Four men in blackface and with Afro wigs sang and danced behind a Michael Jackson impersonator wearing white makeup. Connick gave the performance a zero score....ADDED: Here's the video of the performance and Connick's handling of the situation. (Via MadisonMan, in the comments.)
Some Australians said they were embarrassed such a racist sketch had been broadcast, while others said detractors were too politically correct and that the skit was funny.
Connick said he canceled an autograph session and interviews in Sydney after the show to let the controversy die down.
October 14, 2009
Harry Connick Jr. is "pleased with the way [he] handled the situation."
Australia is a little different from America. There was Connick, guest judging on "Hey Hey It's Saturday"....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
111 comments:
I would expect CNN to try and to connect this into Fred Armisen's SNL portrayal of Barack Obama in 5...4...3....
My family and I lived in Oz for almost a year and it was enlightening in a way that living in England wasn't.
The definition of "liberal" and "conservative" were VERY different because there is stuff that just isn't on the table in a serious way: defense spending, abortion, Israel, healthcare, etc....
And racism worries are very very different in Australia. I won't try to tell you what I think I know because I am sure it is mostly wrong, but I can assure you that the "overloading" of the minstrel show images wouldn't have the same resonance there. And it wouldn't have surprised me to see it on TV.
-XC
He handled it pretty well for an entertainer. Not too strident and he was careful to state that as an American he found it distasteful, but that he understood things were different in Australia. I think his message that maybe it isn't so appropriate in Australia any longer either came across too.
I would think that Australians of aboriginal descent might find blackface performances insulting, or at least discomfiting, too.
Ooh, mustn't laugh at that = freedom gone.
The modern ability to discern racism is nil, and the ability to take offense is correspondingly enhanced.
Rob Bartlett, in Australian accent, doing the gong show host: "Is it okay to make fun of the Chinese?"
real audio. Oct 9
Harry Connick is actually pretty funny in interview, on Imus 9/30, real audio.
So was the main performer a black performer in white-face? That's sort of the gist I got from the blurb you quoted.
If so, that takes it from racist to really funny, topically appropriate humor.
Does Australia have a lingering social hierarchy based on race that derives from a history of African slavery?
Connick handled it well. The act was probably not intended to cause harm, but it was insensitive. PC gets overplayed, but that does not mean you can't say that you find something offensive. That is what Connick did and he did so in a polite manner.
A model of polite discourse.
Triangle Man said...
Does Australia have a lingering social hierarchy based on race that derives from a history of African slavery?
10/14/09 9:52 AM
No, just a lingering social hierarchy based on it starting out as a penal colony for Irish nationals and Cockney criminals. Oh an a heavy dose of taking out their exile frustrations on the Aborigines.
The essenece of political correctness is being pleased with yourself.
When something dies there is usually a mourning period.
Is the enhanced ability to take offensea sign that people miss racism?
Stupid.
By this logic, you might as well outlaw the blues.
The blues was born, after all, as "race records."
The race records of the teens and 1920s were sold explicitly with the image of blacks as oversexed minstrels. Niggering it up (if you'll excuse the expression) was the PR gimmick that gave birth to the blues.
So, who's in favor of outlawing the blues?
You could argue that rap music has the same foundation... blacks playing out the most extreme gangster from the hood stereotype for the amusement of white audiences.
Should rap be outlawed?
This is stupid shit. Time for the bigot hunters to retire.
I think he did okay, totally between a rock and hard place.
ricpic, you're free to laugh at it. And everyone else is free to make the rational conclusion.
Link to the performance.
"We've spent so much time trying to not make black people look like buffoons,..."
And what a major, self-congratulatory, effort it's been.
Jesus Christ, just shoot me now.
The Macho Response
Things like “black history month” are just as pernicious as that act that offended JR, if not more.
I don't know where "the line" is. I can't; its location is too dependent on local sensibilities. For example, "spastic" (well, spaz) here in the states is zero cause for alarm, but it apparently is a pretty bad thing to say over in Britain.
That's not to say that blackface is right, or that Britain is oversensitive. It's just saying that it's hard to tell what's offensive where.
I'm not so sure Connick Jr. should be please "with the way [he] handled the situation."
I previously commented on this controversy before under Althouse's "They are handing him the Nobel Peace Prize because he isn’t George Bush" post.
It wasn't so much what Connick Jr. said, but how he said it:
I just wanted to say on behalf of my country, I know it was done in humour ... but we have spent so much time trying to not make black people look like buffoons, that when we see something like that we take it really to heart," Connick Jr said.
Yikes!
wv - "befrou" = to put on an afro wig on someone?
When Obama visited Cairo and delivered the ‘Muslim speech’ didn’t a Muslim news broadcaster do the news story in black face?
Supposedly it was a welcoming sign.
A good sign.
If Obama’s view (that we are just another country among many) is to prevail we have some culture catching up to do.
It really was a successful gesture. It was right to take exception to that act, and he did it in a way that was measured and appropriate.....I don't think the Australians did it in a spirit of malice. It would be wrong to make too much of this.
It's funnier, I guess, when Harry Connick, Jr. is doing the blackface himself, I guess: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vtOt5mNEZE&feature=PlayList&p=D5266EF1661FDACC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=55
Crack, could you explain what you found odd about that remark? I found it a little funny as well, but it may have been caused by a misunderstanding.
Treacle, I looked at your link -- where was the blackface?
on his face and hands. but connick does the aussies one better: he talks in dialect!
shouting thomas -- you should really get over yourself. The attitudes your comment reflect are EXACTLY the problem.
Contrary to your stated beliefs black music WAS NOT created with the intent of portraying A DAMN THING to white people. Like all music, it is there to express feelings and common thoughts and experiences ... and perhaps surprisingly to you, no the lives of black people do not revolve around 'the amusement of white audiences' as you SHOCKINGLY claim.
Simply stated shouting thomas: white people are not at the center of the universe. Get over yourself, the self-righteousness ... all of it.
your comments are pathetic.
danielle,
You are some BS artist.
You've said nothing, except that you hate my guts.
Same to you.
Nice of you to decide to play spokesman for black people. I assume that means you're black, right?
So, now we know. Connick has appeared in blackface.
That sort of renders this entire thread insane, doesn't it?
By the way, danielle, what is the problem... your condescending belief that blacks need your protection?
Was it?
I associate blackface with black shoe polish.
Someone who says "you can't understand X because you aren't X" is always interesting to me. How do they presume to understand ME if they are themselves X? Can't I reply with "You don't understand Y because you aren't Y, either"? Because this type of argument assumes that I am the Type O person - I can donate knowledge from anyone (you presume to understand ME), but I myself can't receive anyone else (I can't ever understand YOU).
Bosh. If you want me to sympathize with position X, you have to assume that I can somehow understand and share X.
If I were to talk to my dog and say "You'll never understand X because you aren't X" I might be right. But on sentient humans? Not so much.
Australia simply doesn't have our history. Heck they didn't even have black people till recently. Well, they did and do have black people, but those are the aborigines, not people of African descent. The aborigines are more like our Indians than anything else.
So "blackface" doesn't have anything like the resonance it has here.
Besides, that group was composed of physicians, reprising a performance they did twenty years ago on the original show. For them it would be like donning long haired wigs, grass skirts, and coconut brassieres -- meant to be goofy, and to show they were good sports; not meant to be offensive.
Treacle - That's not blackface. Blackface is an attempt to exaggerate African skin color not imitate it. It uses genuinely black makeup like burnt cork. Black performers in minstrel shows had to "black up" just like white performers.
Minstrel shows were the most popular form of entertainment in the US over a century ago. They carried a profoundly racist message, portraying black as morally and intellectually inferior to whites. If you talk to someone in their seventies they probably still remember them being put on as fundraisers. If you read some old Jim Crow vs. Zip Coon skits you will find that they are pretty funny. Doesn't mean it is not a good thing that they are a thing of the past.
Chia Obama
Oh, and Connick grew up in New Orleans, that's pretty much the accent he grew up speaking. That's the way southern white folks talk when they aren't trying to make money up north.
shouting thomas, please -- this is getting a bit ridiculous .... i'm not sure if you are to be taken seriously, or if you are taking the piss ...
you would be mistaken to interpret my comments as hating you. that's completely ridiculous. i don't even know you ... and frankly, i dont really take the time to hate people ... i dont waste my time or energy in that way.
i'm also not sure why you find my comments condescending to black people. For the sake of argument, please feel free to insert any racial group or music style where you had black and any other group of people where you had white and my comments would still ring true.
... I wonder if the problem is that you misunderstand the reason why artists create music ?
Ok... That was bad on a whole lot of levels, number one being that they (the performers) couldn't even dance in sync or sing very well.
Black face means something different in other countries and we can't demand that everyone world wide kow tow to "our" US historical feelings and drummed up white guilt. Nor can we expect to hold other countries to our own standards.
I think that HC Jr. did a very nice job of not putting political crappola into the mix yet expressed his reasons for not appreciating the act.
I did laugh at the irony that the Doctor who plays Michael Jackson in the skit is a plastic surgeon.
So if you want to imitate black people, you have to look white, or only black people can do it, or you just don't?
So if Obama were to imitate a black person would he wear blackface on half.
If Michael Jackson were to imitate Justice Thomas would he be able to wear black face?
This is very difficult. White people just need to accept they were born racist. It should be considered a genetic disability with monthly checks forthcoming.
You can’t say spaz in England? Who knew? When I hear the word spastic, I don’t think of someone with a severe disability like cerebal palsy. I think of someone who is clumsy and maybe a bit ADD.
That article’s list of top 10 bad words was:
1. Retard
2. Spastic
3. Window-licker
4. Mong
5. Special
6. Brave
7. Cripple
8. Psycho
9. Handicapped
10. Wheelchair-bound
Window-licker? Also, wheelchair-bound is a bad word, rather than just a description? I have no idea what Mong means.
If Michael Jackson were to imitate Justice Thomas would he be able to wear black face?
Able to? Probably not. I think Jackson's skin would fall off if you tried to rub black face on it now.
About the you tube link...
OK, I'm too dense, probably, but...
I saw the first guy, playing a preacher, and then out came a second guy, playing another preacher, and I thought Harry Connick Jr. was the second guy; it didn't look like he had black face.
Or was the first guy--who looked black--supposed to be Harry Connick? Were they both him, in one of those split-screen things?
The second guy didn't look "blackface" to me, but maybe tan? The video quality seemed muddled to me.
People wear fat suits, paint their front teeth to look "hillbilly", stand on their knees to imitate midgets,. But only blackface is offensive?
This has more to do with entrenched victimhood than racism. It is voluntary self-demoralization and consequently beyond anyone else's ability to repair.
Treacle, he's not in blackface in that video. And that's HIS dialect. He's a New Orleanian, and talks like one.
When it comes to race relations, Americans could learn a thing or two from the Australians. For example, Crocodile Dundee felt perfectly at ease among Indigenous Australians and African-Americans, alike, and he got to watch Linda Kozlowski bend over in a thong. If that’s not God’s way of giving you a thumbs up, then I’d like to know what is!
who says that only black face is offensive, and who would also not consider context in deciding what is offensive to them ? I'm sure that there are many cases/skits/jokes/whatever involving fat suits, hillbilly styled/behaving whatever, and people pretending to be little people that many people would find offensive.
I think its an unfair conclusion (based on not enough information and thought) for you to conclude that for every person (and I'm assuming here that you meant black persons) who finds this offensive that its based on voluntary self-demoralization.
I'm sure that there are many cases/skits/jokes/whatever involving fat suits, hillbilly styled/behaving whatever, and people pretending to be little people that many people would find offensive.
The difference is that when "we" Jethros and Jethroettes take offense at those skits we are brushed off and not treated seriously. Being white we are not considered a legitimate victim group and have not been elevated to official perpetual offended status.
It is perfectly ok to make fun of people from the back woods, the fly over country etc. You know the knuckle dragging, Bible thumping, gaped toothed, tobacco spittin', cousin marrying, Nascar fan, hillbilly, tea bagger, geriatric terrorists.... all of whom occupy the fly over country between LA and New York. Not a problem to make fun of or denigrate those people....BUT.... mention anything that contains the word black (black hole, black ball) or participate in a tasteless skit...RACISM.
Yea. We get offended and the reaction from the left is: "Ha ha you deserve it." or "So what, you aren't black so you can't be offended"
The double standard is staggering.
Maybe we should found our own political action group similar to the NAACP. Maybe someone smarter could come up with an appropriate acronym
@Beth. I love HC Jr.s accent. My Father is from NOLA and sounds fairly close to that.
dust bunny queen, i agree that these double standards do exist ... and the perfect examples of a lot of this was the vitriol directed at Sarah Palin.
So, bagoh20, I do think the 'if' clause of your argument has been disproved, so its only reasonable that you reconsider your conclusions ... or perhaps honestly give voice to whatever other opinions your conclusions are based on. your choice.
all of whom occupy the fly over country between LA and New York.
Otherwise known as Jesusland. Yes, some people are jerks, but there are people being jerks about everybody else too, so when does it rise to a level where society needs to worry about it. Physical violence is an obvious line, but it seems some people draw that line pretty broadly.
And I like HC jr’s accent too. It's pleasant.
OMG, my WV is PALIN!!!
bagoh20 said...
People wear fat suits, paint their front teeth to look "hillbilly", stand on their knees to imitate midgets,. But only blackface is offensive?
This has more to do with entrenched victimhood than racism. It is voluntary self-demoralization and consequently beyond anyone else's ability to repair.
===================
Agree. And the artistic community is all over the map on whether or not an entertainer must be "racially authentic" or not....because the sword cuts all ways. If no white shall ever "steal" a black person's role - then by what right does any black have being in a Shakespeare play? Even Othello is supposed to be a Moor...not the James Earl Jones sorta blacks..as good as they are in the role.
Hollywood, comedy, music periodically erupt in these little tiffs that become big. Asian activists were picketing Miss Saigon saying roles that went to blacks or whites belong to those of Asian blood...
And comedy has it's own rules. Like it is OK for a Jew or black to go after Gentile whites, play rednecks .....but since Jews claim the sumpreme immunity amulet by way of victimhood only a Jew may spoof or lampoon another prominent Jew or ridicule a Jewish stereotype or give any social commentary on Jews through comedy. Blacks aspire to similar Victimhood advantages.
In the case of music bands - nations that are monoethnic or relatively monoethnic will naturally have a hard time by certain PC rules in effect mocking or even doing a straight tribute to a band from a different country.
In Japan, I saw a great show where Japanese were doing tribute to American rock&roll, soul, and individual performers like Streisand. Complete with wigs and attire. Some good (Beatles in mop-tops), guy with a blonde-white wig doing tribute to albino Edgar Winters, the Streisand girl in blonde beehive wig who was a truly gifted imitator - no, Streisand wasn't blonde either). One so bad it was hilarious - The Japanese version of the Temptations with guys in darkface, Afros and early 70s pimp suits led by a singer with big problems with his r's, l's and his "soul quotient".
Nobody bitched about Eddie Murphy in "whiteface", and I think the guy doing Obama on SNL darkens his face.
A great spoof on all this PC is "Tropic Thunder" which amid Ben Stillers other great comedic characters he sketched - Tom Cruise as the demented Les Grossman is a standout - had Robert Downey Jr playing a multi-Oscar Australian method actor who went into blackface and went through the flick doing a bad "Chicken George" stereotype which irritated the gay black actor who "talks white" who was playing a manly black soldier to no end..And every time the real black tried to correct Downey's character..."how be a real black man done play dis scene?" ...the Downey character would say that "authentic black" meant he had to be more black than the black guy said....and it didn't matter anyways because as a method actor he was "trapped in a black man's body and soul" until the movie ended.
cedarford, what a nice long laundry list of roles/skits etc ..... none of which makes a particular coherent point, and nearly all of which anyone could present an alternate example to make the opposite point.
.... so do you write all of this as a means to just let everyone know all of the times you've not been happy with the discussion that has taken place over these skits/roles/etc, or did you actually have a point you wanted to make ?
BBC does pretty much colorblind casting and it’s actually pretty interesting (even if you find yourself wondering about the historical accuracy of certain scenes).
Danielle, obviously my point in illustrating skits and entertainment are all over the map on different races/genders/ethnicities in various roles is to show they are all over the map?
Is this somehow not clear to you?
Cedarford, what is your point in relation to the bagoh20 comment lead with ? and if your point is just that different people (artists) from different countries and with different artistic objectives handle race in different ways, is this, in your opinion, some surprising or unexpected ?
Waaaaahhh!!!!
Why can't we endure the centuries of slavery, lynching, Jim Crow and other forms of persecution that it took for blacks to eventually gain this kind of sympathy?
Waaaaahhh!!!
Oh wait, no one's stopping you.
Waaaaaahhhh!!!
My point was threefold:
1) That the important problem facing blacks today is not what whites think of them, or how they portray them, but how they view themselves and their victimhood. You will not take responsibility as long as you have someone else to blame your difficulties on.
2) There is a double standard.
3) Both these things are perpetuated by the demands of the "victims" and cannot be remedied by others. Our kowtowing to it hurts blacks and creates a stifled, dishonest culture that serves no one.
"Why can't we endure the centuries of slavery, lynching, Jim Crow and other forms of persecution that it took for blacks to eventually gain this kind of sympathy?"
When does it end? Because until it does, blacks continue to suffer from a constantly reinforced notion that they are not good enough to prevail without help. That is the racism of today.
"When does it end? Because until it does, blacks continue to suffer from a constantly reinforced notion that they are not good enough to prevail without help. That is the racism of today."
Pretty cold world you must live in bag'o if sympathy amounts to an expectation of failure
Is your sympathy for the idea of democracy in Iraq also accompanied by the expectation that it will fail?
bagoh20, i find it incredible that you would claim to have enough knowledge and insight into the psyche of an entire group of (diverse) people and of a culture (which it sounds like you view only from a rather large distance), and use that to make sweeping judgments.
that is arrogant.
and if your intent really was to make a helpful difference (as opposed to what seems to be an intent to express anger/frustration because you feel that you have in turn faced some injustice), i would bet that you would (1) think differently about the issue and (2) express your concerns differently. I'm not denying your right/justification in feeling angry and to express that, but i would hope that after you experience those feelings, that you could then put some serious rational thought into several sides of the issue.
again, it sounds to me like you just want to rant, and pass judgment. which of course is your right, and perfectly common. but i do hope you realize that as you rant you're only skimming along the top of a very complicated issue, and your underlying anger that you hold on to prevents you from actually seeing any deeper, progressing, and actually helping the country to progress.
I have no sympathy for people treating others as if they are weak or stupid or helpless, or sensitive, just because of their skin color.
Being born black today does not deserve sympathy unless you feel that child is less capable just because of skin color. I do not. They are people strong and capable, not invalids.
And as for my rather large distance from the issue; I am sitting at my work computer in Compton, California. It don't get no closer.
"I have no sympathy for people treating others as if they are weak or stupid or helpless, or sensitive, just because of their skin color."
Way to get confused bag'o and project your own personal definition of what sympathy means (i.e. applied only to the stupid, the helpless, the sensitive) to what it really means.
"Being born black today does not deserve sympathy unless you feel that child is less capable just because of skin color. I do not. They are people strong and capable, not invalids."
Since when does less likely to be connected to someone of prestige, or less likely to be judged based on appearance have anything to do with "less capable"?
When you hold determined people to different standards in a free society, it's the ones held to the higher standard that eventually excel and accomplish the most. We are robbing favored minorities of the most valuable of gifts: equal challenge and pride of accomplishment.
bagoh20 -
And as for my rather large distance from the issue; I am sitting at my work computer in Compton, California. It don't get no closer.
And one might say that West of the Rockies, it don't get no worser regarding dysfunctional blacks than Compton.
LA's a pretty interesting situation. Blacks habituated for 45 years of crying victimhood and demanding special favors pitted against a huge tide of immigrants of have actually suffered real Victimhood in their lifetimes in no mood to put up with black whining or their upscale progressive Jewish and WASP "champions".
Jesse Jackson's imagined black-brown coalition barely holds together in Democrat Party workings. While it has fallen totally apart in real life society as hispanic and asian majority neighborhoods and schools see the greatest opportunity to improve things further is to send the blacks out. Back to Watts and Compton.
Let me ask you something, bag'o.
Do you consider yourself patriotic? Do you take pride in this country's achievements over the course of its history?
Conversely, do you feel that this country's failings are worth being upset about? When a policy is enacted that you feel is wrong, what do you think about it? How do you feel? Happy? Proud?
That wouldn't make you a very interested citizen.
Saying that blacks have no reason to feel something less than pride about having been enslaved by their own country is like saying that you have no right to feel personally upset about things that the country does wrong in your eyes.
You can focus on the here and now all you want. But in that case, I want to never hear you crow about some great feat that America accomplished in the past as a point of pride for you, because that should be as irrelevant to you as slavery and segregation should be to someone whose grandparents were enslaved and ostracized.
Deal?
So how long do we wave the bloody shirt of slavery? If I recall correctly, the slavery issue was settled oh, some 140 years ago.
What is the actual factual point when this is not an issue? Never?
Because it seems to me that the answer is "never" and we will never hear the end of this. There will always be some reason to keep waving this flag.
And it seems to be used only as a red herring when someone is losing the argument: they trot out racism when logic fails.
oh, ok -- so now you're a psychologist. you claim that blacks had some, and I quote 'entrenched victimhood', and a 'voluntary self-demoralization' that was 'beyond anyone else's ability to repair.' And you also seem to believe that the world has bought into this, and treats blacks as such, and that this is the source of the problem.
that is a very creative theory .... and this is based on ... your ... opinions ?
clearly, bagoh20, proximity to people does not constitute understanding of their psyche. so while you sit in compton, how many black people have you discussed this issue with, and how many of them had identical views on this ? have you read any other authors who think deeply on this, particularly those with contrasting views ? if you're really wanting to feel all self-righteous, you need to do your homework and develop a working thesis that you continually challenge and question.
.... but on the other hand, if you want to just pass judgment and make *ridiculous* pronouncements about the thinking of an entire group of people, stop pretending that your doing anything except passing judgment. And by all means, when you are challenged on this, please do not present yourself as the defender of black children's true humanity, which you know because you are closer than close, down in compton.
So how long do we wave the bloody shirt of The Revolutionary War? If I recall correctly, the independence and freedom issue was settled oh, some 233 years ago.
What is the actual factual point when this is not an issue? Never?
Because it seems to me that the answer is "never" and we will never hear the end of this. There will always be some reason to keep waving this flag.
And it seems to be used only as a red herring when someone is losing the argument: they trot out patriotism when logic fails.
So how long do we wave the bloody shirt of blacks being too damn uppity? If I recall correctly, the slavery issue was settled oh, some 140 years ago.
(Apparently in Miller's world, the persistence of segregation due to Jim Crow was just an oversight. Completely unrelated to slavery and the racism that instituted it. Just an oversight. Bet he's pretty ashamed of the actions of the Republicans in the 1960s in reversing it. Oh well.)
What is the actual factual point when this is not an issue? Never?
Because it seems to me that the answer is "never" and we will never hear the end of this. There will always be some reason to keep waving this flag.
And it seems to be used only as a red herring when someone is losing the argument: they trot out the idea of blacks being too uppity when logic fails.
So how long do we wave the bloody shirt of blacks not being entitled to sympathy or access to prestige? If I recall correctly, the issue was settled oh, since the beginning of the slave trade.
What is the actual factual point when this is not an issue? Never?
Because it seems to me that the answer is "never" and we will never hear the end of this. There will always be some reason to keep waving this flag.
And it seems to be used only as a red herring when someone is losing the argument: they trot out blacks not being entitled to access to prestige or sympathy when logic fails.
I'm just trying to understand Miller and his historical blind spots.
You brought up "slavery."
Now you're switching to Jim Crow.
If you want to have a reasonable argument, stop moving the goal posts.
And no, you are not trying to understand. You are simply trying to wave the bloody flag of slavery.
You want to argue that blacks have had a wretched experience in America the land of the free? Go ahead.
You want to argue that we should apologize over and over and over again for slavery? Go ahead.
But reasonable people might ask: At what point is the argument about slavery going to end? Because it seems like you really like to keep bringing it up.
The goal post is racism, the reason for both slavery and Jim Crow.
And racism is the result of either hatred, or ignorance, or both. When you say that blacks have no reason for any sympathy, you are displaying as much ignorance of the longstanding effects of that racism as you might claim that leftists are displaying of the longstanding effects of the American Revolution.
Either history resonates, or it does not. Make your choice, Miller. Stop saying we should be blind to it one moment and celebrating it another.
See, historical ignorance is really fun. I can keep doing this:
And no, Tea Baggers are not trying to understand. They are simply trying to wave the bloody flag of patriotism.
Conservatives want to argue that blacks have had an awesome, splendid experience in America the land of the free? Go ahead.
They want to argue that the American Revolution and everything great about America makes all our problems magically go away? Makes us impervious to failure? Or even acknowledging its persistence in the past and present? Go ahead.
But reasonable people might ask: At what point is the argument about American Exceptionalism going to end? Because it seems like you really like to keep bringing it up.
Conservatives will never be able to resonate with a pragmatic electorate until they own up to both the good side and bad side of American history, as well as their own failures as a party and unwillingness to acknowledge reality. But poking at the specific blind spots that they love to pretend away is pretty fun in the meantime.
Fascinating. Danielle and MULe Vs Bag'o and Miller. Cage match. To the death. Seems Miller and Bag'o don't understand the rules, though. Victimhood trumps all other positions. Now and forever. The power position is to be the one who gets to decide who the victims are.
WV: comple-as in incomple..?
Blind assertions are so fun to play with. Let's try this one:
Fascinating. Danielle and MULe Vs Bag'o and Miller. Cage match. To the death. Seems Miller and Bag'o don't understand the rules, though. (Bravado) trumps all other positions. Now and forever. The power position is to be the one who gets to decide who the (victors) are.
Arbitrarily, I might mention.
As everyone knows, the victors get to write history. Only Gulch hits on a fascinating insight regarding the conservative mindset: It believes it can invert this. It believes that by rewriting history and deciding which portions are relevant and which aren't, they will be victorious.
And when they tire of rewriting history, they try to rewrite reality.
I love making the echo chamber a little less stuffy.
It seems I've hit upon a key insight regarding conservative propaganda. And it doubles as its Achilles' Heel.
Their talking points are nothing more than Mad Libs.
Only, I think Mad Libs are better researched and slightly more thought provoking.
Lord, this has nothing to do with victimhood being political correct or Eddie Murphy's white like me skit. It's Blackface. It is obscenely offensive. Anyone who knows the any little bit of history of blackface knows this. Its indefensible. Its painting burnt cork, bright red big lips and a floppy wig and representing yourself as a jackass. It's a caricature of black people dating back to when they were not considered people. I don't know how anyone can come up with justification for this.
very nicely done, Montana Urban Legend !
Thank you. Thank you very much, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Yeah, it's pretty sad, Jeff. Defending blackface. I guess that's what it's come to.
Keep it up, conservatives. You're really hitting on something. People are bound to agree with your view on why it's all in good fun to belittle blacks on account of their physical characteristics. Any day now.
montana,
You are a sanctimonious blowhard.
This doesn't have anything to do with liberalism/conservatism.
You just enjoy the prissy schoolmarm thrill you get from calling people bigots.
You're a nasty piece of business, and you're not very bright.
This is the dumbest comment thread ever posted.
Connick defends the world from the terrors of racism.
Yet, he appeared in blackface.
Idiots respond that, yes... but, he had a professional makeup artist and he painted his neck black, too.
Then, the penultimate idiot from montana tries to turn this idiot thread into a general condemnation of conservatism.
Everybody please stop now. You're all shitting your pants. Especially that montana moron.
This is crazy:
It's that movie, Mississippi Burning, and I'm playing the blacks used as background for the real drama:
Whites attempting to Do The Right Thing.
I feel kind of the same way about my blog. It's there, same as any other, except - unlike any other - it's saying "I've got the answer", only to be ignored in favor of blogs selling journalistic "narratives", pondering the angles, or using it all for entertainment. Anything but taking seriously what the conservative (black) guy who's-obviously-not-stupid is saying regarding NewAge. I can only shake my head. So here's my one "racist" comment:
White folks - they sure like listening to themselves.
There - having finally said something racist in the open, I'll now say this again: race is crazy shit. Don't you guys get that? That's why you need to drop it.
Danielle, Urban Montana Legend, etc., y'all ain't gonna like the future because y'all ain't gonna be part of it. You're too racist. You're thinking is so last century. I mean, this is hilarious:
"When you say that blacks have no reason for any sympathy, you are displaying as much ignorance of the longstanding effects of that racism as you might claim that leftists are displaying of the longstanding effects of the American Revolution."
That shit got applause. This fool is taking bows based on that lame idea.
O.K., MUL, it's already been asked, but now I'm asking, as a member of the race in discussion - and someone who can clearly tell you (I'm 99.9% sure about this, guy) that I'm over the slavery thing - how how many years of "sympathy" am I still entitled to? And I've only told you I'm over it because I'm a nice guy, but I know other blacks who are over it and they cynical asses ain't gonna tell you shit; does that make a difference regarding the doling out of all that "sympathy" you got?
And how far does this "sympathy" extend, Danielle? If I exploit this "sympathy" idea enough, you and me could probably go places, huh? Why, I'd be a regular Barack Obama in no time, with people like you scraping at my feet, to chew old gum from my shoes. Oh yes, you're so, so sorry.
You're also stupid. A bunch of First Class Suckers. Idiots, not just waiting to be exploited but begging for it, without one thought about the consequences of your claims for others - including the blacks you claim to care about.
Look, it's over, you guys. Stop being "offended" - especially on someone else's behalf - and get over yourselves. I don't want your help except in one way:
Read my blog.
i suppose, shouting thomas, that I should have taken your screen name to be foreshadowing of what was to come ....
... who votes for refraining from personal attacks and name calling, and instead, sticking with a discussion of ideas ?
...and please also, shouting thomas, do realize that disagreements about ideas are not intended to be personal attacks.
and crack emcee, please spare all of us from the faulty notion and argument that you are or should be the authority because you are one of the circa 36M black people in America.
blah blah blah ....
guess what: any person is capable of thinking carefully about race.
and by your comments, you have not proven that you are one of them.
and by the personal and vulgar attacks you level you also prove that you are not capable of adult debate and discussion.
...so no, i'm not interested in reading your blog.
danielle,
You don't have any ideas.
Your are a preening, sanctimonious fraud.
Screaming about racism has been the favorite ploy of thumb suckers like you for a several decades.
At least you could come up with something new.
This thread has not been about ideas. It's been a repellent display of dumb and dumberer.
Hard to choose between you and the montana moron. Who's dumber?
Heh. Montana Urban Legend once again demonstrating that there is no limit to stupidity.
Then again, perhaps Montana knows an African-American who was a slave. It is possible. Ponce de Leon may not have been able to find the Fountain of Youth but perhaps some plantation slave did and has been living amongst us for the last 140 years.
I mean anything is possible in the fever swamps of the liberal mind.
"crack emcee, please spare all of us from the faulty notion and argument that you are or should be the authority because you are one of the circa 36M black people in America. "
Never said it, or suggested it. I just think if me and mine are going to be the topic of discussion (which, I might add, your white ass takes to very well on our behalf) then getting a word in regarding my fate might not be a bad idea - something I see you don't appreciate, unless I agree with you.
And, as everyone here but you also seems to understand, that's always been the problem of your position: you could care less about real, live living/breathing black Americans. You're defending a cardboard cut-out in your mind. You're the type who will do anything - anything - to keep other blacks from hearing a conservative like me, for fear they'll leave the liberal plantation, which they will.
Oh, and about those "vulgar" attacks? If you spent more time with black folks, you'd know they can, very easily, come with the territory. But, of course, you're offended:
Really, that claim is all you got to run on.
Sad.
Danielle blathered:
"and crack emcee, please spare all of us from the faulty notion and argument that you are or should be the authority because you are one of the circa 36M black people in America.
"blah blah blah ....
"guess what: any person is capable of thinking carefully about race."
Translation: Shut up darkie, I know better than you.
crack emcee, and i quote:
It's there, same as any other, except - unlike any other - it's saying "I've got the answer", only to be ignored in favor of blogs selling journalistic "narratives", pondering the angles, or using it all for entertainment. Anything but taking seriously what the conservative (black) guy .....White folks - they sure like listening to themselves.
so you've got the answers .... the difference between your blog and this one: your ideas come from you (a black man), the ideas here you seem to believe come exclusively from white people.
i find it interesting that instead of posting real ideas and real arguments, all you're doing is making assumptions about my background and motives, claiming you know my 'type' ...calling me names *again*, all in an attempt to silence me...
so who is it that comes off as the bigot ?
and listen up crack emcee: you dont know me. so back up.
Pardon me for butting in, but what is a "white" thought versus a "black" thought?
How do you tell?
Yes, Crack Emcee, how do you tell ?
Oh great - let's all quote me - pin me to the wall, baby:
"Having finally said something racist in the open, I'll now say this again: race is crazy shit. Don't you guys get that? That's why you need to drop it."
You're a fucking loser, D. I truly despise your kind. I know more about you than you think - and definitely more than you know about me. Back up off you?
Sister, you got the wrong boy,...
And BTW - the difference between my blog and this one (or Instapundit) is just as I said:
I'm actually suggesting a road map out of our troubles, while Ann, etc., are just pointing at shit and saying, "Look at this, isn't it weird/interesting/provocative?" or whatever.
It seems weird to me - but that's white folks for ya.
ROTFLMAO
Hello Everyone:
I would like to call your attention to the following statement that was posted on Harry's official website:
MadTV Clip
Official Statement - harryconnickjr.com - 10/8/2009
There is a 1996 MadTV clip of a spoof featuring a black Baptist minister named Rev. LaMonte Nixon Fatback and a white southern evangelical preacher with a pompadour named Dr. Michael Kassick. Some people seem to be confused about which actor is playing which character. For the record the actor playing Rev. LaMonte Nixon Fatback is Orlando Jones and the actor playing Dr. Michael Kassick is Harry Connick Jr.
Crack Emcee,
Your blog is totally incomprehensible. Other than your obvious visceral hatred for almost everything.
You don't seem like a "nice guy". In fact you seem like a total asshole.
And just because I am a liberal and full of guilt about the way we have treated black people in this country for the last five hundred years doesn't mean I have to like all of them, especially such an obnoxiously conservative one like you.
This just in:
It doesn't matter whether there is any evidence that Connick did or did not appear in blackface.
As the case of Rush Limbaugh has proven, fabricated evidence is enough to convince the accused of racism.
So, in that spirit, I report: "Harry Connick, Jr., in a TV interview in 2005, said that black welfare queens should be beaten with a large stick." To date, Connick has not denied that he made this statement.
"And just because I am a liberal and full of guilt about the way we have treated black people in this country for the last five hundred years doesn't mean I have to like all of them, especially such an obnoxiously conservative one like you," says Freder Frederson.
Freder, I suggest that you insert a roto router in your ass and slowly work you way up to your esophagus. This may solve your problem.
Is there any way to kill this stupid fucking thread? Will the breast beating, guilty ridden liberal assholes never shut up?
Crack, I, for one, appreciate your blog work and agree with your mission. There is a lot of crap in our culture that is just snake oil. It does a lot of damage and I hope you have some success reducing it.
As you already know and see here, liberals believe being black is unfortunate, and being black and conservative is evil, or at best, hate worthy. Get back in your place, you don't know how bad you have it.
Freder Frederson,
I am an asshole. And now you're catching on: Why do you potentially feel guilty for black assholes? (I mean you didn't know I was an asshole until now.) Or are you claiming, up until now, to have known every other black person but me? Or do you just feel guilty for those blacks that agree that you should feel guilty around them? (That must make for some weird family gatherings, huh?: "Mom! Freder's going all guilty on me again!")
Whatever, dude. You're a liberal. There's no hope for you. Stupidity and fascism are in your veins. You'll stand there and admit blacks get a poor education and then, without thinking, agree with everything they say - using it, and your ever-present-except-around-conservatives guilt to crush anyone trying to fix the problem which, with such a poor education, is best defined as blacks feeding your stupid gullible ass a load of bullshit.
Whining Thomas isn't worth responding to. Of course, he needs no response. He already knows everything. (Or so he thinks).
Responding to him is futile! He doesn't require your response, merely your agreement! Agree with him or be insulted! He don't play that silly "debate" game! He's above it! He doesn't need to demonstrate why what you say is wrong; what you say is self-evidently wrong because The Big Shit hasn't approved it! Now bow down to him and kiss his butt!
Sure to win a lot of agreement (and votes) that way. But I say keep it up. Keep being a dumb asshole!
Now Crack Emcee, OTOH, actually likes to think he could engage an argument before insulting those who could win it. Lessee...
Well Crack Emcee is "over" slavery. Isn't that nice? I'm glad for him. He claims that others are over it too. Good for them.
The discussion had nothing to do with slavery per se. It was about racism. If Crack Emcee doesn't have a problem with racism, hey, more power to him! I'm sure other blacks will disagree. He can take it up with them.
Are they all as quick to "exploit"? He doesn't say. He just says that he is and other (blacks) are. And that's fine. No one needs them. Or him.
There are enough people of goodwill who can accept what we can learn from the past without having to block it out or allowing it to prevent them from moving forward. But not Crack! Discussions of history bore him and acknowledging wrongs done makes him feel patronized.
Of course, this would come off as just a bunch of bravado if it weren't for the fact that he's a self-proclaimed sociopath who's just looking to exploit others. Hey. No group of people is immune to that!
But he is pretty stupid for coming out and proclaiming as much.
Most sociopaths are smart enough to just keep their mouths shut and take what they can get. But not crack! He's too cool for that!
Good sociopath, crack! Do you want a cookie? Or some bling?
"I mean anything is possible in the fever swamps of the liberal mind."
Including an ability to acknowledge history honestly without feeling tormented by it or having to whitewash it.
You must feel pretty guilty to have to do that.
Hey! One of the lunatics above said this is nothing about "liberalism/conservatism". He did this before going on with his violent, creative and lurid fantasies about what should happen to someone described as a liberal for being too naive/sympathetic/whatever.
I suppose calling others stupid is a pretty clever way to cover up such maniacally warped cognitive dissonance. For a sociopath.
But I digress.
The point is that Crack's right. He doesn't deserve any sympathy.
It fucks with his mind to address groups rather than individuals, and as an individual, he would just exploit that. That's fine. As an individual, he's an asshole and deserves no sympathy. I never said this was about what applies to individuals - especially people who are too myopic and too much of a sociopath to see beyond themselves for a minute.
So take my insults and my expressions of contempt for such a cretin as yourself. It will make you a better man - or so you'd like to believe.
But hey, dude. It's your choice. Don't ever say I didn't give you the opportunity to define yourself... even in your own, messed up way. But dat's cool.
So the lesson here is that... Hey! In America, everyone's got a right to be anyone they want. Even a sociopath! And don't let those evil liberals tell you any different! Fuck 'em. And fuck their condescension.
Which is really the same thing as the naivite of someone just waiting to be exploited.
Oh wait. That didn't make sense. But in America crack emcee, pissing thomas, Who's yer Dadddie and whoever else have the right to say some bullshit that makes no sense. And to GET ANGRY ABOUT IT when OTHERS DARE TO DISAGREE WITH THEM!
Yes, yes, we get it. Very dramatic. Are you done with your tantrum now or do you want a pacifier first?
Ok. So now that that's out of the way, the adults can continue to have a rational discussion.
And that's the problem with Mad Libs, Ladies and Gents.
Having been exposed as a bunch of rubes who lack for a real script, all they've got left is anger and tantrums. So it's back to square one.
Waaaaahhhhhh!!!!!
Waaaaaahhhhh!!!!!
Which is how I summed it up in my first post in this thread.
Waaaaahhhhhh!!!!!
Binky time for the little boys.
No need to fret. Thread's pretty much done, Tommy. Now that it's clear that even your second string crew on the second day didn't have anything useful to add.
Except for... Waaaaahhhhh!!!!
You can go to bed now.
MUL, it looks like I struck a nerve:
Um, speaking of stupid, you left out that if I went along with your guilt scheme, then I'd be sociopath out to exploit you. But I'm not going along with it - and thus not going to exploit you - I'm just calling your ilk stupid and letting it go at that.
"The discussion had nothing to do with slavery per se. It was about racism. If Crack Emcee doesn't have a problem with racism, hey, more power to him! I'm sure other blacks will disagree. He can take it up with them."
I do (unlike you, my black friends aren't figments of my imagination) and they find a real discussion enlightening. Unlike talking to a white liberal, who's just trying to find a way to win morality points for himself, and possibly keep racism going so he can possibly get even more. I really want it to end, and - here's the part you don't get - you shutting up about it is a great start.
Sorry, MUL, but I don't encounter racism very often, but then I hang with mostly Republicans, so,...
Um, speaking of stupid, you left out that if I went along with your guilt scheme, then I'd be sociopath out to exploit you. But I'm not going along with it - and thus not going to exploit you - I'm just calling your ilk stupid and letting it go at that.
Um, yeah. That is a pretty stupid thing to say. Which is why I didn't say it. You did.
"The discussion had nothing to do with slavery per se. It was about racism. If Crack Emcee doesn't have a problem with racism, hey, more power to him! I'm sure other blacks will disagree. He can take it up with them."
I do (unlike you, my black friends aren't figments of my imagination) and they find a real discussion enlightening. Unlike talking to a white liberal, who's just trying to find a way to win morality points for himself, and possibly keep racism going so he can possibly get even more.
I couldn't give a shit about "morality" as some abstract concept disconnected from history.
What was being discussed in every one of my posts was history.
See, history is not destiny. But just because you want to define your own destiny in a certain way, doesn't mean that you get to change history, or pretend that it doesn't matter for anyone else. That's the only point. No big deal, dude. Does that really get you all stressed up?
I really want it to end, and - here's the part you don't get - you shutting up about it is a great start.
That's your opinion. Maybe that's true to some extent. Maybe some people can't see the difference between acknowledging how history affects the present, and how it shouldn't.
But man, that's their problem, not mine. I'm not saying history should be destiny. But I'd be a fool to deny that history shapes the present for most people. That's just a fact.
Sorry, MUL, but I don't encounter racism very often, but then I hang with mostly Republicans, so,...
More power to you. Most blacks I know don't seem to identify with that experience and don't see how party affiliation would affect it one way or another.
And that's all y'alls loss,...
Post a Comment