Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
eveln

2001 brown face

Recommended Posts

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-19/brownface-just-latest-scandal-threatening-justin-trudeau/11528522

 

So I'm driving home tonight and Hughsie otherwise known as the Aussie comedian David Hughes, and a few others are on my radio. Usually makes for a few laughs, and I'm all for those. Tonight the topic was about things done in the past that are considered bad frigging news today, or some such along those lines. Well Hughsie tells the tale of the Canadian PM going to a dress up back in 2001 as a brown person. As well as that he's apparently had a photo obviously fondling some femme ( same do ). The PM is on a plane some where making a radio broadcast apologising for his past behaviour, which he states at the time ( 2001 ) was not considered racist, but today it obviously is.

Well. I fucking OBJECT. :) ... bloody hell it's 2001 not 1891 we be talking about here ! I was a bit peeved at the time with Hughsie too, he seemed to be giving an Oscar -winning performance of a sycophant in relation to the Canadian PM ... now that I'm home and have had a chance to think more on it, I'm pretty sure Hughsie was just covering all his media bases . At least I hope that's the case. If not, then Hughsie you are dead to me

And the Canadian PM is a tool, and not a particularly useful one either

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geezus!!!

 

He dressed up as Aladdin ffs!!!

 

This is genuinely PC gone utterly insane - he'd hardly look like Aladdin with WHITE face...

 

Madness....

 

Cheers

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing Greg Ritchie isn't a politician, otherwise he'd be crucified for all those years as Mahatma Coat (and I believe probably overlapped this period too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eveln said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-19/brownface-just-latest-scandal-threatening-justin-trudeau/11528522

Well. I fucking OBJECT. 🙂 ... bloody hell it's 2001 not 1891 we be talking about here !

 

 

and its 2009 we be talking about here:

 

 

Bxtm0pO.jpg

 

^^ just think of the number of high level people who had to sign off on that Red Faces skit

 

Deputy PM, Julia Gillard, addressing it at the time whilst visiting the U.S.A: "Obviously, I think whatever happened was meant to be humorous and would be taken in that spirit by most Australians."  <-- psst Julia...ixnay on the blackface is just a bit of fun innit schtick!

 

guest judge Harry Connick Jr was well within his rights to be mortified and incensed at being ambushed by it.  oh man, he must have been utterly seething off-camera! millions of our own citizens, especially dark skinned people, had every right to be offended by it. 

 

in our defence, though, at the time i remember being slightly miffed at the presumption of worldwide cultural hegemony present in the indignant reactions coming out of the US.  what they failed to understand was our casual feelings of distance and disconnection from, what — to us — references a quaint artifact of american history.  black and white minstrel shit is not our shit, not really.  its weird archaic american shit from all the way across the world.  its never meant the same thing to us, and they shouldnt automatically assume it does, or that we should necessarily be beholden to their interpretation, because, guess what — the whole world is not AMERICA!  this what we do, or traditionally have done: stood apart from the world, poked fun, played around, safe in our playground far away from it all, far away from consequence and wider context.  in other words, for the most part, Julia was dead right.  the majority of the audience would have sat at home and enjoyed the skit's lunacy with nary a thought about its inherent racism.  but is that because we as a nation are, or were, racist? i am not about to say we werent or arent LOL, but i would argue that as a piece of evidence, the presence of that skit and that imagery, on prime time national television, in 2009, says more about our ignorance and naivety than our racism.  (...even if a good deal of that ignorance and naivety is a legacy of our racism)

 

so to my point: those times are well and truly over.  but its easy to forget that there used to be more layers of perceived distance, as recently as a decade ago — when social media was still detonating, and the world had not yet compressed to the point it has today.  distance, that is, between we australians and the world, between all individuals and the world.   as it is, in 2019, most of us are well aware that some of the jokes we may share with close family and friends are under no circumstances to be posted on twitter, et al.  but navigating the boundary between the shrinking private sphere and the ballooning public sphere has been a fraught process for many — just ask Justine Sacco

 

specifically, on the topic of race, two bona fide non-racists can quite happily sit on a log in the middle of nowhere and share a joke that would come off as racist without proper context.  they might also enjoy a categorically racist joke for its own sake, most likely with many layers of knowing irony as a given.  but its only on that log in the middle of nowhere they can constrain the public bounds of the 'message'.  thats how far the private sphere has shrunk.  if these people have aspirations for public life, best not to share those jokes even over SMS, because its only a matter of time before an internet dump after the telco is hacked one day.  but on that log in the middle of nowhere, they have a reasonable presumption that "this is just for us.  everybody here gets it.  theres nobody out there to offend." 

 

but waaaay back in 2001, with a still fledgling internet, pre-smartphone, pre-Farcebook by a good half a decade, even someone who had their their photo taken while in a dodgy form of fancy dress that might potentially offend someone out there, still had a reasonable presumption they understood or could control the public extent of the 'message' — "this is just for us. everybody here gets it.  theres nobody out there to offend" had a very different meaning, even if that photo may end up in some "public" yearbook, ie. destined to rot on some shelf and only of interest to a very small circle of people.

 

it is dangerous and stupid to go after everyone for everything with a revisionist mindset.  i dont know about the canada of 2001 and the wider context.  i dont know how much Trudeau should have known better.  but he has said his mea culpas, and FFS, it wasnt KKK gear now was it?  with the benefit of the doubt, i can readily believe there was zero racist intent and a wealth of ignorance about the potential to cause offence.  likewise, those Red Faces guys.   i mean, does anybody truly believe Trudeau is a racist because of this?  i doubt it.  but that doesnt really matter, does it?  lets take him down regardless!  cancel culture, fuck yeah!

 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau came out and said  “I shouldn’t have done that. I should have known better but I didn’t and I’m really sorry,”. What more can you do but learn from your mistakes and admit when you're wrong and whole heartedly apologise? 

 

I wish people would get judged on their responses to how they acted previously (especially with that much time elapsed between) in cases like this. It's more pertinent to know the person in front of you now that the person they were when it comes to situations like these. 

 

I think the rabid side of the far left have a lot to answer for in things like this. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, @~thehung said:

it is dangerous and stupid to go after everyone for everything with a revisionist mindset. 

Isn't it just. ... but of course it's not quite as dangerous if we don't like them anyway right ? And yet people do it with rabid abandon to establish the credibility of the person currently standing in front of them with the being that is the culmination of their past life choices.

I could name several, Julia Gillard included. Her issue ( or one of them ) was that she weren't a mother ffs

I remember that show and the furore it caused. We ( Aussies) like to push the boundaries and show others their 'blemishes' , like they can't see them for themselves, and then of course someone else ( Julia in this instance )  have to deal with the flak

 

 

18 hours ago, fliptopia said:

Trudeau came out and said  “I shouldn’t have done that. I should have known better but I didn’t and I’m really sorry,”. What more can you do but learn from your mistakes and admit when you're wrong and whole heartedly apologise? 

 

I wish people would get judged on their responses to how they acted previously (especially with that much time elapsed between) in cases like this. It's more pertinent to know the person in front of you now that the person they were when it comes to situations like these. 

 

I think the rabid side of the far left have a lot to answer for in things like this. 

I betcha ten bob he would not have apologised if he felt he'd gotten rid of the evidence. Why would he aye ? No need to feel remorse if there's no proof .

Oh I'm not saying he should have come forward with the goods on his own per say [😜 ] but, he could have in the interests of not being the perfect specimen of man and all

 

The show I was listening to people were ringing up telling tales of their own stupid thoroughly bad taste costume get ups, and yes one guy did say he and his mates dressed as the KKK ...apparently it went down a hoot.

Now I don't know for sure, but I don't think he has all that much ' pull ' in his community ... hope not anyways

Edited by eveln
needed an " it " in my response to @thehung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dressed in brown face in 1982 (or thereabouts) to pretend to be peter sellers doing "goodness gracious me" in a medical review

 

does dressing as an englishman pretending to be an indian in an ancient skit get deemed cultural misappropriation ? 

 

 

what about when i went to a party as frankenfurter a few years earlier ?  i looked convincing enough that when we stopped at a shop on the way, a young couple asked if i was a woman, because the effect was pretty ... pretty  🙂

 

 

is that trans-disrespectful ?

 

 

both occasions were last century, when the outrage industry was not even a thing

 

 

in years to come, (closet) smokers will be pilloried for their wrongfulness

 

 

 

judging the past on the present is a very slippery slope... you can't undo stuff that was "innocent" at the time

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eveln said:

 

I betcha ten bob he would not have apologised if he felt he'd gotten rid of the evidence. Why would he aye ? No need to feel remorse if there's no proof .

Oh I'm not saying he should have come forward with the goods on his own per say [😜 ] but, he could have in the interests of not being the perfect specimen of man and all

 

 

 

He could feel remorse and still not have said anything if he thought noone needed to know. He's someone who, at least, has some record on pushing for racial equality. This incident seems out of character with his recent public record. 

 

I agree though that it would be nice if people who are living on the woke platform would come out and say they have these skeletons and they didn't just get born understanding these things. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

I think scruffy nails it, what was acceptable then might not be now, probably will be again in the future but to get the knickers all knotted in the now is a bit silly really.

 

Unfortunately as a poliie on the re-election trail Trudeau, possibly the best thing to happen to Canada in 20 odd years has to pander to the silliness, or at least thinks he should.

 

It's pretty pathetic really, it's not as if he did a Weinberger and raped someone, he was just having a bit of fun back then.

 

Get over it.

 

Cheers

 

 

Edited by chrisg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always felt the past should be embraced, learned from and not regretted.

Well.... regretted..? maybe... but not attempted to be undone.

 

And I always feel like the 'apologies' are bullshit too; because the truth was you DIDN'T feel bad, even if someone did.

Apologies, to me, mean nothing if "the moment has passed".

 

If it comes up, just say something like "I won't be doing that again! That would be poor form by today's standards!"

Don't fucking backpedal.

 

I mean, in all honesty, I learned most of my racism from anti racism propaganda.

The amount of slang terms I can throw around because the media taught me, is hilarious.

 

I actually remember as a little kid being shocked that I was being taught these things.

 

So many people live in the 'now' and don't look at the long term psychology behind it (which is an area I have a particular interest in).

Edited by Master_Scythe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, scruffy1 said:

...

 

judging the past on the present is a very slippery slope... you can't undo stuff that was "innocent" at the time

History is always important imo. It needs to be brought up and discussed with each new generation. We do need reminding at times why things are as they are now. Complacency is not a complimentary characteristic. It often leads to shit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with public figures like this there may be a public interest to know how he views these things he did in the past. 

A simple "how does this reflect on who you are now" would be nice though and then judge the response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Master_Scythe said:

And I always feel like the 'apologies' are bullshit too; because the truth was you DIDN'T feel bad, even if someone did.

 

its a valid point.  a lot gets apologised for ingenuously, and it comes off as spineless overcompensation for the sake of image.  in this case, however, i think Trudeau has made a good attempt at avoiding revisionist pandering.


"I regret it deeply. I’m deeply sorry I did that, I should have known better."

"It was something I should not have done. I didn’t think it was racist at the time, but now I see, it was a racist thing to do."

 

its a very fine line, but there is a difference between the past, and retrospect in the present.  one neednt cancel the other out.  on the one hand, the Red Faces skit couldnt have been racist because there was zero racist intent.  on the other, it so totally was.  its possible to entertain both propositions without overreach, without attempting to rewrite history.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

It really is an odd one in the end.

 

Black Face is actually something with a long, long history in well, vaudeville I suppose.

 

In England growing up the Black and White Minstrel Show, long defunct of course, was incredibly popular and I honestly do not recall, in the era, anyone, black or white taking offense to it.

 

Of course you could argue the people of colour of the day were afraid to object but I don't that was really the case, the show was pretty much totally decoupled from any aspects of racism.

 

Rather it hearkened back to Al Jolson and "the Jazz Singer" the first "talkie" but also just a continuation of a long tradition of Black Face in vaudeville.

 

Posthumously and really only in recent years he's been criticised  but it is just as easy to point out that Jolson actually campaigned for black  rights on Broadway and he also made black music palatable to a then very racist audience who were not otherwise going to accept it.

 

Sometimes I think we just read too much into things and try to re-write history which is ingenuous at best and potentially malicious at worst.

 

If black people want to complain about it, fine, but whites getting all upset is sort of pathetic in many ways.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, @~thehung said:

"I regret it deeply. I’m deeply sorry I did that, I should have known better."

 

Nope, I disagree completely.

WHY should he have known better? If common society didn't consider it bad, why should he have been the one to do so?

Was he specifically known as a person who should be better in touch (racially) than the common man? If so, maybe; otherwise? Disagree.

 

Quote

"It was something I should not have done. I didn’t think it was racist at the time, but now I see, it was a racist thing to do."

 

Once again, I feel like there is a VERY real line between social norm (even if it is for the worst) and racism.

It's a very strong belief of mine that racism is a very deliberate and chosen attitude\act.

 

There can be ignorance in following a social norm, but I really wish it were separated from 'racism' even if the action itself is racist.

 

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

Actually what's racist about black face if not including Jim Crow type dialogue ?

 

Could be seen as kind of a compliment  🙂

 

I think Trudeau is just pandering to the politically correct to protect his vote.

 

In general I would have thought Canadians were a bit smarter than that, it's a considerably more racially integrated country than their neighbour to the south.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Actually what's racist about black face if not including Jim Crow type dialogue ?

 

I think it's one of those 'too high a risk' type activities is all.

There have been examples where it's been fine.

Like the AvenueQ broadway show, with 'Gary Coleman'; where instead of negative stereotypes, he was protrayed as the 'cool dude' who was simply 'down on his luck'; GOD they pushed some stereotypes there; but hey, Gary was shown and approved.

 

I think it's like using the word Nigger.

In a community you're known in, there's 0 effect. 

My friend group is almost sitcom level multiracial, and Chink\Nigger\Cracker\Muzzie, and all those 'lovely' words get thrown around like nothing; because we all know there is 0 hatred behind the speech; in fact, it's a level of comfort between us all that shows the exact opposite. Trust, and total comfort around our mixed race group.

 

I guess the catch22 is that no body knows is "Mr X" who's wearing black face, is GENUINELY racist or not.

There is also just plan old history where it was EXCLUSIVELY used to play up negative stereotypes.

 

It's like German WW2 medals; not all of them are 'Nazi Memorabilia', but was it awarded for slaughtering Jews? Or was it awarded for protecting an innocent town from (their) invaders?

It's just history.

 

 

 

 

Just a little true side story here, I'm going to be vague on purpose:

There is a rural town in QLD where there are signs saying that "No Aboriginals will be served" in the liquor store.

A white-led 'anti discrimination' group contacted a mate who works for a rural support charity, and wanted to, for lack of a better term, 'Raise Hell' about this.

He (my mate) knows this town, and it's people well. "Who asked you to do this?" he enquired.

"Who should have to? It's obvious discrimination!" he argued.

~This is where it gets good.

Turns out, the people who put the 'no blacks in the liquor store' rules in place, were the elders themselves, seeing that their people weren't being responsible with it.

Mr-White-Knight was left speechless when the community 'leaders' DID respond.... asking for ways to better enforce it!!!!!

 

Not all racism is negative, and even some that can APPEAR negative, exists for a reason!

I just thought it was a fun story.

I also really hate white-knight mentality.

 

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, @~thehung said:

 

 

and its 2009 we be talking about here:

 

 

Bxtm0pO.jpg

 

^^ just think of the number of high level people who had to sign off on that Red Faces skit

 

Deputy PM, Julia Gillard, addressing it at the time whilst visiting the U.S.A: "Obviously, I think whatever happened was meant to be humorous and would be taken in that spirit by most Australians."  <-- psst Julia...ixnay on the blackface is just a bit of fun innit schtick!

 

guest judge Harry Connick Jr was well within his rights to be mortified and incensed at being ambushed by it.  oh man, he must have been utterly seething off-camera! millions of our own citizens, especially dark skinned people, had every right to be offended by it. 

 

in our defence, though, at the time i remember being slightly miffed at the presumption of worldwide cultural hegemony present in the indignant reactions coming out of the US.  what they failed to understand was our casual feelings of distance and disconnection from, what — to us — references a quaint artifact of american history.  black and white minstrel shit is not our shit, not really.  its weird archaic american shit from all the way across the world.  its never meant the same thing to us, and they shouldnt automatically assume it does, or that we should necessarily be beholden to their interpretation, because, guess what — the whole world is not AMERICA!  this what we do, or traditionally have done: stood apart from the world, poked fun, played around, safe in our playground far away from it all, far away from consequence and wider context.  in other words, for the most part, Julia was dead right.  the majority of the audience would have sat at home and enjoyed the skit's lunacy with nary a thought about its inherent racism.  but is that because we as a nation are, or were, racist? i am not about to say we werent or arent LOL, but i would argue that as a piece of evidence, the presence of that skit and that imagery, on prime time national television, in 2009, says more about our ignorance and naivety than our racism.  (...even if a good deal of that ignorance and naivety is a legacy of our racism)

 

so to my point: those times are well and truly over.  but its easy to forget that there used to be more layers of perceived distance, as recently as a decade ago — when social media was still detonating, and the world had not yet compressed to the point it has today.  distance, that is, between we australians and the world, between all individuals and the world.   as it is, in 2019, most of us are well aware that some of the jokes we may share with close family and friends are under no circumstances to be posted on twitter, et al.  but navigating the boundary between the shrinking private sphere and the ballooning public sphere has been a fraught process for many — just ask Justine Sacco

 

specifically, on the topic of race, two bona fide non-racists can quite happily sit on a log in the middle of nowhere and share a joke that would come off as racist without proper context.  they might also enjoy a categorically racist joke for its own sake, most likely with many layers of knowing irony as a given.  but its only on that log in the middle of nowhere they can constrain the public bounds of the 'message'.  thats how far the private sphere has shrunk.  if these people have aspirations for public life, best not to share those jokes even over SMS, because its only a matter of time before an internet dump after the telco is hacked one day.  but on that log in the middle of nowhere, they have a reasonable presumption that "this is just for us.  everybody here gets it.  theres nobody out there to offend." 

 

but waaaay back in 2001, with a still fledgling internet, pre-smartphone, pre-Farcebook by a good half a decade, even someone who had their their photo taken while in a dodgy form of fancy dress that might potentially offend someone out there, still had a reasonable presumption they understood or could control the public extent of the 'message' — "this is just for us. everybody here gets it.  theres nobody out there to offend" had a very different meaning, even if that photo may end up in some "public" yearbook, ie. destined to rot on some shelf and only of interest to a very small circle of people.

 

it is dangerous and stupid to go after everyone for everything with a revisionist mindset.  i dont know about the canada of 2001 and the wider context.  i dont know how much Trudeau should have known better.  but he has said his mea culpas, and FFS, it wasnt KKK gear now was it?  with the benefit of the doubt, i can readily believe there was zero racist intent and a wealth of ignorance about the potential to cause offence.  likewise, those Red Faces guys.   i mean, does anybody truly believe Trudeau is a racist because of this?  i doubt it.  but that doesnt really matter, does it?  lets take him down regardless!  cancel culture, fuck yeah!

 

 


Ever considered becoming a Supreme Court Judge?

That was a perfectly succinct surmation of the situation.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't hold with the contrived apology at all. It sounds like the apologist expects me  ( well, maybe not me, I'm not allowed to vote ) to actually believe the bullshit . lol.

Justin has grown up in a country that has it's own first nation issues to deal with ... to think he's unaware makes the idea of him being the PM even more ludicrous

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Master_Scythe said:

Turns out, the people who put the 'no blacks in the liquor store' rules in place, were the elders themselves, seeing that their people weren't being responsible with it.

Mr-White-Knight was left speechless when the community 'leaders' DID respond.... asking for ways to better enforce it!!!!!

 

Not all racism is negative, and even some that can APPEAR negative, exists for a reason!

Yeah ... no. imo.

What's say the local teacher wants to grab a bottle of wine, as a gift, to take to the local doctor's place for dinner ? But the teacher can't do that cos they be Aboriginal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no no no. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE Trudeau. I remember 2001. PC overdrive certainly came after that and dressing up as Aladdin? AFAIC that should not be entering the PC arena. It is not the same as blackface, same as dressing up as a geisha or an inuit or Mahatma Ghandi for a fancy dress shouldn't be considered taboo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then they go out of town - its a particular case where the needs of the many out-way the needs of the few.

 

The Tribal Elders took a stand on alcohol a long time back because they saw how debilitating it was to many, many aboriginals. In 99.9% of cases it has worked and has made a dramatic difference to society in rural Queensland and possibly even more so in the NT.

 

It does not and cannot work for everyone all of the time, partly because of flaws on the part of those who oversee the rules as happened with an SBS I think it was reporter in The Alice this week.

 

Overall though the change has been remarkable.

 

I have to say or repeat, Trudeau is the best thing that has happened to Canada in quite a while but Tall Poppies always have to cope with the ignorance of the lawnmower...

 

Cheers

 

 

Edited by chrisg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

 

what about when i went to a party as frankenfurter a few years earlier ?  i looked convincing enough that when we stopped at a shop on the way, a young couple asked if i was a woman, because the effect was pretty ... pretty  🙂

 

We need pictures to be fully informed 😉

 

 

 

19 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chrisg said:

 

I have to say or repeat, Trudeau is the best thing that has happened to Canada in quite a while but Tall Poppies always have to cope with the ignorance of the lawnmower...

 

 

But that is the thing

as PM he has championed issues form the leftist agender, now we see that he has been nonPC in the past

If it was a harmless bit of fun back then, then maybe calling a person by the wrong pronoun IS NOT a jailable offence today

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheManFromPOST said:

We need pictures to be fully informed 😉

 

 

 

back before the digital camera, pictures were expensive and very few people carried a camera, even fewer with a flash, so to my dismay i don't think my makeup made it to film

 

however, i can offer this from my share house's "new australian" party in ~ 1979 i guess

 

YUIqfUbbelzqGxY9dZ5HdUBKqUlHDpqFJoSWu21L

 

andy as a baby (he had shaved off all his body hair barring above the neck, something no-one did in the 1970's)

 

i was yasser arafat as a migrant

 

is it any wonder i always get checked at the airport ?   is the keffiyeh i am sporting culturally insensitive ?

 

what about when i wear my most favourite green beret that i got at around the same time, which i still love ?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×