The Radikelous Qantas PC debacle

[fatprop]

Trolling

 

[Tangawizi]

There were plenty of Samo lookalikes running round Auckland on Saturday and I thought good on them but given we're playing the USA next, I think we can probably lay off it for a week.

 

[Ruggo]

There were plenty of Samo lookalikes running round Auckland on Saturday and I thought good on them but given we're playing the USA next, I think we can probably lay off it for a week.

Why?

Nobody has set out to offend anydody. The only person who has any right to be offended is Radike and he is on public record as saying he's not. This whole thing was a storm in a teacup to begin with and Radike's fans should not be obliged to stop hounouring (not degrading) him because a few do gooders feel the need to shoot from the hip without grasping the simple concept of context.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

End this discussion
1) it's not racist - dressing up black isn't 'black face'
2) radike thinks its funny and he's who they are supposedly being racist against

 

[Samofan]

Here, to all you rugby red necks, take a load of your own history; "Henry Melville’s 1834 play Bushrangers included an Aboriginal character known only as Native. The character was played by a white actor in blackface. ‘Me want baccy and bredley [tobacco and bread] – me long time – me got very old blanket,’ whined Native pitifully. When ‘Blacky’ (as he was endearingly referred to by white characters) was told to dance a corroboree in exchange for the goods, the blackfaced actor up and jigged obligingly. While Charles Chauvel’s 1955 film Jedda was the first Australian film to use Aboriginal actors, the character Half Cast Joe was played by a white man in blackface. Purportedly comedic blackface occurred on Australian prime time television as recently as November 2007, when The Chaser’s War on Everything presenters performed a political ditty to the tune of the Jackson Five’s Blame It on the Boogie.

Not only does white Australia have a blackface history, the present is also looking fairly boot-polished." Maxine Clarke.

Blackface is offensive if not to Radike, then to people who look like Radike. Grow up Australia.

 

[Braveheart81]

Have you actually read any of the responses or is your inability to read similar to your inability to tell the vast difference between blackface and a specific tribute to one individual?

 

[Sully]

Samofan. 4 post on a rugby forum and you haven't mentioned the game once! If you're here to stir up a shit fight you're in the wrong place. Time to change the subject.

 

[Bruce Ross]

I can appreciate where Samofan is coming from and the points he is making. So you may as well include me in as a fellow "troll".

 

[Samofan]

Ask yourself; Is painting the colour of one's skin black, the best way to show one's admiration and appreciation for a black player- Radike?
If you think it's ok, then you have to ask yourself where this thought comes from... It comes from a colonial mindset of superiority; '..Oh geeze mate, she'll be right... no worries, if we think it's all right then it's all right... stuff what "Native" thinks, in fact, we think for him...'
In supporting a sports hero like Tim Cahill for example, I don't go around with painted face, no I don his number four jersey. It all comes down to respect.
Respect the land, the people, the past, the present.
I bloody hope our team, in gold, win and win well. No need for the minstrels.

 

[Sully]

So you're not here to talk about rugby then?

 

[Braveheart81]

I disagree with that again.

If I was wanting to dress up as Tim Cahill in order to pay tribute to him, you'd probably draw some rather large tattoos on your arm.

If I was going to pay tribute to James O'Connor I'd probably wear a wig to mimic his hair.

If I was going to pay tribute to Nathan Sharpe I'd wear an Uncle Fester bald wig.

I think there is a vast difference between a generic costume and a specific one that is relating to one individual.

 

[Samofan]

Okay, I don't want to stir up a shit fight, I got on this forum because I love the game, but I also wanted to make my point especially to those blokes out there in the crowd doing something which for many people, is offensive. I think it's only fair to allow for this point of view to be presented and to be heard, we may not like to hear it but then hey, guess what, for some of us, we don't want to see it- blackface that is, especially when it comes to the sport that we love. You have to ask; well, what's blackface got to do with rugby?
Okay, it's done now, lets move forward, lets talk the game, but also the truth.

 

[waratahjesus]

I agree with samofan in a way.
Just cos Samo said he wasn't offended doesn't make it not racist. Nor does someone being offended make it racist, it all comes down to motive, which in this case I firmly to believe be not racist.

That said, if they dressed without the facepaint but with Afro would the tribute be lost at all?

 

[matty_k]

Okay, I don't want to stir up a shit fight

But you did. It was you first post ever what did you think was going to happen?

I got on this forum because I love the game

Excellent. Welcome.

I also wanted to make my point especially to those blokes out there in the crowd doing something which for many people, is offensive.

Well go tell them. The chances of those guys reading your posts here are incredibly slim. Go create a blog or write a letter to the editor there is a much greater chance.


I do agree with you but as you have seen this has been thrashed out before. In my opinion they should have just gone with the wigs. It easily would have signified who they were supporting.

 

[Samofan]

Okay, I can't educate and plug on about the history between Black and White, it's not my job to nor is it the forum to, however, a couple of added points; The wigs or in this case "AFROS" again has loaded connotations, but more so layered and historically racist, is the symbolism of blacking out one's white face! Think of the meaning it has to a whole lot of people on the planet, let alone rugby fans worldwide. You (Braveheart) cannot simply say that because it's a "specific" costume referencing a "specific" person, that therefore the historical meaning is null and void... we have to negotiate with symbols and meaning at many levels and to impose one's own meaning on something so big is a bit arrogant don't you think? History speaks for itself.
You know, the game is being sidetracked by a sideshow of minstrels. The Wallabies need to fire up and the fans are fired up- I am!

 

[matty_k]

But by just wearing the wig it isn't about the colour of his skin it is about his hair style. The guy from Wolfmother has a similar style of hair.

 

[Ruggo]

With just the wig they could have been imitating Leo Sayer for all we know.

 

[light]

With just the wig they could have been imitating Leo Sayer for all we know.

And you would wear that to the rugby why?

Clearly the wig insinuates a following for Samo, anyone who can be bothered to go purchase one in order to look like their favourite player should surely deserve to wear it. This is a stupid debate, there is no real right or wrong answer here and it does all come down to context. The face painting on the other hand is not quite the same and I can see how that is considered offensive by some. If I painted my skin brown and grew a moustache and went and supported the wallabies would people consider that being racist towards Beale, probably.

This thread really has no reason to continue.

 

[Samofan]

Anyway fellow fans, for the love of the game, lets get on with the nitty gritty. Ps. Thanks for the opinions and understanding.
How can our team kick ass? What did the Irish have that we didn't apart from sheer determination?

 

[Swat]

Hey Samofan,
Would you be offended if someone dressed up to look like radike (by darkening their skin) but it looked so real that you couldn't tell it was a costume?