Why Blackface is Offensive, but Dark Makeup is Not

Last week Harry Connick Jr. protested an act in blackface while judging and Australian game show and critics point out that he has darkened his skin for a Mad TV skit in the past. Many find this hypocritical. While the difference between the two is subtle, I have to disagree.

To examine the problem with black face, we need to look at the history of it. Black face is a style of theatrical makeup used to make white actors look stereotypically black. It ignores the fact that almost no black people are actually truly black. Instead black people are different shades of brown.

Blackface has its roots in American theater and was used from around 1830 up until the 1970s. In addition to painting their faces with burnt cork or black greasepaint to make their skin the color of coal, actors also wore woolly wigs, gloves, and tail coats. In these costumes, they portrayed servants and buffoons. As black people were not allowed to act with white people, blackface was used when a black character was needed. That character seldom had any redeeming qualities. An actor in blackface was never a character, but instead a caricature, used to mock the black race as a whole.

Even when African American actors were allowed on the stage with whites, they also had to wear blackface as the role was still one to be laughed at or ridiculed. Eventually black people took over the genre and began to evolve the character into something more intelligent. Some minstrel shows actually used black face characters to make satirize white behavior toward blacks. Blackface eventually faded away as a type of Vaudeville act as black characters became more intelligent and less comical or lowly.

It is no wonder that the musician and actor Harry Connick Jr. who was raised in New Orleans, a city with a rich African American culture would be hurt and insulted when this act was paraded in front of him for him to judge. Meanwhile Harry Connick Jr. was called a "waste of space" and other cruel names and it is believed that other Australians felt he over-reacted. They point to a skit he did over 10 years ago for Mad TV where he darkened his skin to portray an African American Preacher. see here

I don't see Harry Connick Jr's performance as insulting in the least because while what he was doing was comedy, it was a portrayal of a single black character and not a mockery of the black race as a whole. In addition, he did not paint his face black, in fact he just added a subtle tan for a more realistic portrayal of what his character would look like.

In the end, the difference is in that while both Harry Connick Jr, and the Jackson Jive were both portraying blacks in their comedy skits, Harry's was something black people could relate to and the Jackson Jive was something that would likely horrify African American's due to insensitivity and stereotypes.