, are literally starving, suffering with alcoholism and living underneath discarded tarps and shards of corrugated roofing. If you're going to honor a culture by naming your team after it, at least shed some light on the fact that, because of events over the past centuries, the culture isn't as vibrant and "cool" as it used to be because now it's faced with very serious problems brought on by the very society that is naming their sports teams after them.
It's hard to claim that someone is being "too sensitive" when that person is placed in an entirely different culture. I've never been to Australia but I'm certain that they were not as affected by the impact of Michael Jackson's death as we were here in the U.S. Their culture may be different in that white people can portray black people as a "tribute" whereas in our culture, we just don't do that anymore in that sense, especially to an icon like Michael Jackson.
ReplyDeleteI believe Harry Connick, Jr. was right in saying that he was offended and I applaud him for letting the Australians know, even if they just didn't understand. As for his SNL skit where he played a Southern Black Preacher that different websites keep hashing up, the skit was from 1990. Last I checked that was 19 YEARS ago, and the U.S. culture has shifted in what was accepted back then and what is socially acceptable now in terms of portrayal. To use that video to call him a hypocrite is trying to stretch too far.
On to the sports teams, I think that now it would be unacceptable for a sports team to name themselves after a cultural slur or politically incorrect name, however most of the teams have had those names for years and most all people understand that the name is just a name and doesn't represent the team as being hateful of others. I dont think we necessarily need to change the names of these teams, we just need to be aware of what you can and can't name a team nowadays.
I think that Harry Connick Jr.'s statement that he wouldn't have participated in the show had he known there would be participants wearing "black face" makeup says a lot about where to draw the line. It is partially an individual decision. However, celebrities can use their influence and make the choice not to participate in activities that perpetuate stereotypes and discrimination.
ReplyDeleteDetermining if something is offensive is tricky because it is very subjective (what you see depends on where you are sitting). But, I think a line should be drawn such that groups are not trivialized. The controversy surrounding sports teams hinges on the idea that the names highlight a generalization about a group. No one should be portrayed as a caricature, especially when it does nothing to give them a voice.
It is difficult to determine exactly what is offensive and what isn't, because everyone has a different perspective. Honestly, I wouldn't have payed much attention to the use of potentially offensive sports team names before reading this article. I am not the minority, and even though I grew up in Kansas City, home of the Chiefs, only now have I noticed that there is a negative connection to that name. To me, Chiefs means football. Perhaps that is precisely the problem, though. The majority can't decide what the minority finds offensive. Clearly, there is a huge issue surrounding the use of team sports names and I feel ignorant for not payin attention to it earlier. You wouldn't choose any other racial term to name your football team..
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the racially charged cartoon, upon first reading it, I immediately got the sense that the newspaper was trying to make fun of Farrakhan's statement. I got the joke. Apparently, others didn't see it so clearly. Not quite sure I understand why. I guess seeing the word 'Nigger' in print was more overwhelming than the newspaper and the readers thought it would be. Perhaps the newspaper should have been more sensitive, but I think that the readers overreacted in this situation.
When I saw the Harry Connick, Jr. clip my immediate thought was that the Jackson 5 act was a bit racially insensitive. Was I offended? No. But I can easily see how many would be. Harry was obviously offended, even though he did a skit impersonating a southern black preacher years before. But just as I was ignorant about Indian sports team names before this reading, Harry seems to have learned his lesson about what is racially offensive since his SNL skit.
I think the cultural difference between here and Australia is something to consider. I do not feel the blackface actors meant any offense. MJ with 93.3 FLZ was talking about this incident and ran an audio clip of Connick Jr. during the commercial break. He sounded really upset, but later the Australian show host apologized and noted the difference in cultural outlooks of people of color between our two countries. As for the naming of sports teams after Native Americans, I had never considered the negative connotation that could be derived from that. Now I feel just a little bit guilty when I think about the Redskins...
ReplyDeleteI suppose given that HJC is American we have to consider that he might be sensitive to those issues, especially given Michael Jacksons recent death. However, he may have overreacted to some extent, but then who wouldn’t get slightly offended by the situation? Also, here’s a question…. Would a black person dressing up in white face offend us?
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Native Americans go, I think that maybe we should have had some consideration for them when naming our sports teams. But who’s to say that those names weren’t chosen under the most innocent context. The names could have been chosen based off other cartoon characters or something like that. I can see why they would be offended though.
I don’t really know what to say about Bee issue, UF pulled the same crap a couple of years ago, and it wasn’t as blown up.
I think Americans get easily offended.
Harry Connick Jr. is being a hypocrite. His black face appearance on Mad TV is an example. It was brought up that Australia has Aborigines and severe discrimination against Asian cultures. Maybe Connick should protest the Ragin’ Cajuns, since they are in his home area.
ReplyDeleteI suppose mascot names like “Fighting Irish”, “Braves”, “Redskins”, “Fightin’ Illini”, “Aztecs” and many more are all offensive to someone.
Try this Web site for a more in-depth article on the subject. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sbd.main&ArticleID=96420
Florida State’s original mascots were Chief Fullabull and Sammy Seminole (1958-1972). Chief General Council President of the Seminole Tribe or Florida Max Osceola said that it is an “honor” to have the team nicknamed Seminoles.
The Seminoles are the only tribe that is undefeated.
Excellent post. I was always checking this blog, and I’m impressed! Extremely useful info specially the last part, I care for such information a lot. I was exploring this particular info for a long time. Thanks to this blog my exploration has ended. Cosplayer
ReplyDelete