• 1901: declared ourselves a country, own constitution, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Australia
• 1910: Australia got it’s own pound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_pound (it was locked to the Pound Sterling by Australian policy till 1929, and replaced by the decimal dollar in 1966)
• 1927: dominions have equal status to the UK (ie, created the commonwealth) (1926 Imperial Conference, Balfour Declaration 1926 and Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_v_Hill
• 1942: Australian laws could contradict UK laws (previously, any contradiction meant the AU law was invalid) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_Adoption_Act_1942
• 1949: the concept of “citizen of Australia” came about (but still said “british subject”) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_nationality_law
• 1953: legally recognising the “Australian flag” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Australia
• 1984 (April): Australia gets its own National Anthem.
• 1984 (November): Australian citizens no longer also “british subject”) (see Australian_nationality_law again)
• 1986: removed ability of UK to alter Australian constitution, or overrule Australian courts – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986

Soon afterwards, however, in Shaw (2003),[19] the whole Court (including Kirby) took a more comprehensive view: that the Australia Act in its two versions, together with the State request and consent legislation, amounted to establishing Australian independence at the date when the Australia Act (Cth) came into operation, 3 March 1986.

The three main steps to independence were 1901 – formation and recognition of a country. 1942 – Ability to contradict UK laws. And 1986 – UK unable to override Australian courts.

I eschewed that in favour of pure size comparisons. (there is no other kind of dick waving contest, right? And created multiple images to handle multiple scales smoothly (something that many modern implementations of this idea, which whilst better in every other way, often fail to handle well).

My project faltered, in part from interest waning, and in part from difficulty in sourcing images and information in the 2001 internet.

However, I’ve dug up what I did, and presenting it for the first time in years…

Sci-Fi “Grids”

http://sta.sh/21qzlqpf2j29

(A story I watched while pursuing my epic attempt to watch all Doctor Who during 2013.  (follow along on twitter: https://twitter.com/WatchingDrWho =)

Within the story, Barbara identifies the body of the ancient high priest Yetaxa as having died around 1430, as all the tomb bling around him is from the Aztec “early period” (Aztec empire formed from an aliance in 1427). She confirms that Aztecs were a specialty of hers – which presumably is why she immediately robs the grave for a shiny new bracelet!

Apart from that though, the story is undated.
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/15th_century – list the Doctor and Companion’s visit as “Unknown date”.

The novelisation, for what it’s worth, dates it to 1507.

But I was wondering… can we date the episode more accurately than that, from other plot elements?

I think so…

Since the story climax revolves(sic) around a total solar eclipse, can we use that? Well, yes, but only if we know when eclipses occured over the Aztec empire. This, it turns out, is relatively easy.

The Aztec empire at its maximum extent is shown here – 1519 being the year that the Spaniards landed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aztec_Empire_1519_map-fr.svg

This version mostly agrees on the outline, and also provides a bit of info about when each area fell under Aztec jurisdiction.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aztecexpansion.png

So, what about eclipses that crossed that area of the planet, between 1430 and 1519?

Luckily, NASA has an eclipse page with lots of historical eclipses calculated.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html

So, here are the ones around the end of the empire – from 1501 to 1520:
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEatlas/SEatlas2/SEatlas1501.GIF
…that’s a bust.

What about earlier? Here’s the 15th century…
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEatlas/SEatlas2/SEatlas1481.GIF
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEatlas/SEatlas2/SEatlas1461.GIF
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEatlas/SEatlas2/SEatlas1441.GIF
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEatlas/SEatlas2/SEatlas1421.GIF
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEatlas/SEatlas2/SEatlas1401.GIF

Solar Eclipses for the Aztec Empire

Examining those and comparing, it looks like there were eclipses in 1452, 1477 and 1496 which may fit the bill. So with a bit of screen shooting, gimp and inkscaping, we get an amalgam of map, empire growth, and eclipses…

I’ve included the 1405 eclipse here as it was likely influential to early Aztec culture, but otherwise can be ignored for our purposes. The next one, chronologically, is 1452 – which spanned areas which didn’t fall under Aztec influence until 1486 at the earliest. Similarly,  1477′s eclipse covered area which didn’t become Aztec till 1502. Perhaps these could be argued by someone with more knowledge of the culture of the time (and how it matches known Aztec culture, and what we saw in the episode), but if we trust Barbara’s analysis and stick to a strict “it was actually Aztec” (rather than “soon-to-be-Aztec”) basis here, then that leaves only 1496 – an eclipse which ran across the northern edge of what was, at that time, Aztec controlled land. Indeed, some of which having been Aztec for almost 30 years.

So, 8 August 1496.

Does that settle it then?

Almost… the other factor which should be identifiable and was seen in The Aztecs was the architecture – the pyramid complex itself. And sadly, in my meager searching, I can’t find any sites which had anything like that, in that area…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_pyramids

This would perhaps be the most likely location within that eclipse path, if not for the timing – El Tajín fell in the 13th century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Taj%C3%ADn

So in conclusion? It looks like there really was only one total solar eclipse which fell on the Aztec empire, and that was 1496. The lack of modern knowledge of the city itself can be retconned quite easily, either through natural jungle processes, or by more fictional means (eg: city was razed between then and now by some other alien or supernatural entity).

Otoh, if an appropriate pyramid site can be found within the paths of the 1452 or 1477 eclipses, then that would present a strong argument there – with the retcon required being Barbara being mistaken about her accuracy of location…

Some external links:
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Aztecs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aztecs_(Doctor_Who)
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Aztecs_(novelisation)
http://www.drwhoguide.com/who_f.htm
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE1401-1500.html

And I got thinking about that. I watched all of TNG many years ago, and have long held the view that I wont watch it all again. Just not worth it, too many crap episodes. But there are many good episodes too, and so it solidified a thought I’d had for a while – to compile approximately a season worth of episodes from the 7 seasons produced, that would cover the best that TNG had to offer.

So beginning with the opening and closing episodes, it was pretty logical then to include the entire Q arc. Not a difficult call since Q is arguably the most entertaining recurring character. Q’s arc intersects with the most famous of TNG aliens, the Borg, so the entire Borg arc was then also an easy choice. Continuing in this style, the Borg arc intersects with Lore’s arc, and with one additional non-Lore episode, this arguably covers the main Data character arc. I then included the episodes with cameos from the original series… and a few bonus that are notable for being of high quality anyway, or just personal favourites.

Season1

• Encounter at Farpoint
  • introduction, Q
• Hide and Q
  • Q
• Datalore
  • Data / Lore

Season 2

• The Measure of a Man
  • Data
• Q Who
  • Q, Borg

Season 3

• The Survivors
  • Personal favourite episode
• Deja Q
  • Q
• The Best of Both Worlds – Part I
  • Borg

Season 4

• The Best of Both Worlds – Part II
  • Borg
• Family
  • Picard (and Worf) after Best of Both Worlds
• Brothers
  • Data / Lore
• Qpid
  • Q

Season 5

• Darmok
  • Notably good episode, Picard
• Unification – Part I
  • Spock
• Unification – Part II
  • Spock
• I, Borg
  • Borg
• The Inner Light
  • Notably excellent episode, Picard

Season 6

• Relics
  • Scotty
• True Q
  • Q
• Chain of Command – Part I
  • Picard
• Chain of Command – Part II
  • Picard
• Tapestry
  • Q, Picard
• Frame of Mind
  • Riker
• Descent – Part I
  • Borg, Lore

Season 7

• Descent – Part II
  • Borg, Lore
• Lower Decks
  • Interesting episode
• All Good Things
  • Q

So what have I missed? The main arcs left uncovered would be Wesley Crusher character arc, Worf’s character/Klingon Empire story arc, and Romulan Empire arc. But, including too many arcs has the danger of this ending with “hell, just watch it all” and that would defeat the purpose.

So this posts asks… are there any truly notable TNG episodes or arcs that would be worth including for the sake of a watchable TNG:condensed “season” of episodes?

Anyone who has ever grown a moustache knows there are some key milestones in its growth, and anyone who has seen Movember come and go before will know that it, too, has its key moments.

But for the uninitiated in the ways of growing and wearing a mo’, here is a handy timetable that I have prepared…

Oct 31: Last full shave

Nov 4: Action-Hero stubble day

Nov 7: First shave to begin shaping and defining the mo’. This is when the  TYPE of mo’ you aim for begins to take place.

Nov 15: After two weeks, your mo’ is now long enough to catch food in it

Nov 16: This is about when you discover that your mo’ is now long enough to catch food in it…

Nov 17: Time to trim and shape the mo into something near it’s final form. It’s ok if you stuff it up, because even a bad mo’ looks suitable on a pornstar!

Nov 18: Pornstar mo’ day. (18 is legal, right?

Nov 23-30: In the final week of Movember, imagine that you’re in a tacky 70s cop show every time you see a policeman with a mo’. (as bonus: this experience can be shared by everyone, be they mo’ endowed or not).

Nov 30 at 10pm: Completely shave off the mo’

…10 minutes later: Enjoy the feeling of air on your clean upper lip. Also, enjoy that your partner is likely to want to kiss you for the first time this month…

The wikipedia article on Geek Pride day lists a “manifesto” of sorts, or a “geek code”(see below) for Geek Pride Day…

…here it is:

Rights:

1. The right to be even geekier.
2. The right to not leave your house.
3. The right to not like football or any other sport.
4. The right to associate with other nerds.
5. The right to have few friends (or none at all).
6. The right to have as many geeky friends as you want.
7. The right to be out of style.
8. The right to be overweight and near-sighted.
9. The right to show off your geekiness.
10. The right to take over the world.

Responsibilities:

1. Be a geek, no matter what.
2. Try to be nerdier than anyone else.
3. If there is a discussion about something geeky, you must give your opinion.
4. To save and protect all geeky material.
5. Do everything you can to show off geeky stuff as a “museum of geekiness.”
6. Don’t be a generalized geek. You must specialize in something.
7. Attend every nerdy movie on opening night and buy every geeky book before anyone else.
8. Wait in line on every opening night. If you can go in costume or at least with a related T-shirt, all the better.
9. Don’t waste your time on anything not related to geekdom.
10. Try to take over the world!

So, I have a problem with this. Not all of it, and mostly the ‘responsibilities’ section…

But I get ahead of myself. Here is where I disagree with the rights…

Right #5. The right to have few friends (or none at all).

So, in response to this, some images.

[Thanks to http://www.buzzfeed.com/scott/nerd-venn-diagram for what seems to be the original Geek Venn diagram, and http://www.surelyyourenotserious.com/blog/?p=920 for the spectrum diagram]

So back to it.

Whilst Right #5 states that a geek may have no friends – which is fine as a choice, but it also implies that geeks may have no friends due to a lack of social grace. …and that, imho, doesn’t sync with the very definition of a geek. (don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against nerds by the definitions given here. I have nerdy friends and geeky friends, and I have nerdy moments and geeky moments. But it’s to be a geek that I aspire, and take pride in)

Nonetheless, it’s a relatively minor issue and harder to defend (but lets me include pretty pictures

Moving on to the responsibilities. Overall, they mix ‘geek’ and ‘nerd’ in annoying and inconsistent ways…

2. Try to be nerdier than anyone else.

Surely being a geek is largely about individuality. I don’t mind competitive behaviour, but I object to it being a responsibility. You cannot mandate competitiveness.

3. If there is a discussion about something geeky, you must give your opinion.

MUST?! No. Really not. To be allowed to care passionately and state your case, sure. But I object to “must” here.

4. To save and protect all geeky material.

Even though I myself am a hoarder and packrat, I think to call it a *responsibility* is too wide reaching. Also, “all”?? See point #6

5. Do everything you can to show off geeky stuff as a “museum of geekiness.”

Again, why is SHOWING OFF now a responsibility? Be passionate, sure. But sometimes collecting is a private endeavour. This links back to #3.

6. Don’t be a generalized geek. You must specialize in something.

This… I kind of agree with. Kind of. But still think it’s a bit strong for a RESPONSIBILITY…

Also, this contradicts several other responsibilities listed herein. According to this I have to specialise, but according to #4 and #7, #8, I have to care about ALL and EVERY geeky thing…

7. Attend every nerdy movie on opening night and buy every geeky book before anyone else.

Is this a competition again? sheesh. See point #6

For the record, it’s possible to be a geek without caring about movies or books!

8. Wait in line on every opening night. If you can go in costume or at least with a related T-shirt, all the better.

EVERY? See points #6 and #7. *sigh*

9. Don’t waste your time on anything not related to geekdom.

Limitations is not the geek way. Defining some things as being not geek and therefore a waste of time – is a limitation!

Damn the man. Do what you want.

And another thing…

In accordance with responsibility #6 (and yes, I recognise the irony of citing responsibility #6 which I myself object to), isn’t “Geek Pride” kind of, well, GENERIC?

So on May 25 I celebrate TOWEL DAY. A day for Hitchhiker and Douglas Adams fans to celebrate this specific fandom. A geek fandom. In fact, a specialised geek fandom…

So don’t celebrate Geek Pride Day. Celebrate your geek pride by celebrating your passion when, how, and with whom you choose in a manner appropriate for your geekiness. Here are some ideas:

• March 14: Pi day (3.14) – for Math geeks
• May 4: Star Wars “May the forth be with you” day.
• May 25: Towel Day (2 weeks after the death of Bop Ad), and also Star Wars day (the day the original Star Wars was released. Apparently also it’s a Discworld (of Terry Pratchett) day: The Glorious 25 May
• July 22: Pi day (22/7 = a closer approximation to π  than 3.14)
• September 19: Talk Like a Pirate Day

And… Don’t Panic if you disagree. I’m open to discussion, clarification, and reinspecting my opinions

PS: “Geek Code”? I think that is more correctly this old gem http://www.geekcode.com – for which I have a collection of old codes somewhere, and in fact I’d support it’s re-emergance as a part of the Geek Pride Day, since that would help expand awareness of different elements of geek nature

How did they get to this point?

Here is my trip down OK Go video discovery lane

I was, of course, assisted in this by the existance of all the OK Go videos on one neat site. Conveniently, it’s their own: http://www.okgo.net/media/videos/

Also note: I will mainly be focusing on their video/visual style and evolution, with only passing commentary on the music. Finally, I was assisted in this by my silent partner in review, and her comments will occasionally find note here too.

…And so, on to the chronological order… [edit: it's not really chronological order, it's just the order they appear on their site. This page is basically a snapshot of the conversations my friend and I had about these videos, as we watched them in the order presented to us by the OK Go site]

What To Do

There is not much to say about this early clip. It looks for all the world like label-dictated style for an upcoming group who has yet to define themselves. It features a pretty ‘mainstream indy’ style. Simple setting, shot in black and white. No effects

Notable lyric: “could have been a genius if you had an ax to grind’

You’re So Damn Hot

Another clip which looks for all the world like a label formula. Clips from live shows on the road interspersed with flash-inspired animation. Nothing to write home about.

Get Over It

Yet another label formula clip. This time they’re in the center of an empty hall, performing, with occasionally clip-art shots of popculture items to sync with the lyrics.

Notable video moment: the slow motion ping pong. This felt like the first moment of OK Go’s future video quirkery coming out.

Don’t Ask Me (Dance Booth version)

This is clearly when OK Go started to cut their own creative teeth, as it were. It has a low budget self-made feel to it, with the band and random extras singing/dancing or just showing off (or even looking bored sometimes even!) to the music.

It’s gorgeous and smile inducing.

Don’t Ask Me

This label version of the same song is totally formulaic, and could have been produced for any generic band. Black and white, with simple colour patterns in the background, and don’t forget the cookie cutter dancing girl! (you will though)

It’s boring and yawn inducing.

Notable anything? Sorry, nothing at all.

Do What You Want

This video is a little bit dizzy inducing with it’s rapid motion hyperactive  bullettime-esque motion pans. I’d guess that band had creative input, but still played within the label marketing system. We get a generic band-surround-by-girls setting -  but the wallpaper (more of this next clip) behind them is quirky, and the girls are real (not fake models). But yet we still get a girls-dancing-in-slow-motion scene…

Do What You Want (Wallpaper version)

Taking their own lyrical advice, we have here an amazing example of the band striking out and just making what they want. At least, that’s how it feels! The concept is simple – the band and some performers, all performing… stuff!

The frenetic editing pace suits perfectly – but the masterpiece is the outfits. Everyone and everything (within reason) is covered in the same gorgeously hideous wallpaper pattern. It adorns clothes, instruments, the floor, the wall, furniture, segways…

Watching this, I feel that they have found themselves…

Notable video moment: the pogo stick…

[edit: as noted by Rachel (thankyou!), this clip came after the Treadmill listed below. I don't feel it changes my overall conclusion though. I think it just places it as a clip made with the groups new-found confidence in their own artistic abilities ]

Invincible

This is an odd one. I think it’s a group idea – to blow things up (cos that’s always fun, who cares about originality ALL the time anyway?), but it’s also full of generic ‘band performing’ clips too. My guess is that this is the band’s idea, but that they ceded some creative license to the label for the sake of finances and ability to make it…

Notable video moment: the chandelier

A Million Ways

To me, this is the precursor to the genius of Here It Goes Again, in the same way that Rubber Soul was the precursor to Revolver.

I think this may have been the first time the band ‘just went ahead and made it’ and totally circumvented the ‘system’. And what do they do? They dance around in the back yard! And it’s great!

For the first time we have a feel not only for the groups quirky style, but for the band members involved. Without this, there never would have been the treadmills…

Notable video moment: letting the video run past the end of the performance

[edit: again, thanks Rachel. This was a practice video which was leaked and went viral. Ok, so it wasn't deliberate in it's low-key, but shows their style coming through loud and clear ]

Here It Goes Again

OK Go, On Treadmills.

The clip which may have guaranteed OK Go lasting posterity even if they never made anything else again. I can’t say much to this that hasn’t been said a million times. How do you know it’s genius? From the sound of a million viewers all saying “why did I never think of that?”

Notable video moment: when you rewind to watch it again.

WTF

I must admit, this video actually annoyed me, but my silent partner in review thought it amazing. To my eye, making a whole video where the visual effect is that of a crashed Windows 3.1 (or 95/98/2000/XP) program – was cringe worthy.

In fairness, it did have potential though. If the effect had been applied selectively, whilst other times ‘locking’ the background in place, then I may well have been equally impressed. Silent partner, otoh, thought it was great.

And it’s not like there weren’t scenes which made good use of the style either – I don’t deny that. But the basic premise upon which all this cleverness was built? Just didn’t do it for me. So overall: cringe, with a concession of clever.

Notable video moment: the chair (which instead reminded me of old-skool demo scene

This Too Shall Pass

I love this and think it’s genius (though my silent partner thought it ‘meh, with a side order of cute’). It just grows and amazes as one long clip unfolds and expands, with new people and camera angles when you least expect.  I don’t want to give it away, so I’ll only say that it’s the first reveal of the brass which does it for me.

Notable video moment: every time you wonder how you didn’t see that person before now

This Too Shall Pass (Rube Goldberg Version)

Their most recent piece is a stunning piece of fun invention. I think it shows that the band is willing to now use the medium of video clips to make cool stuff, even if it has only a passing meaning to the song (and why not, it’s not like the formulas the labels push do any better anyway!).

This time a huge Rube Goldberg machine accompanies them in time with the song. A song which soon gets stuck in your head too (though I did find the Marching Band version to be rather forgettable, so ymmv).

The treadmill video gets a cameo here, and I think that the band feels they have more to show the world than just that one idea, and don’t want to be overshadowed by their own history after all.

I only hope that they don’t burn out, forget about the music, or typecast themselves in trying to escape the treadmill meme…

Notable lyrics: “let it go / this too shall pass”

Conclusion

Some groups – and indeed, people, start out quirky and imaginative, but when they begin to achieve fame, they get scared. They close down and start repeating themselves for fear of losing what they have, and instead lose that very edge that got them started.

Others instead, seem to use the power of fame to push the envelope of what is possible/accepted or expected – and so expand their own edge, in relative fearlessness of the effect it may have on their fanbase or reputation.

And it is into this latter category that I put Gonzo the Great.

oh, and also: OK Go.

Post Script:

Being a newly confirmed fan of both their video and their music – and I am kicking myself that I found out they were here in Brisbane a few weeks ago… and only found out this week when I discovered this clip history. No matter, next time…

[edit postscript: I wrote this review after an evenings entertaining video watching. I have since been corrected on some chronology and facts, and no doubt will find new errors in my assumptions down the track. In the interest of satisfying both my desire to not revise history, but also to not spread misinformation; I will update this post with edits like this as I find or am informed of errors. The original post will remain otherwise untouched.

…that’ll sure teach me to write and post at midnight! [1]]

So I’m wary about extensions to his work.

The movie I enjoyed. I thought it could be better, and some parts truly bothered me, but other parts gave me smiles. I accept it as a HHG movie, but somehow it lacked a vibe.

So this week saw the release of the long-awaited 6th Hitch Hiker’s book, written by Eoin Colfer. I bought it, I have read it. This is my review.

So the first thing I’m going to do is write the positive, but then I’m editing it out to the end of the review, because ultimately, it’s not a book that should be leaving a sour taste in your mouth in reviews.

Mostly spoilerfree review follows

First, the negative (minor spoilers)

This isn’t the novel Douglas would have written, right? Well,  yes, and no. In the improbabilities that span the vast multidimensional space of the infinite universe, I’m sure that a Douglas Adams would have written this novel as his 6th after the 5 we know. But it’s unlikely…

Colfer’s Guide feels like he’s taken some of Douglas’ writing formulas, and used them again and again. Almost, but exactly not quite overdoing it, as it were. This was especially evident earlier on, His plot isn’t as rich as we had come to expect from later Adams work. And his characters have distinct aura of ‘loser’ about them. Dent is no longer the everyday man, he has become a worst-at-everything-since-childhood character, and other characters seem to fall under the knife of an author who wants them to be poorer versions of themselves than my own imagination had previously made them out to be.

Adams’ writing always had a very subtle touch of PG humour, whilst Colfer more regularly  seems to make them, or at least allude to dirty jokes in a not-quite Adamsian way. A subtle extra hint of crudeness somehow. Anyway… it’s just not quite what Adams would have written.

The Positive (spoiler free)

So Douglas’ books, especially the Hiker books, have a certain pace, a certain rhythm. They have a certain style, a certain flair. Improbable as it is, and dispite the negatives, Colfer has, by and large, nailed it.

There were parts of the book that I laughed out loud at. Parts that I nodded with big smiles at. Parts that I reflected to myself with a ‘yes, that gives me pause for thought, in a good way’. And most tellingly, and this is the highest praise I can give, parts that I totally forgot I was reading a non-Adams’ Guide story. On balance, it felt natural.

Frankly, if they announced tomorrow that Eoin is writing a seventh, then I’ll look forward to it with the same mixture of eagerness, caution and anticipation as I did for this one.

PS: Originally blogged to: http://blog.thorx.net/2009/10/and-another-thing-a-review Please consider leaving comments at the blog rather than facebook or other social media side this post may be propogated to. Thankyou

Many years ago, and for many years in a row, there was a variety comedy show in Australia called Hey Hey it’s Saturday. Initially spontaneous and subversive, it grew over the (28) years into a prime time monster, lost it’s edge, gained an army of followers, and then crumbled in it’s own weight and habits. Having become a shadow of it’s former self and thus, a relic of the past.

Fast forward another  10 years and we have just had a reunion special or two. I had to admit I didn’t watch them. I was not huge fan of what the show had descended into at the end of last century, and if I watched TV enough to even know there was going to be a special, I’d not have bothered watching anyway.

But then something special happened. Controversy!

Controversy?

Yes, in one of the most beloved of Hey Hey regular skits, the ironically named ‘Red Faces’, a group of amateur performers used Blackface to parody the Jackson Five, and specifically, Michael Jackson (performed in whiteface). The sketch was judged by guest Harry Connick Jnr, as being offensively racist, and has stated that if the same occured in America, then the show’s broadcast would have been terminated.

So anyone following any of this probably knows all this already, but it makes good background for those unfamiliar with the situation, due to geographical or chronological distance.

The race is won by…

The sketch in question: The Jackson Jive (youtube)

Now Michael Jackson’s ever-lightening skin tone and other cosmetic surgeries have been the center of COUNTLESS parody for many many years, only overshadowed by his other eccentricities and alleged perversions. This parody used a more sensitive racial jibe than most, that’s all. Blackface was all about white men making themselves look black, and Jackson had famously made himself look white. So it’s not the worlds cleverest parody, nor in the best taste, but beyond that, this is all a storm in a teacup. (someone else can compare this to Robert Downey Jnr‘s performance as a white Australian pretending to be a black American in Tropic Thunder.)

Ok, so that’s as far as most people seem to care.

A couple of comments in the local free rag’s (mX) coverage got me thinking in a few other directions though, and thus this post.

So…

Stepan Kerkyasharian, chair of the Communications Relations Commission, said a joke was racist if it offended any person

To which I say no, not ‘any person’. Cos some people are overly sensitive about a topic, and so will be on a hair trigger and will go off about it if given even the slightest provocation.

Were the men in question racist? I don’t think so. This is a good video to watch on racism in fact, and pointing out racist behaviour to people (It was only coincidence that I had seen this earlier today.)

So, I think their actions were poorly thought out, and they should have realised how it would look. But that’s not my point. Because maybe they did consider, and decided that at the end of the day, they were both parodying Michael through the use of blackface, AND parodying blackface through the use of Mister Jackson in whiteface. Regardless of intent or not, that is not my direction.

This, however, caught my attention

“I am Indian, and five of the six of us are from multicultural backgrounds and to be called a racist… I don’t think I have ever been called that.”

–Dr Deva, plastic surgeon and whiteface performer.

Dr Deva, here is some news: not being a whitefella doesn’t give you a free pass to not think about the racial content of your actions. That is all.

No really, that’s about as much comment as I think it’s really worth. Certainly not the hoopla that has been drummed up by the controversy media. I don’t think Deva is racist, just a bit clueless about being on that side of racial interpretations.

Most interesting to me, however, and that I’ve not heard talked about much at all  (or indeed, any at all), is Mister Jnr’s reaction.

“Censored” is a Dirty Word

Now, if I can be said to have a Cause, it is this:

Censorship.

(I am against it.)

Harry Connick Jnr has stated that if the show was airing in the US, then it would have had its broadcast terminated. It would become “hey, no show”.

So he started it, let’s bring this to Connick’s home turf. Now I realise that technically, the US constitution says nothing about a private company curtailing ones freedom to speak – so a TV station stopping a broadcast has no contitutional protection. But symbolically it’s a bit crap. A bit? No, how about a LOT.

Advocating the curtailing of someone’s speech… is just not acceptable to my eyes.

Parody, incidentally, is protected free speech under the US constitution. I just thought I’d mention that.

So I think it says alot about someone’s mindset that their first instinct is to cut the show. And it says alot about all our cultures that this is NOT what everyone is up in arms about. Let Dr Deva know that his skit could be seen as being offensive by those with a cultural history of American slavery, and be done with it. Frankly, that issue is boring and old.

But do NOT tell me that anyone should not be allowed to perform that skit, if they want to.

Remember, the right to make offensively bad jokes that nobody likes, without being censored, is meant to be a GOOD thing.

Stopping someone from speaking their mind, whatever their opinions and tastes are, is a BAD thing.

Dear Mr Deva. Please remember in the future to consider the way others will interpret your actions.

Dear Mr Connick, Jnr. Please think LONG AND HARD about the real meanings of your words, and what it is you are implying to advocate when you speak without thinking. If you do not, you run the risk of truly looking like a dick.

Dear controversy media. Please get your issues straight.

-Nemo

(BTW, If you are reading this via a facebook note or other site, please link back to the original site via this permalink and consider commenting there also: http://blog.thorx.net/2009/10/hey-hey-its-controversial/ . Thankyou)